Études historiographiques - openedition journals

Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes

47 | 2017Études historiographiques

Édition électroniqueURL : https://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/301DOI : 10.4000/cchyp.301ISSN : 2647-7300

Éditeur :Centre d’Études Chypriotes, École française d’Athènes

Édition impriméeDate de publication : 1 décembre 2017ISBN : 978-2-7018-0547-4ISSN : 0761-8271

Référence électroniqueCahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 47 | 2017, « Études historiographiques » [En ligne], mis en ligne le01 mai 2022, consulté le 26 mai 2022. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/301 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/cchyp.301

Légende de couvertureFamagouste vers 1930-1945, les rails du chemin de fer traversant le rempart de lavieille ville, et l’église Saint-Georges-des-Latins (archives Haig Mangoian, Nicosie) [ici p. 174, fig. 1].Vignette de titre : Cruche Bichrome IV. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, MVF.XI b 3713 [74/655](Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 673 fig. 2) [ici p. 126, fig. 2].

Les Cahiers du Centre d’études chypriotes sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence CreativeCommons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0International.

https://journals.openedition.org

https://journals.openedition.org

https://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/301

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/





CENTRE D’ÉTUDES CHYPRIOTES

CAHIER 47, 2017

Diffusion De Boccard

Paris

CENTRE D’ÉTUDES CHYPRIOTES

CAHIER 47, 2017

© Centre d’Études Chypriotes, Pariset

Édition-Diffusion de Boccard, Paris

ISSN 0761-8271ISBN 978-2-7018-0547-4

La loi du 11 mars 1957 n’autorisant, aux termes des alinéas 2 et 3 de l’article 41, d’une part, que les « copies ou reproductions strictement privées à l’usage du copiste et non destinées à une utilisation collective » et, d’autre part, que les analyses ou les courtes citations dans un but d’exemple et d’illustration, « toute représentation ou reproduction intégrale, ou partielle, faite sans le consentement de l’auteur ou de ses ayants droit ou ayants cause, est illicite » (alinéa premier de l’article 40).

Illustration de couverture : Famagouste vers 1930-1945, les rails du chemin de fer traversant le rempart de la vieille ville, et l’église Saint-Georges-des-Latins (archives Haig Mangoian, Nicosie) [ici p. 174, fig. 1].

Vignette de titre : Cruche Bichrome IV. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, MVF.XI b 3713 [74/655] (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 673 fig. 2) [ici p. 126, fig. 2].

C E N T R E D’É T U D E S C H Y P R I O T E S

Édition-Diffusion De Boccard4, rue de Lanneau, F-75005 Paris

CAHIER

47, 2017

Publié avec le concours de la Fondation A.G. Leventis

La revue Cahiers du Centre d’Études chypriotes (abrégée CCEC) publie des contributions en allemand, anglais, français, grec, italien, et rend compte d’ouvrages qui lui sont envoyés. Adresser les propositions d’articles au directeur de la revue (Centre Camille-Jullian, Aix).

Directeur de la revue : Antoine HERMARY.Comité de rédaction : Derek COUNTS, Sabine FOURRIER, Antoine HERMARY, Hartmut MATTHÄUS,

Robert MERRILLEES, Marguerite YON, qui constituent aussi le Comité de lecture avec la collaboration de spécialistes extérieurs.

Maquette, mise en page : Marguerite YON.

Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, Minist Culture & Com, CCJ, 5 rue du Château-de-l’Horloge, B.P. 647, F-13094 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2. [email protected]

HiSoMA [Histoire et Sources des Mondes Antiques], Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 7 rue Raulin, F-69365 Lyon Cedex 07. [email protected] [email protected]

Cahiers du Centre d’ÉtudesChypriotes 47, 2017

SOMMAIRE

Avant-propos, par Antoine HERMARY, Président du Centre ............................................ 7

In memoriam, Emilia Masson (1940-2017), par la rédaction ........................................ 9

La mission française d’Amathonte en deuil, par Antoine HERMARY ............................ 15

DOSSIER HISTORIOGRAPHIQUE

Philippe TRÉLAT, Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel,

deux historiens lozériens méconnus du royaume médiéval de Chypre ................... 19

Robert S. MERRILLEES, Cypriote Antiquities in Late Ottoman Istanbul and Smyrna :

I. Luigi Palma di Cesnola, Cyprus and the Ottoman Connexion ............................ 43

II. Cypriote Antiquities in the Greek Evangelical School Museum

and their Trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna (Modern Izmir) ........................... 121

III. Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 149

Elizabeth HOAK-DOERING, The Ancient Stones of Cyprus and the Construction

of the Suez Canal ................................................................................................... 165

Lucie BONATO, Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi à Chypre (1866-1869)

1. Les activités consulaires .................................................................................... 193

Stephan G. SCHMID, Sophie G. HORACEK, A head definitely

not from Rantidi. And a tribute to Olivier Masson ................................................ 239

Thomas KIELY, Britain and Archaeology of Cyprus,

part II : 1914 to the present day ............................................................................. 253

VARIA

Robert MERRILLEES, A New Volume of the Catalogue of the Western

Asiatic seals in the British Museum ...................................................................... 311

Claire BALANDIER, Identification d’un autre dispositif portuaire à Paphos ?

Nouvelles observations sur le secteur du rempart occidental

et de la porte Nord-Ouest ...................................................................................... 323

6 CCEC 47, 2017

COMPTES RENDUS D’OUVRAGES

1. G. GRAZIADIO, The earliest Production of Aegean-type Pottery in Cyprus, with contributions by Elisabetta Pezzi, Maria Dikomitou Eliadou and Artemis Georgiou, Pise, 2017 (L. Bombardieri) .............................................. 341

2. B. MULLER, Maquettes antiques d’Orient. De l’image au symbole, Paris, 2016 (A. Caubet) .......................................................................................... 344

3. J.-M. HENKE, Die zyprischen Terrakotten aus Milet, Milesische Forschungen 7, Berlin et Boston, 2017 (H. Aurigny) ............................................ 346

4. G. BOUROGIANNIS, C. MÜLHLENBOCK (éd.), Ancient Cyprus today. Museum Collections and New Researches, SIMA PB 184, Uppsala, 2016 (H. Matthäus) ... 349

5. N. PAPADIMITRIOU, M. TOLI (éd.), , Musée d’Art

Cycladique, Athènes, 2017 (S. Fourrier) ................................................................ 353

6. Cl. BALANDIER (éd.), Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote, de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Bordeaux, 2016 (A. Hermary) ... 357

7. L. BONATO, M. DONDIN-PAYRE et alii, La Méditerranée d’Edmond Duthoit, archéologue et architecte, XIXe siècle, Paris, 2017 (A. Hermary) .......................... 360


AVANT-PROPOS

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

/.&"($85/-#1#",$/22*'($-#$08)7($09Y"&$@')4/#-'0&3GZ')&-/&3$D3'+$0#23'($2-3($0#$[;$/"(+$/$,#"3$3"$*\-#$0#$2*#1'#*$2-/"$0/"($-/$*#)4#*)4#$/*)48&-&5'D3#$6$C4F2*#+$#"$2/*,')3-'#*$2/*$(#($,*/./3]$(3*$-#($'"()*'2,'&"($#,$-#($1&""/'#(T$Z&3($-3'$*#"0*&"($4&11/5#$0/"($-#$!"#$%&$^W$V:;<WXT$!"$/3,*#$0#3'-$)*3#-$#(,$.#"3$(9/U&3,#*+$/3$1&'($0#$1/*($:;<W+$6$)#,,#$,#**'B-#$(8*'#$>$

)#-3'$0#$L/)D3#-'"#$_/*/5#&*54'(G`'*/*0+$D3#$-9&"$2#3,$.*/'1#",$/22#-#*$-/$E$̀ */"0#$a/1#$0#$-9/*)48&-&5'#$)4F2*'&,#$HT$Z&3($-3'$/.'&"($080'8$-#$.&-31#$^[$V:;<[X$0#$"&($!"#$%&'+$#,$"&3($-3'$*#"0*&"($3"$0#*"'#*$4&11/5#$0/"($-#$!"#$%&$^W$V:;<WX$>$@/*53#*',#$b&"$#,$a818,*'&($@')4/#-'07(+$D3'$8,/'#",$('$2*&)4#($09#--#+$8.&D3#*&",$)4/)3"$(/$181&'*#T$$

Q9#((#",'#-$ 03$ 2*8(#",$ .&-31#$ #(,$ )&"(/)*8$ 6$ 0#($ 8,30#($ 4'(,&*'&5*/24'D3#(+$ 3"#$,*/0','&"$B'#"$8,/B-'#$2&3*$"&3($0#23'($-9&*'5'"#$0#$-/$*#.3#T$?--#($)&")#*"#",$09/B&*0$0#($2#*(&""/5#($03$!"!#$('7)-#$>$0#3]$U#3"#($)4#*)4#3*($O$?357"#$0#$c&d'7*#$#,$N48&24'-#$c&3((#-$O$D3'+$0/"($ -#($/""8#($<W^;+$/./'#",$ *8/-'(8$3"$ ,*/./'-$ *#(,8$ '"80',$ (3*$C4F2*#$6$ -982&D3#$ 0#($ Q3('5"/"$ VM4T$ N*8-/,X+$ /'"('$ D3#$N'B3*)#$ C&-&""/GC#))/-0'+$ )&"(3-$ 0#$e*/")#$ 6$Q/*"/)/$0#$<Wff$ 6$ <WfP+$ .3$ (&3($ -9/"5-#$ 0#$ (#($ /),'.',8($ )&"(3-/'*#($ #,$ "&"$)&11#$/1/,#3*$#,$,*/%'D3/",$09/",'D3',8($VQT$g&"/,&XT$a#3]$ /*,')-#($ 0#$ cT$ @#**'--##($ (&",+$ 09/3,*#$ 2/*,+$ )&"(/)*8($ 6$ -94'(,&'*#$ 0#$ 0#3]$

)&--#),'&"($09/",'D3',8($)4F2*'&,#($#"$N3*D3'#$>$)#--#$09Y(,/"B3-$O$-/$2-3($)8-7B*#$O$#,$)#--#$0#$h1F*"#+$0'(2/*3#$#"$<P::T$!"#$8,30#$09?T$R&/iGa&#*'"5$2&*,#$(3*$-/$,*/0','&"$(#-&"$-/D3#--#$-#($2'#**#($0#$1&"31#",($)4F2*'&,#($/3*/'#",$(#*.'$6$-/$)&"(,*3),'&"$03$)/"/-$0#$h3#dT$a/"($-/$(3',#$0#$-9#]2&(','&"$2*8(#",8#$/3$Z#3#($@3(#31$0#$g#*-'"$6$-9&))/('&"$03$

8 CCEC 47, 2017

)#",#"/'*#$0#$-/$1&*,$0#$@/]$A4"#%/-()4Gc')4,#*$O$2-3('#3*($1#1B*#($0#$"&,*#$C#",*#$&",$8,8$/((&)'8($6$-/$*80/),'&"$03$)/,/-&53#$O+$hT$h)41'0$V)&11'((/'*#$0#$-9#]2&(','&"X$#,$hT$R&*/)#i$*#.'#""#",$(3*$-#($%&3'--#($#%%#),38#($2/*$A4"#%/-()4Gc')4,#*$6$c/",'0'$#,$Y0/-'&"$j$#"%'"+$NT$_'#-F$23B-'#$-/$0#3]'71#$2/*,'#$0#$(#($*#)4#*)4#($(3*$-/$2-/)#$O$,*7($'12&*,/",#$k$O$0#$-/$`*/"0#Gg*#,/5"#$0/"($-9/*)48&-&5'#$)4F2*'&,#$<T$h9/U&3,#",$6$)#$0&(('#*$0#3]$E$l/*'8,8($H+$/'"('$D393"#$(8*'#$0#$)&12,#($*#"03(T

C&11#$2*8)80#11#",+$-/$23B-')/,'&"$0#$)#$.&-31#$"9/3*/',$2/($8,8$2&(('B-#$(/"($-#$58"8*#3]$(&3,'#"$0#$-/$e&"0/,'&"$KT$`T$Q#.#",'(+$6$D3'$U9/0*#((#$)#,,#$/""8#$#")&*#$,&3($1#($*#1#*)'#1#",(+$"'+$B'#"$(S*+$(/"($-/$)&128,#")#$#,$-#$08.&3#1#",$0#$@/*53#*',#$b&"$2&3*$-/$1'(#$#"$2/5#$0#$)#$"&3.#/3$!"#$%&+$23B-'8$D3#-D3#($1&'($(#3-#1#",$/2*7($-/$%'"$0#$-9/""8#$:;<=T$m$ -/$(3',#$03$08)7($0#$(/$17*#+$a'/"#$@/((&"$/$(&34/',8$ %/'*#$0&"$6$"&,*#$C#",*#$

0#$-/$B'B-'&,47D3#$()'#",'%'D3#$0#$(#($2/*#",(+$)#$D3#$"&3($/.&"($/))#2,8$/.#)$2-/'('*$#,$*#)&""/'((/")#T$Q9'".#",/'*#$0#$)#($&3.*/5#($2/*$Q#/""/$M8*7($V0&),&*/",#$6$-93"'.#*(',8$c#""#(G:X$#(,$#"$)&3*($j$3"#$*82/*,','&"$0#($&3.*/5#($#",*#$-#($B'B-'&,47D3#($/((&)'8#($6$"&($,*/./3]$'",#*.'#"0*/$#"(3',#T@#($ *#1#*)'#1#",($ .&",+$ )&11#$ 2*8)80#11#",+$ 6$ -9!"'.#*(',8$ 0#$ M/*'($ A3#(,$

Z/",#**#GQ/$a8%#"(#+$ 6$ -98D3'2#$ E$K*)48&-&5'#$ #,$ h)'#")#($ 0#$ -9K",'D3',8$ H+$ 6$K""#G@/*'#$`3'1'#*Gh&*B#,($D3'$)&",'"3#$6$.#'--#*$(3*$"&,*#$C#",*#$/3$(#'"$0#$-/$@/'(&"$0#$-9K*)48&-&5'#$ #,$ 0#$ -9?,4"&-&5'#$ c#"8G`'"&3.7($ #,$ 6$ (9&))32#*$ 0#$ -9#"*')4'((#1#",$03$ %&"0($ )4F2*'&,#$ 0#$ -/$ B'B-'&,47D3#+$ /'"('$ D396$ Z/,4/-'/$ a#""'"5#*$ D3'$ 57*#$)&"()'#")'#3(#1#",$-9#".&'$0#($1#((/5#($)&")#*"/",$-/$.'#$03$C#",*#$j$#"%'"$6$e*/")'($M*&(,+$5*n)#$6$D3'$"&3($/.&"($23$&*5/"'(#*$)#,,#$/""8#$-9K((#1B-8#$`8"8*/-#$03$C#",*#$6$-9Y"(,',3,$09K*,$#,$09K*)48&-&5'#+$*3#$@')4#-#,T

$K",&'"#$R#*1/*FM*8('0#",$03$C#",*#$09I,30#($)4F2*'&,#(

1. Elle concerne le XXe siècle ; le précédent article (sur le XIX

e s.), rédigé avec A. Ulbrich, a été

publié dans le Cahier CEC 42, 2012, p. 305 356.


IN MEMORIAM

Emilia Masson (1940-2017)

La disparition d’Emilia n’a pas manqué d’affecter la rédaction du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, tant sa forte personnalité fut associée à celle de son époux Olivier Masson (décédé en 1997), créateur du Centre – dont Emilia a été, en 1983, un des membres fondateurs – et du Cahier 1. Nous adressons à sa fille Diane toute notre sympathie.

Née le 24 mai 1940 à Belgrade, Emilia !"#$%"#&'()*$#&%+,&-./#/%0/-12&*&$ Masson expliquait fréquemment par ses origines serbes son intérêt pour la linguistique. Diplômée en Yougoslavie et en France, elle reconnaissait volontiers Georges Dumézil pour son maître. Un petit ouvrage de 1967 sur les emprunts sémitiques en grec témoignait de son jeune talent et bénéficia d’un compte rendu élogieux de la part de James Février 2.

La rencontre avec Olivier Masson devait naturellement orienter toute sa vie personnelle – de leur mariage naquirent deux filles dont l’une, Ariane, est prématurément disparue 3 –, mais aussi tourner les recherches d’Emilia vers la philologie de Chypre et l’énigme des écritures de l’île à l’Âge du Bronze. C’est ainsi qu’elle entreprit l’examen minutieux du matériel inscrit chypro-minoen conservé dans l’île et dans divers musées européens, pour aboutir à une série d’études parues à partir de 1969 (voir infra la liste bibliographique) qui, associées à sa thèse publiée en 1967, lui permirent d’être recrutée comme chercheur au CNRS en 1972. Ainsi, dans son ouvrage intitulé « Vingt-six boules » (1971), elle analysait les trouvailles d’Enkomi et Hala Sultan Tekké, en ajoutant en annexe l’exemple d’un curieux objet trouvé à Vatin (Vattina), du musée de Vra!c dans la Yougoslavie d’alors. Jacques-Claude Courtois saluait les avancées de cette recherche dans le compte rendu qu’il écrivit de cet ouvrage pionnier 4. Ces premiers résultats furent amplifiés dans un deuxième volume des SIMA (1974), en étendant l’analyse aux découvertes de

1. Voir dans CCEC 27, 1997, Mélanges Olivier Masson, p. 1-2 : « Préface » signée par M. Aman-dry, H. Cassimatis, A. Caubet et A. Hermary ; p. 3-13 : « Bibliographie thématique des travaux d’Olivier Masson concernant Chypre » ; p. 15-33 : les quatre dernières contributions d’O. Masson (dont l’une sous le pseudonyme de Léon Fivel).

2. J. Février, Syria 45, 1968, p. 193-194.

3. E. Masson, Quand la vie s’en va, Société des Écrivains, 2017.

4. J.-C. Courtois, Syria 50, 1973, p. 465-467.

10 CCEC 47, 2017

Ras Shamra (Ougarit) en Syrie. Emilia continua longtemps de participer à Nicosie aux colloques internationaux organisés par Vassos Karageorghis, qui lui confiait la publication des objets inscrits mis au jour dans ses fouilles (Kition, Pyla et Palaepaphos, avec Olivier Masson).

Figure 1. Emilia Masson.

Mais à partir des années 1980, son intérêt se tourna davantage vers les études hittites,

des croyances indo-européennes 5. Son intérêt pour l’héritage indo-européen a conduit enfin Emilia Masson à se consacrer ces dernières années à l’étude des marques rupestres de la Vallée des Merveilles : autour du Mont Bégo (dans le massif du Mercantour, Alpes Maritimes), elle mit en évidence l’existence d’une véritable syntaxe observable dans la distribution et la disposition des signes en regard de la montagne sacrée 6.

Après la disparition prématurée de son époux, elle édita en 2000 avec Laurent Dubois un volume d’hommage, Philokypros, qui comprend une très utile bibliographie des travaux d’Olivier Masson.

Nous n’oublierons pas Emilia Masson dont toute la vie fut passionnément tendue vers le déchiffrement de langues difficiles.

La rédaction des Cahiers

5. E. Masson, , Institut français d’études anatoliennes, ADPF, Paris 1981 ;

, Préface d’André Caquot, Coll. Vérité des Mythes, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1989.

6. E. Masson, , éditions Faton, Quétigny, 1993.

IN MEMORIAM E. MASSON 11

!"#$%&'(%)*+,&-./0%)(1+,2345%$%',6'++)*!"#"$%&'()*+

, Paris, 1967.

Göteborg, 1971 (SIMA XXXI 1, Studies in the Cypro-Minoan scripts 1).

, Göteborg, 1974 (SIMA XXXI 2, Studies in the Cypro-Minoan scripts 2).

Édition, avec L. Dubois, du volume , Salamanque, 2000 (Minos, Suppl. 16).

Articles

« La plus ancienne tablette chypro-minoenne (Enkomi, 1955) », Minos 10, 1969, p. 64-77.

« Remarques sur le petit fragment de tablette chypro-minoenne trouvé à Enkomi en 1953 », Studi XI, 1970, p. 73-95.

« Remarques sur le petit fragment de tablette chypro-minoenne trouvé à Enkomi en 1952 », Studi XI, 1970, p. 96-102.

« Rouleau inscrit chypro-minoen trouvé à Enkomi en 1967 », dans C. F.-A. Schaeffer (dir.), e Paris,

1971, p. 457-477.

« Boules d’argile inscrites trouvées à Enkomi de 1953 à 1969 », dans C. F.-A. Schaeffer (dir.), e Paris,

1971, p. 479-504.

« Remarques sur certains groupes de signes en chypro-minoen », dans V. Karageorghis,

A. Christodoulou (éd.), , Nicosie, 1972, p. 103-106.

« Quelques inscriptions chypro-minoennes du nord-ouest de Chypre », 1972, p. 129-133, pl. XX-XXI.

« Les répertoires graphiques chypro-minoens », Minos 11, 1972, p. 99-111.

th nd , Nicosie, 1973, p. 88-100 (et discussion p. 344-345).

« À propos du grand cylindre inscrit d’Enkomi », Kadmos 12, 1973, p. 76-82.

« La tablette chypro-minoenne 20.25 de Ras Shamra : essai d’interprétation », 1973, p. 32-53.

« Appendix II. Signes chypro-minoens isolés, gravés ou peints », dans V. Karageorghis, at Kition I. , Nicosie, 1974, p. 145-147.

« Un nouvel examen des tablettes de Deir ’Alla (Jordanie) », Minos 15, 1974, p. 7-33.

« Hommage à Michael Ventris », dans e , présenté par

J. Leclant, Paris, 1975, p. 47-50.

« Une nouvelle inscription chypro-minoenne d’Enkomi », 1975, p. 41-42, pl. V. « Les écritures chypriotes syllabiques à l’époque du Bronze Récent, dans Chypre des origines au Moyen Âge, Genève, 1975, p. 36-37.

12 CCEC 47, 2017

« À propos de la découverte d’écailles d’armure en bronze à Gastria-Alaas (Chypre) », 1975, p. 209-222 (avec V. Karageorghis).

« À la recherche des vestiges proche-orientaux à Chypre. Fin du Bronze moyen et début du Bronze récent », 1976, p. 139-165.

« Les témoignages épigraphiques » dans P. Åström, D.M. Bailey, V. Karageorghis, , 1 (SIMA XLV, 1-2), Göteborg, 1976, p. 176.

« Le chypro-minoen 1. Comparaisons possibles avec les syllabaires du Ier millénaire et l’étéochypriote », dans E. Risch, H. Mühlenstein (éd.), e

, Genève, 1979, p. 397-409.

« Les écritures chypro-minoennes : état présent des recherches », Pisa 8, 1978, p. 805-816.

« Deux fragments de tablettes chypro-minoennes trouvés à Enkomi en 1953 et 1969 », Journal des Savants 1978, p. 49-86.

« Le chypro-minoen 1: comparaisons possibles avec les syllabaires du Ier millénaire et l’étéochypriote », dans

, Neuchâtel, 1979, p. 397-409.

« L’apparition de l’écriture à Chypre : témoignage probable des contacts entre l’île de Crète et l’île de Chypre au cours de la première moitié du deuxième millénaire », dans

, Nicosie, 1979, p. 134-138.

« The International Symposium in Nicosia on the Relations between Cyprus and Crete, 2000-500 B.C. », Kadmos 18, 1979, p. 94-96 (avec N. Coldstream).

« Une inscription peinte d’Enkomi en caractères chypro-minoens », 1979, p. 210-213, pl. XX.

« Quelques inscriptions inédites d’Enkomi », 11, 1979, p. 559-562.

« Un cachet de Hala Sultan Tekké », 1981, p. 99-100 (avec P. Åström).

« A silver bowl with Canaanite inscription from Hala Sultan Tekké. II. L’inscription », 1982, p. 74-76, pl. XI.

« Les objets inscrits de Palaepaphos-Skales (partie I) », dans V. Karageorghis, , Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern Band 3, Constance,

1983, p. 411-413, pl. A-B.

« Premiers documents chypro-minoens du site Kalavassos- », 1983, p. 131-141, pl. XVIII.

« Appendix I. Les objets inscrits de Pyla-Kokkinokremos », dans V. Karageorghis, M. Demas, Kokkinokremos. th , Nicosie, 1984, p. 76-79.

« L’écriture chypro-minoenne dans l’usage quotidien », à nos jours, Paris, 1985, p. 75-78.

documents nouveaux », 1985, p. 146-154.

IN MEMORIAM E. MASSON 13

« Appendix III. Inscriptions et marques chypro-minoennes à Kition », dans V. Karageorghis, M. Demas, , V , vol. II, Nicosie, 1985, p. 280-284.

le Bronze Récent », dans V. Karageorghis (éd.), ,

Nicosie, 1986, p. 180-200.

« La part du fond commun égéen dans les écritures chypro-minoennes et son apport possible pour leur déchiffrement », dans , Minos 20-22, 1987, p. 367-381.

1988/I, p. 321-324.

« Appendix V. Marques chypro-minoennes à Maa-Palaeokastro », dans V. Karageorghis, M. Demas, , Nicosie, 1988, p. 399-400, pl. A-C.

« Vestiges écrits trouvés sur le site de Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios », dans I.A. Todd, Vasilikos 3 II

(SIMA LXXI, 3), Göteborg, 1989, p. 38-40.

« Le dieu guerrier d’Enkomi : est-il debout sur un lingot ? », dans G. C. Ioannides (éd.), Studies , Nicosie, 1992 (Kypriakai Spoudai 54-55, 1990-1991),

p. 155-156, pl. XXVIII.

« Olivier Masson : Luigi Palma di Cesnola. Ultimes considérations », dans V. Tatton-Brown (éd.), nd

, Oxford, 2001, p. X-XIV.


La mission !"#$%#&'()d’Amathonte en deuil

Au cours de l’année 2017 trois anciens membres de la mission de l’École française d’Athènes à Amathonte nous ont quittés : au début de l’été Annie Pralong (le 27 juin) et Jean-Paul Thalmann (le 8 juillet), et le 29 décembre Marie-Christine Hellmann.

Jean-Paul THALMANN (Fig. 1), né en 1946, avait participé en 1969 à la mission de Salamine, puis il a fait partie de 1975 à 1977 des premiers fouilleurs de la mission française d’Amathonte!"!#$!%&'#&!'$()*!+,+-),!.,!$/012. Ses recherches ont porté en particulier sur la « terrasse Ouest » de l’acropole, où de nombreux fragments de céramiques (dont beaucoup d’importations grecques) et de figurines archaïques avaient été découverts une quinzaine d’années plus tôt par le Département des Antiquités.

Au cours des campagnes de 1976-1977, il mit au jour une grande partie de cet énorme dépôt, associé à un mur de terrasse – qui faisait peut-être partie des fortifications de l’acropole – qu’il put dater de la fin de l’époque archaïque (début du V

e siècle av. J.-C.). Il a publié aussitôt les céramiques grecques importées dans un volume consacré aux céramiques grecques géométriques et archaïques trouvées à Chypre 1.

1. 3!4%)'+#56,!&)(67%,!8!2+'&9(:&,!;<!.':*!0=!>?,)*&'.<!'7,@!$'!@($$'-()'&#(:!./A=!4'$7,&<!B=!A(:<!C=!D')'E,()E9#*<!F=GH=!I9'$+'::<!!"##$%!#&'#(")*%+,-%."*/+)*%0&((#"1%2&3,-%),%415"36<!J&(@K9($+<!LMNN<!O=!PQGRP<!O$=!SGTTSS=!F/'#!1'#&!$,!O(#:&!*6)!$,*!.%@(67,)&,*!.,!$'!3!&,))'**,!U6,*&!;!.':*!V=!>,W,)<!C=!B'&(X':<!B=!2$GB'5.#**#<!7#% 89:8#% -9.5/"&-)(#% +3%5+"+-)6% 5#"-3;% )(),<"+)"#% -93,%=#,()8/&''#%81&,,+)6>%?,%/&''+=#%@%AB#6%4+8B#(<!Y,67,:<!Z[LQ<!O=!ZMG\R=

Figure 1. Jean-Paul Thalmann à Amathonte, 1977.

16 CCEC 47, 2017

Après son départ d’Athènes, en 1977, J.-P. Thalmann se consacra principalement aux fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie du Proche Orient à Tell Arqa, au Liban, dont il a assuré la direction depuis 1978.

Après avoir participé en 1973 aux fouilles de la mission française de Salamine, Marie-Christine HELLMANN (Fig. 2), née en 1950, %&'#&!.,7,:6,!+,+-), de l’EfA en 1975 et, dès l’année suivante, elle entreprit, avec Marie-Françoise Boussac, les fouilles du sommet de l’acropole : c’est elle qui mit au jour, en 1976, l’emplacement du célèbre « vase d’Amathonte » (transporté au Louvre en 1865) et les restes brisés d’un deuxième vase mentionné par de nombreux voyageurs.

Durant la campagne de 1977 elle avait été chargée par le Département des Antiquités de fouiller une tombe découverte fortuitement dans la nécropole nord de la ville. Bien!56/':@#,::,+,:&!O#$$%,<!@,&&,!&(+-,!*,!)%7%$'!./6:,!E)':.,!#+O()&':@,!O')!$/'-(:.':@,!,&! $'! )#@9,**,!.6!+'&%)#,$!@%)'+#56,<!,:!O')&#@6$#,)! $,*! #+O()&'&#(:*!.,!7'*,*!E),@*!.6!>%(+%&)#56,!]%@,:&!̂ !"""e siècle av. J.-C.) 2. Lors de la campagne de 1979, Marie-Christine et moi avons eu la chance de! .%@(67)#) deux bases de statues portant des dédicaces d’Androklès, le dernier roi d’Amathonte (vers 330-310 av. J.-C.), à « la Chypriote » et à « l’Aphrodite Chypriote », qui confirmaient que ce lieu de culte était bien consacré à la grande déesse de la ville 3. En même temps était mise au jour une partie de la crépis du

2. Cette tombe a été publiée en détail par J. N. Coldstream et Chr. Tytgat, RDAC 1995, p. 137-185 et 187-198, pl. XI-XV.

3. M.-Chr. Hellmann, A. Hermary, « Inscriptions d’Amathonte, III », BCH 104, 1980, p. 259-272 ; pour la seconde inscription, A. Hermary, O. Masson, « Inscriptions d’Amathonte, IV », BCH 106, 1982, p. 235-242.

Figure 2. Marie-Christine Hellmann, 2010.

IN MEMORIAM MISSION D’AMATHONTE 17

temple construit en son honneur à l’époque impériale. Après son retour en France elle dut renoncer aux travaux de terrain pour des raisons de santé, mais elle continua à travailler sur Amathonte : en 1984, elle a édité avec Pierre Aupert un volume de Testimonia 4, dans lequel elle avait rédigé le chapitre sur les voyageurs (p. 77-99) et, avec Christiane Tytgat, celui sur l’historique des fouilles (p. 101-107). Sans oublier tout à fait Chypre 5, Marie-Christine fit ensuite une brillante carrière au CNRS en tant que spécialiste de l’architecture grecque, récompensée en 2012 par l’attribution de la Médaille d’Argent du CNRS. Elle dirigeait depuis 2001 la Revue archéologique. Son décès brutal, à l’âge de 67 ans, constitue une lourde perte pour les études d’archéologie classique.

Annie PRALONG (Fig. 3), née en 1943, avait rejoint la mission d’Amathonte en 1985, en tant que spécialiste de l’architecture paléochrétienne, afin de diriger avec Jean-Michel Saulnier les fouilles de la basilique et d’autres édifices construits à l’emplacement du sanctuaire d’Aphrodite, au sommet de l’acropole.

4. Amathonte I. Testimonia 1. Auteurs anciens - Monnayage - Voyageurs - Fouilles - Origines - Géographie, Paris, 1984 (avec des contributions de M. Amandry, Cl. Baurain, B. Bousquet, P.-Y. Péchoux, Chr. Tytgat).

5. Elle a publié dans nos Cahiers un article sur « W. Froehner et Chypre » (CCEC 16, 1991, p. 17-28, pl. I-II) ; voir aussi, plus récemment, son compte rendu du livre de L. Fuduli, Fragmenta Paphia… (CCEC 45, 2015, p. 451-453).

Figure 3. Annie Pralong photographe, vers 2005.

18 CCEC 47, 2017

Elle a poursuivi jusqu’en 1998 ces activités de terrain et des recherches sur l’architecture de la basilique dans son contexte chypriote. La publication finale n’a pas pu être menée à son terme, mais, en plus de ses contributions aux rapports de fouilles et au Guide d’Amathonte 6, elle a présenté dans un long article 7 les aspects essentiels de cette petite église au décor très soigné, la dernière construction (fin du VI

e ou début du VIIe

siècle) connue sur l’acropole d’Amathonte. Elle a également contribué à la publication de la basilique paléochrétienne édifiée sur le rivage de Kourion 8.

2017 restera une année noire dans l’histoire de la mission de l’École française à Amathonte.

Antoine HERMARY

6. « La basilique chrétienne du sommet de l’acropole », dans P. Aupert (dir.), Guide d’Amathonte, Paris, 1996, p. 132-145 (avec J.-M. Saulnier).

7. « La basilique de l’acropole d’Amathonte (Chypre) », Rivista d’Archeologia Christiana 70, 1994, p. 411-455.

8. « La sculpture de la basilique de la plage de Kourion », dans D. Christou, 1975-1998, Nicosie, 2013, p. 361-384.


!"#$%!&'!&()*+$(!&!,&,-.)/-+0!&()"11!02&DEUX HISTORIENS LOZÉRIENS MÉCONNUS

DU ROYAUME MÉDIÉVAL DE CHYPRE

Philippe TRÉLAT 1

Abstract. The French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres offered in 1841 a prize, to be given in 1843, of the history of Cyprus under the reigns of the Princes of the House of Lusignan seeking “a more accurate account of events with some discussion of the geography, laws and customs and of the religious, political and civil institutions of the kingdom”. A young scholar, Louis de Mas Latrie (1815-1897), submitted the best essay and went on to make Medieval Cypriot studies his life’s work. A second prize was awarded to Théophile Roussel and Eugène de Rozière for their work. Their archival materials are kept today in Mende by the Archives Départementales de la Lozère. This paper will attempt to examine their academic and professional careers between Mende and Paris. An analysis and an evaluation of the content of their essay and archives will afterwards be attempted. Thanks to their discovery of the chronicle of Amadi in Venice and the chronico del regno di Cypro of Diomede Strambali in the Vatican archives, the two historians, Roussel and Rozière, should be regarded as pioneers of Medieval Cypriot studies, as important as Louis de Mas Latrie.

Parmi les plus anciennes récompenses créées à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres figure le prix du budget ou prix ordinaire, établi par le Consulat en 1803 (An XI). Chaque année, il récompense un ou plusieurs candidats répondant à un sujet historique choisi par les Académiciens 2. En 1841, le concours proposé pour le prix de 1843 porte l’intitulé suivant : « Histoire de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan ». L’énoncé du sujet pousse les candidats à renouveler le champ historiographique des études chypriotes en l’accompagnant de l’avertissement suivant :

1. Que Gilles Grivaud, Béatrice Maury, Angel Nicolaou-Konnari et Chris Schabel trouvent ici l’expression de mes remerciements pour leur lecture attentive de cet article, pour leurs remarques et suggestions stimulantes. Toute ma gratitude va également à Pierrick Grolleau, Nadine Boucher,

qui m’ont donné l’occasion de découvrir Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière aux archives dé-partementales de Lozère à Mende lors des championnats de France UNSS de handball en juin 2016. Les abréviations suivantes sont utilisées : ADL (Mende, Archives Départementales de Lozère), BAV (= Cité du Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana), BnF (= Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France), BNM (= Venise, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana).

2. Babelon 1971, p. 381.

')11+!(&-+1,)(+)#(3/-+4"!

20 CCEC 47, 2017

« L’Académie ne demande pas une simple narration ; elle désire que les auteurs, en faisant un récit des événements plus exact et plus étendu que ceux qui existent, ne négligent rien de ce qui se rapporte à la géographie, aux lois, aux coutumes et aux institutions religieuses, politiques et civiles de ce royaume ; elle les invite, en outre, à rechercher quelles furent, pendant la période de temps indiquée, les relations politiques et commerciales du royaume de Chypre avec l’Europe et l’Asie, et plus particulièrement avec Gênes, Venise et l’Égypte. Le prix sera une médaille de 2 000 francs » 3.

Certainement influencée par le climat politique des années 1830 en France, qui promeut la vocation coloniale de la nation, l’Académie propose un sujet destiné à exalter l’implantation durable d’une dynastie française sur une île de la Méditerranée orientale. L’étude de l’histoire de Chypre doit venir s’inscrire dans la continuité des travaux savants produits lors de l’expédition d’Égypte (1798-1801) aux yeux des arabisants Étienne Quatremère et Joseph-Toussaint Reinaud, des hellénistes Charles-Benoît Hase et Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut, de l’archéologue Charles Lenormant, du baron naturaliste Charles-Athanase Walckenaer et du comte Auguste-Arthur Beugnot qui composent la commission des mémoires 4. En outre, les Académiciens encouragent les candidats à emprunter la voie de l’érudition afin de prolonger les travaux sur le royaume de Chypre d’Étienne de Lusignan, de Gianfrancesco Loredano et de Dominique Jauna 5. Mais ils appellent également à dépasser une histoire événementielle pour remplir le programme de Jules Michelet d’une « histoire totale » qui relie les événements au cadre géographique, aux structures politiques, économiques, sociales et culturelles 6.

De jeunes étudiants, mais également des érudits plus âgés, rompus à l’écriture de l’histoire, exercent leur talent de chercheur et leur esprit de synthèse pendant deux années sur cet ambitieux programme. En 1843, la commission de l’Académie choisit de décerner le premier prix au mémoire portant le numéro trois dont l’auteur, Louis de Mas Latrie, est un jeune historien originaire du Languedoc méditerranéen sorti de l’École des Chartes quatre ans plus tôt 7. La suite de la carrière du lauréat et son apport aux études chypriotes sont désormais bien connus. Très rapidement, Louis de Mas Latrie publie deux études tirées de son mémoire, l’une sur les monnaies des Lusignan, l’autre sur les relations du royaume avec l’Asie Mineure 8. Fort de ce succès, le jeune historien parvient à convaincre le ministère de l’instruction publique, après plusieurs tentatives infructueuses, de lui accorder une mission de recherche d’une durée de huit mois en Chypre pour compléter

3. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1842, p. 105-106.

4. Nicolaou-Konnari 2013, p. 506-508 ; Mas Latrie 1852-1861, p. XXXVI. Étienne Quatremère, Joseph Toussaint Reinaud et l’helléniste Charles-Benoît Hase ont participé aux côtés de Benjamin Guérard et du comte Beugnot au lancement du Recueil des Historiens des Croisades en 1833 à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres : Beugnot 1839, p. 49.

5. Lusignan 1580 ; Loredano 1732 ; Jauna 1747.

6. Febvre 1992, p. 108.

7. Guessard 1842-1843, p. 558-561.

8. Mas Latrie 1843-1844, p. 118-142 et 413-437 ; 1844, p. 301-330 et 485-521 ; 1845, p. 121-142.

PH. TRÉLAT, DEUX LOZÉRIENS 21

sa documentation 9. Ce gigantesque travail de collecte d’informations dispersées dans différents centres d’archives européens aboutit à la publication de deux volumes de documents en 1852 et 1855 et d’un autre de synthèse en 1861, intitulés Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan 10. Jusqu’à la fin de sa vie, Louis de Mas Latrie poursuit sa quête inlassable de documents inédits sur la domination latine en Chypre, mais n’offre pas aux historiens les volumes de synthèse qui devaient prolonger le premier tome de son Histoire de l’île de Chypre, qui se termine avec la chute de Saint-Jean d’Acre en 1291.

En revanche, les trois études qui n’ont pas été jugées dignes de l’honneur d’une publication n’ont évidemment pas connu la même postérité. L’Académie avait pour usage de ne pas renvoyer à leurs auteurs les travaux qui n’obtenaient pas de récompenses et qu’elle ne considérait pas suffisamment aboutis pour être publiés. Les archives de l’Institut conservent ainsi les mémoires de Jacques Malinowski, intellectuel polonais éclectique réfugié en France après 1830, et d’Émile Ludovic Bacon Plaine du Molay, baron de Fourmigny, vice-président du conseil de préfecture du Tarn 11. Malgré les qualités avérées de ces essais, les deux auteurs n’ont pas poursuivi leurs recherches sur le royaume médiéval de Chypre.

En cette année 1843, grâce à des fonds versés de manière exceptionnelle par le ministère de l’Instruction Publique, un second prix est attribué à un mémoire signé Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière, absent aujourd’hui des archives de l’Institut 12. Des recherches aux archives départementales de Lozère à Mende ont permis de mettre au jour deux cartons d’archives extraits du fonds Roussel, comprenant des notes de travail dans les bibliothèques et centres d’archives et des extraits du mémoire ayant obtenu un second prix 13. Relégué dans l’ombre d’une historiographie chypriote dominée par la figure tutélaire de Louis de Mas Latrie, le travail de ces deux jeunes historiens lozériens sur l’histoire de l’île de Chypre mérite aujourd’hui d’être redécouvert et réévalué.

Itinéraires croisés de deux historiens lozériens entre Mende et ParisPartageant le même département de naissance et étudiants tous les deux à Paris,

Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière ont choisi des voies professionnelles différentes qui ne leur ont pas conféré la même reconnaissance auprès des historiens. Le premier

9. Dianoux 1997, p. 286-375 ; Nicolaou-Konnari 2013, p. 508-509.

10. Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. I-III.Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. I-III.

11. Archives de l’Institut-Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2H57. Sur Jacques Malinowki : Kolendo 1997, p. 32-43. Ces deux mémoires n’ont pas encore fait l’objet d’enquêtes permettant d’éclairer leur contexte de rédaction, ni les sources utilisées par leurs auteurs. Cependant, une première lecture des deux textes laisse penser que seules les bibliothèques parisiennes ont été mises à contribution et que les auteurs n’ont pas fréquenté les archives italiennes.

12. Guessard 1842-1843, p. 558-561.

13. ADL, F 2421 « Manuscrit d’une histoire de Chypre (XIXe s.) » ; ADL, F 2422 « Notes et copies de pièces pour l’ouvrage précédent (XIXe s) ».

22 CCEC 47, 2017

s’est consacré à l’exercice de la médecine et à la recherche médicale, alors que le second a mené une carrière d’historien et d’archiviste-paléographe. Pourtant, en parallèle à leurs engagements professionnels très éloignés, ce sont deux amis intimes qui s’attellent à l’histoire du royaume de Chypre, puis fréquentent ensemble les bancs de l’Institut et du Sénat.

Né le 27 juillet 1816, Jean-Baptiste Victor Théophile Roussel (Fig. 1) est l’aîné d’un couple bourgeois, formé du docteur Roussel et de sa femme Cécile Gaillardon, installé dans la petite commune de Saint-Chély-d’Apcher au nord du département de la Lozère. Il passe son enfance au sein d’une famille aisée qui évolue dans un environnement où la religion et les traditions rurales restent prégnantes. À l’âge de 13 ans, Théophile gagne Paris pour poursuivre ses études au très prestigieux collège Stanislas. Élève brillant, le jeune provincial se lie d’amitié avec un autre Lozérien, Eugène de Rozière, à l’internat du collège de la rue Vavin. Les deux élèves se retrouvent également dans la maison familiale des Rozière à Paris lorsque Théophile ne rejoint pas ses parents en Lozère pour les congés hebdomadaires ou les vacances scolaires. Ils partagent un goût prononcé pour l’histoire, stimulé chez Théophile Roussel par l’enseignement des professeurs du collège Stanislas et par la lecture enthousiaste de l’œuvre de Jules Michelet 14. Ensemble, les deux jeunes Lozériens s’intéressent naturellement à l’histoire de leur région natale en fréquentant assidument les bibliothèques parisiennes.

14. Département de la Lozère 1896, p. 10-11.

Figure 1. Théophile Roussel à la Salpêtrière, à 24 ans. Dessin au crayon de son ami Pierre Gratiolet, 1840. Mairie de Saint-Chély-d’Apcher, cliché

Ph. Trélat (avec l’aimable autorisation de M. le Maire de Saint-Chély-d’Apcher, M. Pierre Lafont).


Ses études secondaires achevées, Théophile entre à la Faculté de médecine de Paris en 1834, dont il sort diplômé en 1841. La même année, âgé de 24 ans, il reçoit une médaille d’or de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres au concours d’Antiquités nationales pour une étude sur le pape Urbain V, originaire d’une famille noble du Gévaudan, pays natal de Théophile 15. À peine lauréat, il engage, aux côtés d’Eugène de Rozière, une nouvelle recherche sur le sujet d’histoire chypriote proposé par l’Académie.

Bien que passionné par l’histoire médiévale, Théophile Roussel embrasse une carrière de médecin comme son père. Interne à l’hôpital de la Salpêtrière (1840), puis l’année suivante à l’hôpital Saint-Louis à Paris, il s’intéresse très tôt, au cours de ses différents voyages au sud de l’Europe, aux maladies de peau et notamment à la pellagre, à laquelle il consacre sa thèse de doctorat soutenue en 1845. Son intérêt se porte également vers les maladies professionnelles fréquentes chez les potiers en terre, les fabricants de bouchons de liège ou les mineurs de mercure en Espagne 16.

Porté par des convictions humanistes profondes et un attachement aux valeurs de la gauche républicaine, Théophile Roussel est élu député de Lozère en mai 1849 sur un programme républicain modéré mais se retire de la vie politique nationale après le coup d’État de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte en 1851 17. Néanmoins, il conserve toute sa vie ses mandats locaux : conseiller municipal à Albaret-Sainte-Marie, conseiller général puis président du conseil général de Lozère 18. Le retour de la République en 1870 lui permet de retrouver son siège de député avant d’être élu sénateur en 1879, siège qu’il occupe jusqu’à son décès en 1903 19. Tirant parti de son expérience professionnelle de médecin, il multiplie alors les propositions de lois à caractère social, notamment celles consacrées à la protection de l’enfance. Partisan d’une limitation de l’âge de travail dans les manufactures à 12 ans, il réussit tout de même à faire instaurer l’interdiction du travail des enfants de moins de 14 ans. Avec la « loi Roussel » de 1874, les mairies doivent désormais procéder à l’enregistrement des nourrices et des parents. En 1893, une loi sur l’assistance médicale gratuite dans les campagnes est encore votée à l’initiative du sénateur lozérien 20. Théophile Roussel s’éteint le 27 septembre 1903 au château familial d’Orfeuillette 21.

15. Picot 1907, p. 134-135. L’étude sur Urbain V et les notes préparatoires sont déposées aux archives du département de Lozère : ADL F 2412-2415 ; quelques travaux tirés de ce mémoire ont été publiés : Roussel 1855, p. 68-82 ; 1857, p. 15-27, 516-542 ; 1858a, p. 22 ; 1858b, p. 71-95 ; 1858c, p. 469-502 ; 1858d, p. 311-336 ; 1858e, p. 120-124 ; 1858f, p. 374-383.

16. Picot 1907, p. 135-136 ; Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 19-21; Roussel 1845Picot 1907, p. 135-136 ; Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 19-21; Roussel 1845!17. Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 25-30.

18. Sur l’implication de Théophile Roussel dans la vie politique locale de la Lozère : Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 43-50.

19. Chabrol, Duthu, Bardy 1992, p. 157.Chabrol, Duthu, Bardy 1992, p. 157.

20. Picot 1907, p. 143-165 ; Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 37-42 ; Antomarchi 2000, p. 64.Picot 1907, p. 143-165 ; Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 37-42 ; Antomarchi 2000, p. 64.

21. Hallauer, Maury 2003, p. 51.

24 CCEC 47, 2017

Proche de Théophile Roussel depuis leur enfance en Lozère, Thomas-Louis-Marie-Eugène de Rozière (Fig. 2) naît le 3 mai 1820 dans une famille installée à Le Malzieu où l’on cultive le goût pour l’histoire et le droit. Le grand-père, Jean-Marie Pardessus, était reconnu comme un éminent jurisconsulte, membre de l’Institut et auteur de plusieurs travaux d’importance sur l’histoire du droit commercial. Eugène bénéficie donc d’une éducation soignée au collège royal Louis-le-Grand à Paris. Il est reçu, en 1844, premier au concours de l’École des Chartes et obtient deux ans plus tard le titre d’archiviste-paléographe 22. Dans cette même école, il est répétiteur d’histoire du droit de 1846 à 1851. Ayant déjà démontré son intérêt pour la présence latine en Orient par sa participation au concours de l’Académie en 1841, il reste fidèle à ce premier engagement scientifique et publie en 1849 le cartulaire de l’église du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem d’après deux manuscrits tirés du fonds de la reine Christine de la bibliothèque du Vatican. Un des deux exemplaires avait été apporté en Occident par le chancelier du roi chypriote Pierre Ier, Philippe de Mézières, et avait donc peut-être déjà été repéré par Eugène de de Rozière lors de son premier voyage en Italie avec Théophile Roussel. Ce travail de publication du cartulaire obtient une mention honorable au concours des Antiquités nationales en 1851 23.

Eugène de Rozière s’éloigne un temps des archives pour entamer une carrière dans l’administration en accédant à la fonction de chef du cabinet de son beau-père Charles Giraud, au ministère de l’instruction publique, de 1851 à 1852. Nommé inspecteur-général des Archives départementales de 1859 à 1881, il se consacre à la formation des jeunes chartistes 24. En parallèle, Eugène de Rozière poursuit une brillante carrière scientifique, marquée notamment par la fondation de la Revue historique du droit français et étranger, en collaboration avec d’autres jurisconsultes. Les historiens et juristes lui doivent la publication de plusieurs formulaires médiévaux, notamment celui en trois volumes consacrés aux époques mérovingienne et carolingienne 25. Son ascension est couronnée par son élection en 1871 comme membre ordinaire de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres et sa nomination, la même année, à la fonction de professeur suppléant au Collège de France, où il dispense un enseignement à la chaire d’histoire des législations comparées jusqu’en 1877 26.

Avec son camarade lozérien Théophile Roussel, il partage un même attachement à son département d’origine, où il est membre du conseil général depuis 1868 en plus d’être maire de sa commune. À l’échelle nationale, il suit les traces de son ami, entre au Sénat

22. Wallon 1898, p. 758-759.

-sant désormais autorité: Bresc-Bautier 1984. Pour ce manuscrit, voir aussi Nicolaou-Konnari 2012, p. 363 n° 11.

24. Wallon 1898, p. 761, 767.

25. Rozière 1859-1871 ; Wallon 1898, p. 762-768.

26. Wallon 1898, p. 768-769.


en 1879 et est réélu en 1888 pour porter son combat politique dans les domaines de l’instruction publique et de l’enseignement universitaire. Il s’éteint à Paris en 1896 27.

La profonde amitié qui unit les deux hommes jusqu’à la fin de leur vie s’est certainement affermie dans le travail intellectuel qu’ils accomplissent ensemble, encore jeunes étudiants. Depuis leur enfance, ils ont partagé une complicité qui leur a permis de travailler de façon complémentaire et sans rivalité aucune. Pourtant, en prononçant la nécrologie de son ami riche d’ouvrages historiques majeurs en 1896 devant le Conseil général de Lozère, Théophile Roussel laisse poindre quelques regrets de ne pas avoir davantage publié les résultats de ses enquêtes historiques 28.

Deux jeunes historiens face aux archivesÀ l’occasion d’un voyage en Italie en 1841, Théophile Roussel souhaite recueillir

des documents sur le pontificat d’Urbain V et entreprendre une nouvelle recherche sur Machiavel. Il convainc son ami Eugène de Rozière de l’accompagner et, en cours de route, les deux jeunes hommes décident de s’atteler à la question proposée au concours de l’Académie sur l’histoire de Chypre. Le futur médecin avait déjà été impressionné par la figure du roi chypriote Pierre Ier, qu’il nomme « Pierre-le-Vaillant », rencontré lors de son travail sur Urbain V 29. Accompagné dans leur pérégrination d’un guide de

27. Wallon 1898, p. 770-775.

28. Département de la Lozère 1896, p. 16-17.

29. Département de la Lozère 1896, p. 17.

Figure 2. Eugène de Rozière en habit d’académicien. D’après http://archives.lozere.fr/n/historique-du-service/n:34.

26 CCEC 47, 2017

voyage, le Compendio del Viaggio pittorico della Toscana de Gaspero Ricci, Théophile et Eugène s’intéressent autant aux monuments antiques qu’aux archives et manuscrits des bibliothèques 30. En suivant les indications figurant dans les écrits médicaux ultérieurs de Théophile Roussel et dans les travaux du grand-père d’Eugène de Rozière, Jean-Marie Pardessus, il est possible de retracer le parcours des deux étudiants 31. Après une étape à Chambéry dans les Alpes françaises, les deux camarades séjournent successivement à Turin, Milan, Florence, Ferrare, Venise (septembre 1841), Bologne (9 janvier 1942), Modène (janvier 1842), Parme, Pise, Padoue, Pavie, Rome, Salerne et Naples. Le voyage d’étude des deux historiens s’achève à Paris à la fin du mois d’avril 1842. Ils disposent encore de quelques mois pour peaufiner la rédaction de leur mémoire, mais la nomination de Théophile Roussel comme interne à l’hôpital Saint-Louis à Paris, un mois après son retour, ralentit certainement le travail de rédaction 32.

Les deux cartons des archives Roussel permettent d’appréhender la richesse et la diversité des informations collectées par les deux jeunes étudiants. Le premier carton (ADL, F 2421) renferme des liasses de feuillets in-folio de dimension variable comprenant des extraits du mémoire déposé au concours de l’Académie. Certains cahiers doivent être la version définitive du manuscrit alors que d’autres portent de nombreux ajouts et ratures et présentent donc la forme de brouillons. Le texte est accompagné d’un appareil critique constitué de quelques notes de bas de pages où figurent les références aux ouvrages et documents d’archives utilisés par les auteurs et, parfois, des éclaircissements apportés au développement. Le deuxième carton (ADL, F 2422) comprend également des liasses de feuillets de formats différents rassemblant une partie des notes de lecture des ouvrages et des documents d’archives consultés pour la rédaction du mémoire de l’Académie 33. Les différents cahiers des deux cartons ont été écrits par deux mains différentes et ne portent en général aucune foliotation.

Les recherches des deux jeunes étudiants débutent dans les bibliothèques parisiennes qu’ils ont sans doute déjà fréquentées auparavant. À la Bibliothèque royale, plusieurs manuscrits importants pour l’histoire du royaume médiéval chypriote sont consignés. Tout d’abord, il convient de saluer la perspicacité des deux jeunes érudits qui relèvent la singularité et l’importance de l’Historia de Florio Bustron, un texte du XVIe siècle

30. ADL, bibliothèque fonds Roussel, 8°Z 913.

sur les éditions des statuts de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem par Hugues Loubens de Verdalle (« Loubeux ») et sur l’existence de manuscrits de la loi salique : Pardessus 1843, p. XLVII, XLX-VIII, LXV, LXXII, 322.

32. Roussel 1842, p. 397-413 ; Roussel 1866, p. 68 ; Roussel 1845, p. VI, 20, 319-320, 604. Dans le même temps, Louis de Mas Latrie limite son voyage d’étude aux villes de Turin, Gênes, Florence, Montpellier, Marseille, Berne et Paris pour la rédaction de son mémoire : Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. I, p. V.

33. Boulier de Branche et al., 1947-1962, vol. II, p. 24.


considéré aujourd’hui comme un jalon majeur de l’historiographie chypriote 34. Par ailleurs, les études de Charles Du Fresne Du Cange 35, le poème de Guillaume de Machaut sur la croisade de Pierre Ier 36 et les Layettes du trésor des chartes figurent également parmi les manuscrits mis à contribution 37. Tenant compte de l’avertissement qui accompagne l’énoncé du sujet, Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière s’attachent particulièrement à étudier la cartographie insulaire à travers la documentation du Dépôt des cartes et plan de la marine 38. Ils font mention de plusieurs cartes de Chypre appartenant au fonds d’Anville, notamment une carte grecque aujourd’hui disparue également étudiée par Mas Latrie, de celle du chevalier de Chaumont Senaire « La rade des Salines en Cipre », 1683, ou le « calque de la carte de l’oncle de Zannoni » 39. À ne pas en douter, les bibliothèques parisiennes ont surtout été explorées par les deux jeunes gens pour l’étude des ouvrages imprimés les plus fréquemment cités. Ainsi, les références aux auteurs antiques et médiévaux (voir tableau ci-dessous), comme les textes d’Étienne de Lusignan 40, de Gianfrancesco Loredano 41 et de Dominique Jauna ont probablement été compulsés à Paris 42. Cependant, malgré sans doute une connaissance sommaire du grec attestée par les notes prises dans la littérature de l’Antiquité, Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière n’ont pas pris connaissance des près de trois cents manuscrits grecs en provenance de Chypre déposés alors à la bibliothèque du Roi 43.

Grâce à l’intégration du royaume des Lusignan au regno de la Sérénissime en 1474, ce sont les bibliothèques et centres d’archives italiens qui offrent les plus riches perspectives de documentation inédite à nos deux chercheurs. D’après les liasses de notes, il semblerait

34. Le manuscrit de Paris (BnF ms. Ital. 832) renferme une version incomplète du texte de Florio Bustron dans une langue proche du dialecte vénitien, intitulé Historia overo commentarii di Florio Bustron : Grivaud 2009, n° 116, p. 258 ; voir l’édition de référence : Florio Bustron 1886.

35. Ils consultent sans doute principalement l’Histoire des principautés et des royaumes de Jérusalem, de Chypre, d’Arménie et des familles qui les ont possédés (BnF, ms fr. 9493), repris et édité chez Rey 1869.

36. Les jeunes historiens ont pu se référer à quatre manuscrits parisiens contenant La Prise d’Alixandre de Guillaume de Machaut : Guillaume de Machaut 2002, p. 34 et également pour l’édition de référence.

37. Les documents concernant la succession de Champagne impliquent le royaume de Chypre

dossier a été publiée chez Nielen 2000, p. 77-94).

38. Le fonds est aujourd’hui déposé au Service historique de la Marine à Vincennes.

39. Stylianou 1980, p. 97-98, 140 ; Mas Latrie 1879, p. 133.

40. Lusignan 1580.

41. Si la version originale en italien de Gianfrancesco Loredano, Historie de’ re Lusignani, pu-bliée à Bologne en 1647, est citée par les deux historiens, les références paginées des citations renvoient à la traduction en français parue en 1732 : Loredano 1732.

42. Jauna 1747.

43. Darrouzès 1950, p. 162-193.

28 CCEC 47, 2017

que les recherches les plus poussées aient été menées aux archives de la cour et à la bibliothèque royale de Turin. Inventoriées depuis le XVIIIe siècle, les séries Regno di Cipro ont été minutieusement étudiées par les deux amis 44. Ce fonds recèle les pièces d’archives relatives aux alliances matrimoniales entre les cours de Chypre et de Savoie au XVe siècle ainsi que plusieurs mémoires et études sur l’état de Chypre à l’époque moderne 45. Chez un libraire de la rue San Francesco di Paola à Turin, les deux historiens achètent trois feuillets du XVe siècle renfermant la copie de cinq lettres écrites de Nicosie, le 12 janvier 1432, par le roi de Chypre Janus à différents interlocuteurs : Louis roi de Sicile, Jacques roi de Sicile et de Hongrie, Amédée VIII duc de Savoie, le grand maître de Rhodes et le frère du roi le cardinal de Chypre. Ces lettres, probablement volées dans la série Regno di Cipro (Mazzo 1, pièce de la cote n° 7), traitent toutes du mariage d’Anne de Lusignan en Savoie. Théophile Roussel les remet au Comité des Travaux historiques et des Sociétés savantes, sans doute par l’intermédiaire de Louis de Mas Latrie qui les publie, mais sans en mentionner l’origine et le donateur 46. D’autres informations relatives à la production agricole de l’île sont extraites d’un « mss in 4° de 60 fol. de la Bibliothèque particulière de S. M. le roi Charles Albert » que l’on peut identifier à la Relazione dell’isola di Cipro de Francesco Agostino della Chiesa 47. De façon plus inattendue, les deux historiens consultent également à la Bibliothèque royale de Turin les manuscrits inédits de deux érudits du XIXe siècle qui se sont intéressés aux affaires de la Méditerranée orientale au Moyen Âge : les ouvrages du baron arménien Deodato Papasian et du religieux Prospero Semini livrent quelques informations éparses, sur la dynastie des Lusignan pour le premier et sur l’implication des Génois dans le commerce chypriote pour le second 48. Le rapport d’Ascanio Savorgnan, daté de 1562, sur la situation militaire de l’île a également été examiné par les deux historiens lozériens à la bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Turin dans deux manuscrits (N VII 74 et N VII 75) 49.

Si les archives turinoises ont été très tôt fréquentées par les historiens de Chypre, il n’en est pas de même de celles de Milan, la capitale de la Lombardie. Pourtant nos deux

44. Archivio di Stato di Torino 1994, p. 386 ; Louis de Mas Latrie avait également travaillé aux archives de Turin pour la préparation de son mémoire : Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. I, p. VIII.

45. Une partie de ce fonds a été publié chez Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. II, p. 518, 523-527 ; vol. III, p. 10-15, 17-27, 67-72, 99-102, 115-124, 514-515, 557-589.

46. Mas Latrie 1872, p. 156 ; Mas Latrie 1874, p. 139-144. Mas Latrie proposa de restituer ces lettres aux archives de Turin.

47. Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Coll. St. Patria 340 ; Derossi 1790, p 175.Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Coll. St. Patria 340 ; Derossi 1790, p 175.

48. Deodato Papasian, Illustration d’alcune antichità Armene esistente à Piemonte ; Prospero Semini, Memorie sopra il commercio de Genovesi negli scalie marittimi e terre del Levante, dal secolo X fra al secolo XV ; compilate per ordine del direttorio esecutivo della Ligure republica nel septembre 1798. Sur le baron Deodato Papasian et son œuvre : Uluhogian 2006, p. 494-514.

49. Un troisième manuscrit, N VII 76, n’est pas mentionné par les deux historiens. Pour

texte d’Ascanio Savorgnano : Grivaud 2016, p. 163-259, particulièrement p. 175-176.


jeunes étudiants décident de s’y arrêter afin d’examiner quelques manuscrits conservés à la bibliothèque Ambrosiana. Fondée par le cardinal de Milan Frédéric Borromeo, cette bibliothèque n’a pas été explorée par Louis de Mas Latrie lors de ses différentes missions de recherches en Italie du Nord pour compléter son mémoire sur l’histoire de Chypre en vue d’une publication. Certes, les informations recueillies par Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière restent modestes, mais elles permettent d’attirer l’attention sur des fonds longtemps négligés 50. Trois pages de notes sont extraites du manuscrit D 421, intitulé La creazione d’Italia e croniche di Venezia, e come il re Teseo era re di Candia, manuscrit tiré des archives du philosophe humaniste padouan du XVIe siècle, Giacomo Zabarella. Roussel et Rozière empruntent également à la description anonyme de l’île de Chypre envoyée au grand-duc de Toscane, datée de 1596 (ms D. 476, fol. 20-23 : Scritture di Cipri et di Famagosta mandata al granduca col disegno, Venezia 31 Agosto 1596) 51.

Après Turin et Milan, les deux jeunes historiens ne pouvaient manquer de se rendre à Venise dont les ressources documentaires pour l’histoire chypriote avaient déjà été mises en évidence. À Venise, les historiens ont eu le loisir de consulter les fonds de la bibliothèque Saint-Marc, nombreux et riches en manuscrits traitant des affaires de Chypre. Malheureusement, le temps leur a sans doute manqué et les inventaires n’étaient pas suffisamment détaillés pour explorer les matériaux liés spécifiquement à l’histoire chypriote utilisés aujourd’hui par les historiens. Ainsi, des textes aussi précieux que les chroniques de Leontios Machairas, Georgios Boustronios ou la relazione de Bernardo Sagredo et les nombreux autres documents administratifs contenus dans les archives privées des familles du patriciat vénitien sont restés ignorés de nos deux historiens 52. Toutefois, Rozière et Roussel découvrent la chronique dite d’Amadi (53 folios de notes et prennent conscience de la valeur des informations qu’elle recèle pour l’histoire chypriote 53. Le deuxième carton du fonds Roussel conserve également 28 folios de notes sur un exemplaire de la cronaca de Giovanni Giacomo Caroldo. Secrétaire du Conseil des Dix de Venise au début du XVIe siècle, le chroniqueur vénitien appuie ses développements sur des chroniques antérieures, comme celle de Dandolo, et sur une lecture attentive des registres de la chancellerie ducale. Au plus près des sources de l’histoire chypriote, le chroniqueur vénitien est chargé en 1535 de la réception des manuscrits en français des

50. Voir par exemple l’étude récente sur le fascicule conservé à l’Ambrosiana reportant une liste de manuscrits grecs trouvés à Chypre par Francesco Patrizi : Grivaud 2012, p. 133-151.

51. Ce type de document, établi en vue de préparer une éventuelle conquête de l’île par un souverain chrétien, était largement diffusé dans les cours européennes au tournant du XVIe siècle. Voir Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. III, p. 559-589.

52. Zorzi 2009, p. 243-255.

53. Pour l’édition de référence : Chronique d’Amadi 1891. La chronique d’Amadi était également connue de Louis de Mas Latrie en 1843, mais il ne semble pas l’avoir consultée pour la rédaction de son mémoire. A-t-il découvert la référence dans le mémoire de ses concurrents, Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel ? Voir Dianoux 1997, p. 290 : Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. I, p. V-VI.

30 CCEC 47, 2017

Assises du royaume de Jérusalem, traduits en italien par Florio Bustron 54. Les notes de Roussel et Rozière traitent surtout des récriminations vénitiennes contre la croisade de Pierre Ier à Alexandrie en 1365, qui porte atteinte aux intérêts économiques 55. De façon plus attendue, les jeunes historiens lozériens mettent à profit la biographie de Catherine Cornaro par Antonio Colbertaldo et le traité de Paolo Tiepolo sur la guerre de Chypre 56. Malheureusement, les portes des archives de Venise restent closes aux deux jeunes historiens, comme Eugène de Rozière l’explique dans sa correspondance 57.

Les archives pisanes fournissent peu d’informations intéressantes pour le mémoire chypriote. Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel se contentent de prendre quelques notes dans le manuscrit de Jacopo Arrosti intitulé Chroniche di Pisa 58. À Florence, les deux jeunes savants fréquentent la bibliothèque laurentienne, mais leur recherche ne semble pas avoir beaucoup nourri la rédaction de leur mémoire, puisqu’ils ne citent que le témoignage de l’auteur anonyme d’une cosmographie universelle qui décrit la ville

54. Zorzi 2009, p. 247.

55. Sur les manuscrits de la chronique de Caroldo (BNM cl. VII cod. 141 [= 7164]), à ce jour encore inédite: Thiriet 1954, p. 266-272 ; Chrystomides 1969, p. 123-182 ; Marin 2007, p. 41-69 ;

-nique : Mas Latrie 1873, p. 68-72 ; Iorga 1896, p. 40, 101, 145, 150, 311, par exemple.

56. ADL, F 2421 « régence de Catherine Cornaro », fol. 13v; BNM cl. VII cod. 8 (8377) ; du même auteur, les deux historiens auraient pu utiliser l’Historia di D.D. Catterina Corner Regina di Cipro BNM cl. VII cod. 9 (8182) Tiepolo, Storia della guerra di Cipro, BNM, cl. VII cod. 224 (= 8309).

57. « Je savais que les rois de Sardaigne se prétendaient héritiers du trône de Chypre et qu’ils « Je savais que les rois de Sardaigne se prétendaient héritiers du trône de Chypre et qu’ils en prenaient le titre royal sur leurs monnaies. L’idée me vint qu’on trouverait peut-être dans leurs archives des documents relatifs à la question posée par l’Académie ; je proposai à M. Roussel d’utiliser nos loisirs en faisant quelques recherches, et même, si ces recherches devenaient fructueuses, en commençant la rédaction d’un mémoire en réponse au programme de l’Académie. M. Roussel accepta avec empressement, et dès le lendemain nous étions à l’œuvre. Le résultat dépassa toutes nos espérances. Encouragés par ce début, nous résolûmes de continuer notre entreprise, et en arrivant à Venise nous n’eûmes rien de plus pressé que d’aller frapper à la porte des Archives. Mais à cette époque cette porte ne s’ouvrait qu’avec une permission de Vienne ; un homme qui avait réussi à pénétrer dans les Archives de Venise était considéré dans le monde des savants comme un privilégié ; on se le montrait et on l’enviait. Nous attendîmes un mois la réponse à

à Florence et presque sur la route de Rome. Cependant nous n’avons pas été totalement privés des

avions trouvé plusieurs volumes d’extraits et de copies tirés des pièces des Archives, notamment le manuscrit connu sous le nom de Codex Trevisanus ; et plus tard nous obtînmes par l’entremise du célèbre M. de Hammer qu’on nous envoyât la copie des cinq ou six privilèges les plus importants pour l’histoire des Lusignan. Nous continuâmes nos recherches à Florence, à Rome, à Naples, à

à notre travail…. » : Baschet 1870, p. 41-42.

58. Pise, Biblioteca Universitaria, ms 15.


de Nicosie sous domination vénitienne 59. Le fonds delle Riformagioni, exploité avec succès quelques années plus tard par Louis de Mas Latrie, n’a pas été examiné par nos deux historiens 60. Ils ont connaissance également de trois lettres appartenant aux archives Acciaiuoli communiquées à Florence, grâce à l’intermédiaire de Jean-Alexandre Buchon, par le chevalier Horace César Pruasoli 61.

Le séjour de Roussel et Rozière à Rome et les recherches aux Archives du Vatican sont bien attestés dans les travaux de Jean-Marie Pardessus qui mentionne les recherches de son petit-fils à sa demande 62. Les deux historiens tirent profit de cette étape pour découvrir et exploiter pour la première fois la chronique de Diomède Strambali (14 folios de notes) contenue dans le manuscrit Vat. Lat. 3941 (Chronicha del R(egn)o di Cypro di Diomede Strambali). Ce texte est une traduction en italien de la chronique chypriote de Leontios Machairas, réalisée à partir de la copie conservée à Ravenne. Diomède Strambali est peut-être l’auteur ou le commanditaire de ce manuscrit qu’il a pu confectionner lors de son exil à Rome, après la conquête ottomane de l’île en 1570. Les deux jeunes Lozériens sont certainement les premiers découvreurs du manuscrit dont Louis de Mas Latrie commande à Franciscus Maspi, de la Bibliothèque Apostolique Vaticane, une copie acquise par la Bibliothèque Nationale le 7 juin 1845 pour une somme de 275 francs 63. Malgré les nombreuses erreurs et omissions, comme le nom de l’auteur orthographié « Strambaldi », cette copie a fait l’objet d’une unique édition par René de Mas Latrie en 1893 64. Enfin, les deux historiens effectuent quelques rapides sondages dans les Litterae secretae des archives du Vatican, sans toutefois être en capacité de mesurer l’exceptionnelle richesse des registres pontificaux pour l’histoire de Chypre 65.

Sans doute contraints par la date de remise du manuscrit à l’Académie, mais également par leurs obligations professionnelles respectives, Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel n’ont pas eu le loisir d’explorer tous les fonds d’archives et de bibliothèques italiennes qu’ils auraient souhaité 66. Dans leur texte, ils manifestent le regret de n’avoir pu consulter les archives de la banque Saint-Georges à Gênes, lorsqu’ils évoquent le traité de 1442

59. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, ms Med. Palat. 127 ; Pardessus 1843, p. LXXII.

60. Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. II, p. 454.II, p. 454.

61. ADL, F. 2421, fol. 293. Ces lettres sont publiées chez Buchon 1845, p. 131-135.ADL, F. 2421, fol. 293. Ces lettres sont publiées chez Buchon 1845, p. 131-135.Ces lettres sont publiées chez Buchon 1845, p. 131-135.

62. Pardessus 1843, p. XLVIII, XLIV, LXI.

63. Nicolaou-Konnari 2015, p. 168-170 ; Louis de Mas Latrie ne se rend en mission à Rome qu’en mars 1844 : Dianoux 1997, p. 293. Il est donc probable qu’il découvre le manuscrit de Strambali après la lecture du mémoire de Rozière et Roussel.

64. ADL, F. 2421, fol. 291 ; Chronique de Strambaldi 1893 ; Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. II, p. VI ; Mas Latrie 1844, p. 488.

65. Schabel 2010, p. 67-83.

sources auxquelles ils ont eu recours. Certains folios du mémoire ne comportent pas de notes de bas de pages.

32 CCEC 47, 2017

dont ils ont connaissance par l’édition de Luis de Gongora 67. De même, ils regrettent de ne pas avoir eu accès directement à la chronique de Georgios Boustronios pour traiter de la période du règne de Catherine Cornaro, et de devoir se limiter au témoignage d’Étienne de Lusignan 68. Conscients des lacunes de leur documentation, les deux jeunes auteurs ont cependant réalisé en quelques mois un admirable travail de découverte et d’évaluation de l’originalité et de la richesse des principales sources manuscrites de l’histoire du royaume médiéval de Chypre. Venait ensuite le temps de produire un premier essai de synthèse pour le concours de l’Académie.

Le mémoire déposé au concours de l’AcadémieLes Archives départementales de Lozère ont conservé une grande partie du mémoire

déposée au concours de l’Académie 69. Il se présente sous la forme de cahiers de plusieurs folios correspondant à un chapitre parfois en deux versions, l’une correspondant au brouillon et l’autre au texte définitif.

Les deux premiers chapitres intitulés « Chapitre premier. Géographie » (13 folios) et « configuration générale de Chypre. Topographie maritime. Établissement et villes maritimes » (64 folios) abordent la situation de Chypre en Méditerranée orientale, en précisant les dimensions de l’île à partir des relevés des auteurs antiques et la localisation des villes chypriotes selon leur longitude et latitude d’après, notamment, Ali Bey70. Les notes sur les cartes de Chypre conservées au service hydrographique de la Marine sont mises à contribution. De façon classique, Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière s’attachent à présenter la géographie de l’île avec les toponymes relevés dans la littérature antique. Les témoignages de quelques voyageurs comme Pococke, Ali Bey, Mariti sont convoqués pour éclairer la topographie insulaire. À la manière de la chorographie d’Étienne de Lusignan, ce chapitre présente les principales villes antiques et modernes (Constantia/Salamine, Arsinoé, Ammochostos/Famagouste, Citium, Larnaca/les Salines, Paleapaphos/Paphos, Curium, Limassol, Amathonte, Lapithos) en proposant des notices d’étymologie 71.

Les jeunes historiens accordent ensuite quatre folios à l’étude de la population de l’île. Pour la période vénitienne, ils consignent les chiffres de 180 000 habitants chez Savorgnan et 140 000 habitants chez Francesco Attar. À leurs yeux, la conquête turque est

67. Gongora, Sperone 1665-1669. À cette occasion, les historiens rappellent que les différents traités avec Gênes ont été oubliés dans la narration de Loredano et de Jauna.

68. ADL, F 2421, « régence de Catherine Cornaro », n° 1 fol. 12v. ; la chronique de Georgios Boustronios avait pourtant été repérée par Jean-Alexandre Buchon au British Museum à Londres sous la cote bibl. Arundel. 518: Buchon 1840, p. 388-389. Voir l’édition de référence, Georgios Boustronios 1997, et plus particulièrement p. 45-60 pour la présentation des quatre manuscrits de la chronique.

69. ADL, F 2421.ADL, F 2421.

70. Ali Bey 1814, vol. II, p. 99, 116, 136, 154.Ali Bey 1814, vol. II, p. 99, 116, 136, 154.

71. Lusignan 1580, fol. 13v-30r.


responsable de la dépopulation de l’île observée à partir du XVIe siècle, en se fondant sur la relation alors inédite de Francesco Accidas, Grec de l’île de Rhodes, à Charles-Emmanuel Ier duc de Savoie, conservée aux Archives de Turin 72.

Un brève note de six folios est consacrée aux langues parlées à Chypre. L’accent est mis sur le rattachement de l’île à la langue et la culture grecques dans l’Antiquité, même si les historiens admettent le caractère dialectal de l’idiome utilisé par les populations et l’influence du phénicien. Pour l’époque médiévale, ils admettent l’usage du français par les classes dirigeantes de l’île. Cependant, il ressort de ce court exposé une certaine fascination pour la richesse linguistique de l’île, illustrée par l’information extraite du Turcograeciae de l’humaniste et philologue allemand du XVIe siècle, Martin Crucius, selon lequel, de son temps, on parlait cinq langues à Chypre : le grec, le chaldéen, l’arménien, l’albanais et l’italien 73.

Le chapitre sur les « villes intérieures » occupe 16 folios où figurent des notices sur Idalie, Tamassos, Kythrea et Nicosie 74. Les historiens se sont surtout intéressés au passé antique de ces villes, à l’étymologie de leur nom et à leur localisation actuelle. L’histoire médiévale de Nicosie retient davantage leur attention, en se basant sur les récits tardifs d’Ali Bey et de Mariti. La ville deviendrait capitale sous les Lusignan en raison de sa position centrale et de la qualité du climat. Au-delà de quelques considérations générales, ils ont une conscience assez claire de l’importance de la superficie de la ville et de la rétractation considérable de cet espace urbain consécutive aux travaux de fortifications conduits par les Vénitiens en 1567 75.

Dans le chapitre suivant, les auteurs s’attardent sur le climat de l’île en insistant particulièrement sur les périodes de sécheresse qui déterminent les conditions de développement de l’agriculture insulaire. Le cahier de 32 folios qui suit est consacré aux « productions de l’île ». Les deux jeunes Lozériens s’attachent à présenter les divers produits de l’agriculture en s’appuyant de manière traditionnelle sur les auteurs antiques, passant en revue le règne animal, puis végétal. La formation de médecin de Théophile Roussel l’amène à s’attarder davantage sur les plantes médicinales, en citant notamment Pline qui rapporte que le fiel d’hyène utilisé comme collyre était conservé dans des boîtes de bois de Chypre. Les minéraux présents dans le sol chypriote sont énumérés ; cet exposé sera repris par Gaudry quelques années plus tard à partir des auteurs anciens, mais également de ses propres observations de terrain 76.

72. Ce rapport est publié chez Mas Latrie 1852-1861, vol. III, p. 574-576.

73. Martin Crucius 1584, p. 209. Étienne de Lusignan rapporte qu’au XVIe siècle « on y parle d’onze sortes de langages » : Lusignan 1580, fol. 67r.

74. La distinction entre villes maritimes et villes de l’intérieur est observée également chez Étienne de Lusignan : Lusignan 1580, fol 13v et 30r.

75. Grivaud 1984-1987, p. 277-278.

76. Gaudry 1859, p. 239-273.

34 CCEC 47, 2017

Deux chapitres (15 folios et 20 folios) s’intéressent ensuite à la religion à Chypre, et plus particulièrement au développement du culte d’Aphrodite à Paphos. Très rapidement, ce sanctuaire rencontre un grand succès et attire de nombreux pèlerins. Les auteurs s’intéressent aux cérémonies d’initiation au culte d’Aphrodite, mais déplorent le manque d’informations. Ils affirment que le culte d’Aphrodite encourageait le libertinage, raison pour laquelle les chrétiens ont obtenu la fermeture du sanctuaire 77.

La présentation des différents peuples qui se sont implantés sur l’île au cours de l’Antiquité occupe un cahier de 10 folios (« Ethnographie »). Les auteurs examinent le développement des communautés juive, phénicienne, perse, cilicienne, égyptienne, éthiopienne et phrygienne, en ayant recours principalement aux auteurs antiques, même s’ils accordent aussi une large place aux conclusions des orientalistes allemands contemporains, comme Wilhelm Engel 78.

Les cahiers couvrant les règnes des premiers rois de Chypre ne figurent plus dans les cartons du fonds Roussel. L’histoire chronologique du royaume médiéval débute donc avec la partie consacrée au roi Hugues IV (« règne de Hugues de 1324-1359 », 59 folios). La relation du règne du souverain chypriote se fonde principalement sur la chronique dite d’Amadi et les œuvres de Loredano et Jauna. Ponctuellement les auteurs complètent leurs informations en recourant à des travaux d’autres historiens, comme la Description de Lusignan ou la Vollständige Geschichte de Johann Paul Reinhard 79. Après avoir rappelé les conditions d’accession au pouvoir d’Hugues IV après la mort d’Henri II en 1324, le texte met en lumière la politique d’alliance du souverain avec les grands du royaume, comme Eudes de Dampierre à qui le roi confère la dignité de connétable du royaume de Jérusalem. Le récit se concentre sur la politique diplomatique du royaume de Chypre en Méditerranée orientale illustrée par la participation militaire des Lusignan aux expéditions des Ligues qui fait l’objet de longs développements. Les auteurs consacrent quelques lignes à la prospérité du port de Famagouste à travers la mention de riches marchands comme Simon à l’origine de l’église Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul, construite avec les bénéfices engrangés lors de voyages en Syrie. Ils signalent également l’inondation qui frappe Nicosie en 1330 et le sauvetage in extremis du roi qui trouve refuge à l’archevêché. À cette occasion, une procession réunissant l’ensemble des communautés religieuses parcourt les rues de la capitale. Le miracle de la croix de Tochni est également brièvement évoqué 80. Les auteurs s’attellent à des questions historiographiques en s’efforçant, par exemple, de distinguer le roi Hugues IV de son petit-fils Hugues sénateur romain, confondu dans plusieurs ouvrages. Au final, Roussel et Rozière livrent un portrait plutôt enthousiaste de Hugues IV qui « laissait entre les

77. Pour une synthèse sur l’Aphrodite chypriote : Karageorghis 2005.

78. Engel 1841.

79. Lusignan 1580 ; Reinhard 1766.

80. Sur le récit de cet événement et son interprétation : Grivaud 2003, p. 72.


mains de son fils un royaume paisible et prospère, des finances en bon état une autorité respectée » 81.

Le cahier suivant de 111 folios, intitulé « Livre neuvième. Règne de Pierre Ier (1359-1369) », est rédigé avec une écriture soignée. Le récit s’ouvre sur la rivalité qui oppose Pierre Ier et le prince de Galilée Hugues à propos de la couronne de Chypre. Le récit présente ensuite les voyages de Pierre Ier en Europe pour la préparation de sa croisade. Enfin, les dernières pages de l’étude s’attardent sur le complot qui conduit à la mort du roi chypriote en confrontant les informations tirées des textes de Guillaume de Machaut, Diomède Strambali, Amadi et Loredano. À cette occasion, les auteurs ne cachent pas le mépris qu’ils portent aux frères du roi accusés d’avoir commandité le meurtre du souverain héroïque. Ils considèrent que le royaume de Chypre a connu son apogée sous le règne de Pierre Ier 82.

Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel examinent le règne de Jacques Ier dans un cahier de 24 folios (« Jacques Ier de 1383 à 1398 ») comprenant de nombreuses ratures. Prenant appui sur les chroniques chypriotes, les auteurs exposent d’abord les conditions difficiles d’accès au pouvoir du roi qui dut négocier avec les Génois et laisser son fils en otage en Italie. Ils dressent le portrait d’un roi bâtisseur, mais dont la popularité a été ternie par la hausse de la fiscalité pesant sur les populations.

Les historiens brossent un tableau beaucoup plus sombre du règne de Janus (« Jean Ier ou Janus 1398-1432 », 54 folios) 83. Aux malheurs de la guerre contre Gênes pour reprendre le contrôle de Famagouste succèdent des épidémies de peste et des invasions de sauterelles. La richesse des archives turinoises pour l’histoire chypriote du XVe siècle permet aux deux historiens de traiter longuement du mariage d’Anne de Lusignan et d’Amédée VIII. Au final, les jeunes auteurs se montrent indulgents avec ce roi dont ils font une figure exemplaire 84.

La section consacrée à Jean II (« Jean II 1434-1458 », 100 folios) accorde une large place à son épouse Hélène Paléologue dont le rôle et l’influence auprès de la communauté grecque sont réévalués à l’aune des récits de Lusignan et Loredano 85. Les historiens se

81. ADL F 2421, cahier « règne de Hugues de 1324-1359 », n. f°.

82. « Ce royaume dont nous avons suivi les progrès depuis Gui de Lusignan avait atteint son « Ce royaume dont nous avons suivi les progrès depuis Gui de Lusignan avait atteint son

déplorable. » : ADL, F. 2421, cahier « Livre neuvième. Règne de Pierre Ier (1359-1369) » fol. 398.

83. « Mais comme le remarque Loredan, le roi Janus était né sous une déplorable étoile et les « Mais comme le remarque Loredan, le roi Janus était né sous une déplorable étoile et les événements de son règne ne devaient être qu’une succession de malheurs » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « Jean Ier ou Janus 1398-1432 », n. f°.

84. « Un roi qui sait se faire pardonner ses malheurs par le peuple même qui les partage est un « Un roi qui sait se faire pardonner ses malheurs par le peuple même qui les partage est un exemple des plus rares en histoire et quelques défauts que l’on soit tenté d’attribuer à un tel prince il faut reconnaître qu’il les rachetait par de précieuses qualités. » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « Jean Ier ou Janus 1398-1432 » n. f°.

de rétablir le clergé grec dans la suprématie qu’il avait perdu depuis tant d’années ranimant ainsi

36 CCEC 47, 2017

montrent très durs avec Hélène, insistant sur « la violence de son caractère » et décrivant dans le détail les ennuis causés à Marie Patras, la concubine du roi. Les prolongements du conflit avec les Génois dans la première moitié du XVe siècle sont révélés. Cependant une grande partie du développement de ce cahier est consacrée à la guerre civile qui oppose Charlotte, fille de Jean II et d’Hélène Paléologue à son demi-frère Jacques le Bâtard, fils illégitime de Jean II et de Mariette Patras, pour la succession au trône de Chypre, entre 1458 et 1460.

Dans le cahier intitulé « Jacques le Bâtard » (22 folios), les auteurs traitent du bref règne du roi Jacques II après sa victoire obtenue grâce notamment à l’appui d’aventuriers originaires de Sicile et d’Italie. L’île connaît alors un retour à la paix et à la prospérité à mettre au crédit du souverain selon les deux historiens 86. Cependant ils ne manquent pas de relever les nombreuses conspirations menées par la noblesse chypriote.

Le cahier intitulé « Régence de Catherine Cornaro » comprend 26 folios et traite des difficultés rencontrées par la reine à imposer son autorité. Eugène de Rozière et Théophile Roussel déplorent le manque d’informations pour développer leurs propos qui gagneraient en épaisseur, selon eux, avec l’étude de la chronique de Georgios Boustronios. La domination vénitienne est rapidement traitée (14 folios), en s’appuyant principalement sur l’œuvre de Tiepolo et une cosmographie universelle d’un auteur anonyme, conservée à Florence 87. Les institutions et l’administration vénitiennes sont présentées, ainsi que la mise en défense de l’île.

Après cet examen du travail de Roussel et Rozière pour le concours de l’Académie, on peut mieux juger des qualités et des défauts de leur mémoire. Les auteurs s’efforcent tout au long de leur rédaction d’apporter un regard critique sur les sources utilisées. Conscients du caractère tardif des chroniques chypriotes sur lesquels leur récit se fonde, ils tentent de recouper leurs informations et n’hésitent pas à disqualifier certaines affirmations d’historiens modernes 88. Si Loredano est une des sources majeures du travail de nos auteurs, ils remettent parfois en cause la propension du Vénitien à prêter aux nobles Chypriotes des discours sortis de son imagination 89. Leur confiance se porte

l’une des querelles les plus envenimés dont le royaume des Lusignan eut été le théâtre » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « Jean II 1434-1458 », n. f°. Sur les différents portraits d’Hélène Paléologue dans l’historiographie chypriote : Kaoulla 2006, p. 109-150.

86. « Jacques fut universellement regretté du peuple chypriote qui s’était épris de ses qualités « Jacques fut universellement regretté du peuple chypriote qui s’était épris de ses qualités brillantes et qui avait recouvré le bien-être et la tranquillité sous son gouvernement » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « Jacques le Bâtard » fol. 14r.

87. BNM, cl. VII cod. XII ; Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, ms Med. Palat. 127.BNM, cl. VII cod. XII ; Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, ms Med. Palat. 127.Palat. 127.

88. « Les raisons alléguées par Jauna pour mettre en doute le récit de Loredan sont sans fondement « Les raisons alléguées par Jauna pour mettre en doute le récit de Loredan sont sans fondement es raisons alléguées par Jauna pour mettre en doute le récit de Loredan sont sans fondement sérieux » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « Jean Ier ou Janus 1398-1432 », n. f°.

89. « Loredan s’est exercé, selon son habitude à faire tenir aux conjurés des discours pompeux « Loredan s’est exercé, selon son habitude à faire tenir aux conjurés des discours pompeux et ampoulés qui ne sont en rapport ni avec les idées et le style du temps, ni avec le caractère des personnages. Il ne s’écarte pas trop au reste quant à la marche des faits du récit d’Amadi ni de celui de Guillaume de Machaut. » : ADL, F 2421, fol. 389 ; sur Loredano, voir Schabel 2012, p. 357-390.


davantage vers les chroniques dont les auteurs chypriotes ont une meilleure connaissance des réalités insulaires et un accès à une documentation aujourd’hui disparue (chronique d’Amadi, Florio Bustron, chronique de Strambali) 90. Le mémoire de Théophile Roussel et Eugène de Rozière n’est évidemment pas exempt de toutes critiques et comprend son lot de poncifs, notamment sur le caractère délétère de la domination ottomane (« les Turcs viennent enfin apporter un joug ») ou contribue à véhiculer des stéréotypes sur les Grecs 91. Par ailleurs, la topographie de l’île n’est pas très bien connue par les deux jeunes historiens qui doivent, par exemple, se référer à Jauna pour assurer de l’existence actuelle de l’église de la Miséricorde à Nicosie 92.

ConclusionLe mémoire déposé à l’Académie en 1843 par Théophile Roussel et Eugène de

Rozière n’a pas fait l’objet d’une édition, mais ce dernier a toutefois pris soin d’en publier une synthèse dans sa Numismatique des rois latins de Chypre 93. L’ouvrage, qui ne manque pas d’être salué par le numismate de l’Orient latin Félicien de Saulcy, ne rend toutefois pas justice à l’ampleur du travail accompli pour le mémoire du concours de l’Académie94. L’essai qui précède la présentation des monnaies établit une histoire chronologique du royaume sans grand relief, en distinguant les règnes des souverains successifs. Or les deux cartons conservés aux archives de Mende dans le fonds Roussel démontrent le caractère pionnier des recherches entreprises par les deux jeunes historiens qui découvrent, sans doute avant Louis de Mas Latrie, des documents majeurs de l’histoire du royaume médiéval de Chypre, comme la chronique de Strambali à Rome ou celle dite d’Amadi à Venise.

Groupe de Recherche d’HistoireUniversité de Rouen (GRHIS)

90. À propos de la date de la mort de Jacques IÀ propos de la date de la mort de Jacques Ier « le chroniqueur Amadi dont nous avons souvent constaté l’exactitude » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « règne de Jacques Ier », n. f°.

91. À propos d’Hélène Paléologue : « Hélène avait tout ce qu’il fallait pour le [Jean II] dominer, À propos d’Hélène Paléologue : « Hélène avait tout ce qu’il fallait pour le [Jean II] dominer, propos d’Hélène Paléologue : « Hélène avait tout ce qu’il fallait pour le [Jean II] dominer,

F 2421, cahier « Jean II 1434 à 1458 ».

aujourd’hui dans son entier » : ADL, F 2421, cahier « règne de Jacques Ier », n. f°.

93. Rozière 1847.

94. « Chacune de ces séries monétaires a été étudiée à part et je m’empresse d’adresser hautement « Chacune de ces séries monétaires a été étudiée à part et je m’empresse d’adresser hautement ici mes sincères remerciements à mon ami et collaborateur M. Eugène de Rozière, que ses profondes études sur l’histoire du royaume de Chypre rendaient plus que personne capable de traiter à fond la numismatique de ce royaume. Cette monographie lui appartient donc en entier, et je félicite nos lecteurs de ce que j’ai eu le bonheur d’enrichir mon livre d’un excellent travail que j’eusse été dans l’impossibilité de rendre aussi parfait. » (Saulcy 1847, p. 4). Il est possible que seule la partie histo-(Saulcy 1847, p. 4). Il est possible que seule la partie histo-rique de l’ouvrage soit l’œuvre de Rozière comme le laisse entendre un compte rendu de l’ouvrage ; Félicien de Saulcy a dû réaliser l’étude des monnaies des rois de Chypre : voir Cartier 1848, p. 392.

38 CCEC 47, 2017

05678&9:;<9=>75?@8&A86&6B@CD86&E8F75BFF>86&A9F6&:86&A8@G&D9C7BF6&&A@&HBFA6&(B@668:&DBF69DC>6&I&J<K;C8&L3'0&M&NONPQNONNR

Les noms des auteurs ont été orthographiés comme ils figurent dans le texte.

Auteurs de l’Antiquité (jusqu’au Ve siècle)

Acta s. Barnabé ap. Boll.Agathémère, Geog.Ammien MarcellinApollodoreAristoteAthénéeCatulle, EpigrammeCiceronis, Epistulae ad

AtticumClement, Proptreptico ad

gentesDe re rusticaColumellaDiodore de SicileDiogène Laërce, Vie de ZénonDion CassiusDiophane de Nicée,

GeoponikaDiophante D’AlexandrieDioscorideGalienHephaîstos de ThèbesHérodoteHesychiosHieroclèsHimeriusHipocrateHomère, L’IliadeHoraceHyginus, MythologieHyeronimus, Vita sancti

HilarionisJoseph, Antiquités juivesJoseph, Histoire des JuifsJustinLactantiusLucien, de SyriaLutaticusLycophron, AlexandraMartialMélaNicolas de Damas

OribaseOvide, Les métamorphosesPalladasPausanias, BeoticaPindare, OdePline l’Ancien, Histoire

naturellePlinii Secundi, Historia mundiPlutarque, Vie de CatonPlutarque, Vie de ThéséePlutarque, Vie de SolonPolybePorphyre de TyrProclus PtoléméRuffius Festus, Breviarum

RerumScylaxSénèqueSerenus Samanicus, Lib de

medic.ServiusSextus SignSocrate le scolastique,

Histoire ecclésiastiqueSozomène, Histoire

ecclésiastiqueStace, ThébaïdeStrabon, Géographie SuetoneSuidasSynesios de CyrèneTacite, HistoireThéocrite, IdylleVirgile, EnéideXenagoreXénophon

Auteurs médiévaux (Ve-XVe siècles)

Arator, Historia apostolicaBarthélémy de Salignac,

Itinerarium sacrae scripturae

Bède le vénérableClaudien, De bello gothicoConstantin Porphyrogénète,

De ThematibusEusthratiosEustatheEtienne de ByzanceFroissart, ChroniqueGiovanni della Uzzano, Della

DecimaGuillaume de MachautJean CantacuzèneIsidore, De origineMalalas, ChronographieNicéphore Calliste, Histoire

ecclésiastique Paulus Diaconus, Historia

romanaPhilippe de Maizières, Vie de

Saint ThomasPhotiusZonaras, Annales

Auteurs modernes (XVIe-XIXe siècles)

Accidas, FrancescoAli BeyAllessandro da Morrona, Pisa

IllustrataAtlas de BlaueuAmadiAntoine de Ruffi, Histoire de

la ville de MarseilleAntonio CobertaldiAssemani J.SAssises de Jérusalem AttarBordone, BenedettoDahlmannD’anvilleDucangeDucheti, ClaudioEngel, KyprosFanucci, storia dei tre celebri

popoli


Florio Bustrone, Historia ovvero commentari di Cipro

Géographie blavianeGiblet, istoria de re

LusignanoGuichenonGiese, Albert, Aeolischen

DialektFrancesco AttarHammer, Histoire de l’Empire

ottomanHoeckJauna

Le Quien, Oriens ChristianusLusignan, Description de

toute l’isle de ChypreLusignano, ChorograffiaMalte Brun, GéographieMariti, ViaggiMartene et Durand, ThesaurusMartin Crucius, TurcoraeciaeMercator Meursius, operumMüllerPius SecundusPococke

PorcachiReinhardSabellicusSanson, NicolasSavorgnano, AscanioTiepolo, storia della guerra

di CiproThaumassièreUberto Foglietta, dell’istorie

di GenovaVertot Willen Jansz Blaeu, Le grand

Atlas ou Cosmographie

S+S0+)#(3/-+!!"#$%&'ALI BEY 1814 : Voyages d’Ali Bey el Abbassi

(Domingo Badia y Leyblich) en Afrique et en Asie pendant les années 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 et 1807, Paris, 4 vol.

BRESC-BAUTIER (G.), 1984, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, Paris.

BUCHON (J. A.), 1840, Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une histoire de la domination française aux XIII

e, XIVe, XV

e siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l’Empire grec à la suite de la 4e croisade, Paris, 2 vol.

BUCHON (J.-A.), 1845, Nouvelles recherches historiques sur la principauté française de Morée et ses hautes baronnies. Tome second, affaiblissement et décadence, de l’an 1333 à l’an 1470. Seconde époque, affaiblissement et décadence, de l’an 1333 à l’an 1470 : diplômes relatifs aux hautes baronnies franques extraits des archives et bibliothèques de Toscane, Naples, Sicile, Malte, Corfou, Paris.

Chronique d’Amadi 1891, dans Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, éd. R. de Mas Latrie, Paris, vol. I.

Chronique de Strambaldi 1893, dans Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, éd. R. de Mas Latrie, Paris, vol. II.

DARROUZES (J.), 1950, « Manuscrits originaires de Chypre à la Bibliothèque Nationale de

Paris », Revue des Études Byzantines VII, repris dans J. Darrouzès, Histoire et littérature des textes byzantins, Londres, 1972, étude n° XI.

Département de la Lozère 1896 : Procès-verbal du Conseil Général, session du 17 août 1896.

DIANOUX, (H. J. de), 1997, Correspondances et écrits de Louis de Mas Latrie sur Chypre, Nîmes.

FLORIO BUSTRON, 1886, Chronique de l’île de Chypre, éd. R. de Mas Latrie, Paris.

GEORGIOS BOUSTRONIOS, 1997, , éd. G. Kehagioglou, Nicosie.

GONGORA (L. de), SPERONE (C.), 1665-1669, Real grandezza della serenissima republica di Genova, Madrid et Gênes.

GRIVAUD (G.), 2016, Venice and the Defence of the Regno di Cipro. Giulio Savorgnan’s Unpublished Cyprus Correspondence (1557-1570), Nicosie.

GUILLAUME DE MACHAUT, 2002, La Prise d’Alixandre (The Taking of Alexandria), éd. R. B. Palmer, New York et Londres.

LUSIGNAN (É. de), 1580, Description de toute l’isle de Cypre, Paris (repr. Famagouste, 1968 ; Nicosie, 2004).

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1852-1861, Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan, Paris, 3 vol.

40 CCEC 47, 2017

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1873, « Nouvelles preuves de l’histoire de Chypre [deuxième article] », Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 34, p. 47-87.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1874, « Nouvelles preuves de l’histoire de Chypre [troisième article]"#$"Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 35, p. 99-158.

ROZIÈRE (E. de), 1849, Cartulaire de l’église du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, Paris.

ROZIÈRE (E. de), 1859-1871, Recueil général des formules usitées dans l’Empire des Francs du V

e au Xe siècle, Paris, 3 vol.

SAULCY (F. de), 1847, Numismatique des croisades, Paris.

SCHABEL (Chr.) éd., 2010, Bullarium Cyprium, Vol. 1. Papal Letters Concerning Cyprus 1196-1261, Nicosie.

Études

Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1842" %" L’Institut, journal universel des sciences et des sociétés savantes en France et à l’étranger. IIème section. Sciences historiques, archéologiques et philosophiques VII, p. 105-124.

ANTOMARCHI (V.), 2000, Politique et famille sous la IIIe République, 1870-1914, Paris.

Archivio di Stato di Torino 1994 : Guida generale degli Archivi di Stato Italiani, Rome.

BABELON (J.-P.), 1971," &" '(" )*+,-.(,,(" /")+" ,012())(" 3-+456.(" 4(7" 8,7-9.:;.0,7" (;"<())(7=>(;;9(7"/";9+2(97"7(7"+9-?.2(7"#$"CRAI, p. 377-383.

BASCHET (A.), 1870, Les archives de Venise. Histoire de la Chancellerie Secrète, Paris.

BEUGNOT (A.-A.), 1839," &" @+::09;" 719" )+":1A).-+;.0," 41" @(-1(.)" 4(7" B.7;09.(,7" 4(7"C90.7+4(7"#$"Mémoires de l’Institut National de France 12/1, p. 30-49.

BOULIER DE BRANCHE (H.), DUMAS (G.), FONT-RÉAULX (J. de), BARDY (B.), 1947-1962, Archives départementales de la Lozère. Répertoire numérique de la série F : fonds divers, Mende, 2 vol.

CARTIER (E.), 1848, « Compte rendu de Numismatique des Croisades par M. de Saulcy », Revue numismatique 13, p. 389-395.

CHABROL (J.-P.), DUTHU (H.), BARDY (B.), 1992, La vie politique en Lozère, 1815-1939. Actes du colloque tenus aux Archives départementales de la Lozère les 22 et 23 août 1991, Mende.

CHRYSOSTOMIDES (J.), 1969, « Studies on the Chronicle of Caroldo, with special reference to the History of Byzantium from 1370 to 1377 », Orientalia Christiana Periodica 25, p. 123-182.

DEROSSI (O.), 1790, Scrittori Piemontesi savoiardi nizzardi registrati nei catalogi del vescovo Francesco Agostino della Chiesa e del monaco Andrea Rossoto, Turin.

ENGEL (W. H.), 1841, Kypros, eine Monographie, Berlin, 2 vol.

FEBVRE (L.), 1992, Michelet et la Renaissance, Paris.

GAUDRY (A.), 1859, Géologie de l’île de Chypre, Paris.

GRIVAUD (G.), 1984-1987, « Aux confins de l’empire colonial vénitien : Nicosie et ses fortifications (1567-1568) »,

13-16, p. 269-279.

GRIVAUD (G.), 2003, « Pèlerinages grecs et latins dans le royaume de Chypre (1192-1474) : concurrence ou complémentarité ? », dans C. Vincent (éd.), Identités pèlerines, Rouen, p. 67-76.

GRIVAUD (G.), 2009, Entrelacs Chiprois. Essai sur les lettres et la vie intellectuelle dans le royaume de Chypre 1191-1570, Nicosie.

GRIVAUD (G.), 2012, « Une liste de manuscrits grecs trouvés à Chypre par Francesco Patrizi », dans B. Arbel, E. Chayes, H. Hendrix (éd.), Cyprus and the Renaissance (1450-1650), Turnhout, p. 125-156.

GUESSARD (F.), 1842-1843, « Séance annuelle de l’Acad56.("4(7"8,7-9.:;.0,7"(;"<())(7=>ettres (11 août 1843) », Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes 4, p. 558-569.


HALLAUER (E.), MAURY (B.), 2003, Théophile Roussel 1816-1903, Homme d’Etat, Homme de cœur, Mende.

JAUNA (D.), 1747, Histoire générale des roïaumes de Chypre, de Jérusalem, d’Arménie, et d’Égypte […], Leyde, 2 vol.

KAOULLA (CH.), « Queen Helena Palaiologina of Cyprus (1442-1458). Myth and History »,

! ! ! ! 32, p. 109-150.

KARAGEORGHIS (J.), 2005, Kypris, the Aphrodite of Cyprus. Ancient sources and archaeological evidence, Nicosie.

KOLENDO (J.), 1997, Les recherches sur l’Antiquité menées par les Polonais en France au XIX

e siècle, Varsovie.

LOREDANO (G.), 1732, Histoire des rois de Chypre de la maison de Lusignan, Paris, 2 vol.

MARIN (S.), 2007, « A 16th Century Venetian Chronicle in France Microfilm Collection of the National Archives of Romania. The Case of Giovanni Giacomo Caroldo and His Compilers », Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 46, p. 41-69.

MARTIN CRUCIUS, 1584, Turcograeciae. Libri octo, Bâle.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1843-1844, « Notice sur les monnaies et les sceaux des rois de Chypre de la maison de Lusignan », Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes 5, p. 118-142 et 413-437.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1844, « Des relations politiques et commerciales de l’Asie Mineure avec l’île de Chypre sous les Lusignan », Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes 1, p. 301-330 et 485-521.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1845, « Des relations politiques et commerciales de l’Asie Mineure avec l’île de Chypre sous les Lusignan », Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 2, p. 121-142.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1872, « Rapport sur deux communications de MM. Devoulx et Roussel », Revue des sociétés savantes 6, juillet-août, p. 155-157.

MAS LATRIE (L. de), 1879, L’île de Chypre, sa situation présente et ses souvenirs du Moyen Âge, Paris.

NICOLAOU-KONNARI (A.), 2002, « !

Narratione"" D;9+6A+). #$"dans P. Agapetos,

M. Pieris (54.),

(1400-1600), Acts of the Fourth International Conference Neograeca Medii Aevi (Nicosia, November 1997), Herakleion, p. 287-315.

NICOLAOU-KONNARI (A.), 2012, « Apologists or Critics? The Reign of Peter I of Lusignan (1359-1369) Viewed by Philippe de Mézières (1327-1405) and Leontios Makhairas (ca. 1360/80-after 1432) », dans R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski, K. Petkov (éd.), Philippe de Mézières and His Age: Piety and Politics in the Fourteenth Century, Leiden et Boston, p. 359-401.

NICOLAOU-KONNARI (A.), 2013, « La ‘France de Chypre’ de Louis de Mas Latrie », CCEC 43, p. 505-521.

NICOLAOU-KONNARI (A.), 2015, « Leontios Makhairas’s Greek Chronicle of the “Sweet Land of Cyprus”: History of Manuscripts and Intellectual Links », The Medieval Chronicle 10, p. 163-203.

NIELEN (M.-A.), 2000, « La succession de Champagne dans les chartes du royaume de Chypre », dans G. Brunel (éd.), La présence latine en Orient, Paris, p. 77-94.

PARDESSUS (J.-M.), 1843, Lois saliques, ou Recueil contenant les anciennes rédactions de cette loi et le texte connu sous le nom de « lex emendata », Paris.

PARDESSUS (J.-M.), 1845, Collection de lois maritimes antérieures au XVIII

e siècle, Paris.

PEYRON (B.), 1904, Codices Italici manu exarati qui in Bibliotheca Taurinensis Athenaei ante diem XXVI Januari MCMIV asservabantur, Turin.

PICOT (G.), 1907, « Notice historique sur la vie et les travaux de M. Théophile Roussel », Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques 25, p. 131-170.

42 CCEC 47, 2017

REINHARD (J. P.), 1766, Vollständige Geschichte des Königreichs Cypern, Erlangen et Leipzig, 2 vol.

REY (E.-G.), 1869, Les familles d’Outre-Mer de Du Cange, Paris.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1842, « Coup d’œil sur l’enseignement médical en Italie », Revue médicale française et étrangère 3, p. 397-413.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1845, De la pellagre : de son origine, de ses progrès, de son existence en France, de ses causes, et de son traitement curatif et préservatif, Paris.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1855, « Notice historique sur le collège de St-Matthieu ou le collège des douze médecins du Gévaudan, fondé à Montpellier par le pape Urbain V », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 6, p. 68-82.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1857, « De la cathédrale de Mende et du pape Urbain V », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 15-27, 516-542.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858a, « De la mémoire du pape Urbain V et de la ville de Montpellier », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 22.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858b, « Le pape Urbain V et Pétrarque », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 71-95.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858c, « Le pape Urbain V et St-Germain d’Auxerre"#$"Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 469-502.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858d, « Le pape Urbain V, ce qu’il a fait pour la ville de Rome, pour l’État ecclésiastique et pour l’Italie », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 311-336.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858e, « Hymne en l’honneur du pape Urbain V », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 120-124.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1858f, « Urbain V et Toulouse. Translation dans cette ville des reliques de Saint-Thomas d’Aquin », Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, industrie, science et arts du département de la Lozère 9, p. 374-383.

ROUSSEL (Th.), 1866, Traité de la pellagre et des pseudo-pellagres, Paris.

ROZIÈRE (E. de), 1847, Numismatique des rois latins de Chypre, 1192-1489, Paris.

SCHABEL (Chr.), 2012, « A Knight’s Tae. Giovan Francesco Loredano’s Fantastic Historie de’ Re Lusignani" #, dans B. Arbel, E. Chayes, H. Hendrix"E54!F$ Cyprus and the Renaissance (1450-1650), Turnhout, p. 357-390.

STYLIANOU (A. et J. A.), 1980, The History of the Cartography of Cyprus, Nicosie.

THIRIET (F.), 1954, &"Les chroniques vénitiennes de la Marcienne et leur importance pour l’histoire de la Romanie Gréco-vénitienne"#, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’Ecole Française de Rome 66, p. 241-292.

ULUHOGIAN (G.), 2006, « Un armeno al servizio del re di Sardegna : premesse per una ricerca sul barone Deodato Papasian », Bazmavep 164, p. 494-514.

WALLON (H.), 1898," &" G0;.-(" 719" )+" 2.(" (;")(7" ;9+2+1H" 4(" I!" J1KL,(" 4(" @0M.L9(" #$"Bibliothèque de l’!cole des Chartes 59, p. 758-777.

ZORZI (M.), 2009, « Manuscripts Concerning Cyprus in the Library of Saint Mark and Other Venetian Libraries », dans A. Nicolaou-Konnari (éd.), La Serenissima and La Nobilissima. Venice in Cyprus and Cyprus in Venice, Nicosie, p. 243-263.


I. LUIGI PALMA DI CESNOLA,

CYPRUS AND THE OTTOMAN CONNECTION

Robert S. MERRILLEES

Résumé. Le musée archéologique d’Istanbul en Turquie détient une collection importante d’antiquités chypriotes qui proviennent pour la plupart d’un don involontaire en 1874 de Luigi Palma di Cesnola, consul américain à Larnaca (Chypre). À cette époque-là l’île faisait partie de l’Empire ottoman, et même si les responsables turcs ne s’intéressaient pas au passé chypriote, certains voulaient faire respecter les lois en vigueur portant sur les antiquités. Ainsi, le musée impérial de Constantinople a acquis également en 1874 une statue de Bès amathousien, la plus grande jamais mise au jour à Chypre. Cependant, pour des raisons liées au snobisme occidental et à l’indifférence orientale, la collection chypriote tout entière reste peu connue et peu étudiée depuis son arrivée à Constantinople et, même de nos jours, elle attend un catalogue raisonné définitif. Cette étude circonstanciée, se basant sur des sources publiquement accessibles, retrace la trajectoire peu chanceuse de ces vestiges intrigants de l’antiquité chypriote à Istanbul, dont beaucoup sont exposés actuellement dans une galerie du musée consacrée aux civilisations limitrophes de la Turquie.

Introduction

The Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, has a large and fine but surprisingly little known collection of Cypriote antiquities. Most were acquired in 1874 from Luigi Palma di Cesnola 1 who donated them to curry favour with the Ottoman authorities for permission to continue the large-scale excavations that he had conducted in Cyprus since the later 1860s and for which he is justifiably infamous. This, however, is not the entire story of the Cypriote holdings in Istanbul which reflect not only the history of archaeology on the island in late Ottoman times but the development of the Imperial Museum under a succession of enlightened if unqualified directors. It has, for a variety of reasons, never been recounted before, and these are explored in the following survey. This account sets out to trace the origins, handling and present state of all the Cypriote material but makes no attempt to catalogue or further describe the objects concerned. It is based entirely on published and publicly accessible sources of information and cannot therefore be

1. !"#$%&''()$*+,-.$/#$0010-#

CYPRIOTE ANTIQUITIES

IN LATE OTTOMAN ISTANBUL AND SMYRNA

44 CCEC 47, 2017

considered the last word on the subject. It is essentially intended to serve as a guide and hopefully inspiration for future researchers to finish the job. Given the numbers, varieties and dispositions involved, the magnitude of the task should not be underestimated.

The narrative is arranged as far as possible in chronological order of historical developments but a certain overlap and duplication of information and references is inevitable, especially as there has been a tendency in the past to mention and reproduce the same items in the various works which have been cited, but not always to quote the earlier literature. It is accompanied by an index with page references to the Istanbul Archaeological Museum inventory numbers referred to in the text. This project has involved visits to the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul; research in the libraries of the American Research Institute in Turkey and British Institute at Ankara, and the library and photographic archives of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul; extensive searches of the Internet for bibliographical and biographical data; and invaluable help from Dr Thomas Kiely, A.G. Leventis Curator of Ancient Cyprus in the Department of Greece and Rome, The British Museum, in obtaining copies of documents in the British Museum and National Archives, Kew. A number of the key works cited in this study are only to be found in Turkey, and others are not even in the British Library, London, the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, or the Library of Congress, Washington. All of those who have contributed to the completion of this undertaking but are not mentioned in the text are duly recorded in the Acknowledgements.

Historiographical background

It is remarkable how many countries in the world have antiquities from Cyprus in their museums and private ownership. Apart from the island itself, of course, they are most numerous in Europe and North America, but are also to be found in the Far East and Australasia. This widespread distribution of ancient manufactures, chiefly glass, pottery and sculpture, from an island on the edge of Europe, which shared the cultural stage with major Old World players like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece and Rome, says as much about modern tastes and perceptions as about Cypriote antiquity. From the 19th century onwards Cyprus has been embedded in the common notion of what it is to be European, and whatever scholarship has had to say about the range of sources and influences manifest in the island’s remains from the past, the popular view places Cyprus firmly in the Occidental rather than Oriental camp. This orientation, fostered by Philhellenism, has over the past two hundred years been reinforced in Westerners’ mentality by the island’s association with the legendary birthplace of Aphrodite, Saint Paul and Sergius Paulus, Frankish rule in the Mediaeval period, and Othello’s Tower in Famagusta, all imbued with the mythological and symbolic significance that permeates Europe’s outlook and motivates its conduct. Far-flung Western countries, like Australia, have seen nothing strange in putting much academic effort into exploring Cyprus’ past, and even the Japanese, with their millennial civilisation, have felt the need to demonstrate their Western credentials by acquiring, inter alia, objets d’art from Cyprus, which I personally once saw in Tokyo.

R.S. MERRILEES, I. CESNOLA, THE OTTOMAN CONNEXION 45

The fact that large quantities of presentable antiquities, not prone to forgery because of their sheer volume and ideosyncrasy, have been yielded by Cypriote soil and allowed to go overseas, by fair means or foul, up till the 1960s, has only enhanced their international appeal. Sales of “duplicates” by the Cyprus Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art before the Second World War and the auction sales of private collections from the 19th century A.D. onwards, especially in Britain and France, have ensured the continuous recycling of ancient Cypriote artefacts and their re-appearance on the market. In more recent times any shortfall in the “legitimate” stock has been made up for by looted antiquities, despite the best efforts of the Cypriote authorities to halt this illegal trade. This combination of factors has given remains of the island’s past a disproportionate representation in the world’s assemblages of Old World fine arts but at the same time generated much scholarly interest in the island’s archaeology, evinced lately by issue No. 42 of the Cahier du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 2012, devoted to “Chypre et l’Europe”, and the two lavish volumes on the Cypriote antiquities in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, produced with singular purposefulness in 2014 by Ludmila Akimova and her collaborators.2 Other noteworthy collections have not, however, for one reason or another, received the academic attention they deserve. One such is to be found in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums in Turkey. Given the time at which it was put together, over a century ago when the island was still under direct Ottoman control, this is all the more surprising and invites detailed consideration.

It is symptomatic of the state of archaeological research in the Eastern Mediterranean that Cyprus rarely appears in historiographies of antiquarian pursuits during Ottoman times (Fig. 1), never mind other historical studies of the period.3 Illustrative of this phenomenon is the lack of a chapter on Cyprus, indeed almost any mention of the island, in the otherwise substantial and learned volume devoted to a Scramble for the Past. A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914.4 It is also manifest in the enlightening and beautifully produced catalogue of an exhibition on “1001 Faces of

where a well known engraving is reproduced from Luigi Mayer’s Views in the Ottoman Empire, Chiefly in Caramania, a Part of Asia Minor hitherto unexplored; with some Curious Selections from the Islands of Rhodes and Cyprus, and the Celebrated Cities of Corinth, Carthage, and Tripoli…. (London 1803).5 Judging by the caption to the plate, an abbreviation of the title of Mayer’s album, the reader could be forgiven for thinking,

2. Akimova et al. 2014.

3. There are, for example, only three passing references to Cyprus in Dorothe Sommer’s book on

Levant (Sommer 2015, p. 44, 70, 189).

4. Bahrani et al. 2011. Cyprus is not even in the index (p. 511); cf. Gates 2014, p. 163.

46 CCEC 47, 2017

unless he or she looked closely at the caption on the original, that the scene depicted came from southern Anatolia. In fact it illustrates the enormous limestone vase of the 7th to 5th century B.C. in its original location on the acropolis of ancient Amathus, on the south coast of Cyprus, before it was carted off to France in 1865, legally it is said, and installed in a room in the Louvre, Paris (AO 22897)6, where it has remained to this day on public view.

While it may be tempting to assume that this neglect has something to do with contemporary political factors, this overlooks the longstanding sentiment in Western as well as Turkish academic circles that Cypriote culture is at best peripheral, at worst provincial or derivative, and therefore unable to shed much if any worthwhile light on the development of civilisation in the region and the modern history of its recovery and reconstruction.7

Typical of this mentality is the cutting remark by Georges Perrot,8 quoted and endorsed by Salomon Reinach in 1885, that “la sculpture cypriote n’est pas originale, et pourtant, à première vue, elle donne l’illusion d’originalité”,9 and the view attributed to Charles

6. Hellman, Tytgat 1984, p. 102; Hermary 1989, p. 444-445 no. 918; Severis, Bonato 1999, pl. 47 p. 103, 131-135, 267-269 Ills. 114-116; Aupert 2000, p. 14 Fig. 4, p. 15; Bonato 2002, p. 66-68,

7. Cf. Luke 1969, p. 2-3; Karageorghis 2004, p. 10; Rappas 2013; Karageorghis in Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 9.

8. Cf. Canpolat 2001, p. 41.

9. Reinach 1885a, p. 12.

Figure 1. Ottoman map of Cyprus by Piri Reis. Early 16th century A.D.


Dugas in the 1950s that ancient Cypriote pottery was “provinciale et laide”.10 While specialists in the antiquity of Cyprus, and at least some scholars from other regional disciplines, have since abandoned these outmoded concepts which were fashioned by academic attachment to Classical Greece and the imperial mindsets of the 19th and 20th centuries A.D., they linger on in works about major civilisations around the Levant and are buttressed by nationalist sentiments which assert the superiority of one ancient as well as modern culture over another.11 It should therefore come as no surprise that Cyprus receives short shrift in Nicole Chevalier’s survey of French archaeological research in the Near East from 1842 to 1947, despite the significant role its antiquities played in the development of the Imperial Ottoman Museum, to which French and francophone scholars made substantial contributions.12

While undoubtedly of lesser importance in terms of the impact it had on its neighbours in antiquity, and of the way its archaeological remains were treated during the last period of Ottoman rule into the early years of the British administration from 1878 to 1914, when the island was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus still has much to contribute to an appreciation of the role of foreigners and the Sublime Porte in revealing and exploiting the island’s past as well as interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean throughout history. Indicatively enough, Osman Hamdi Bey, who succeeded Dethier as the first Turkish Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum from 1881 to 1910 (Fig. 2), never once, so far as we know, set foot in Cyprus,13 though he travelled and explored in other parts of the Ottoman Empire and region outside Anatolia.14 The closest he got to Cyprus was the studio photograph of three people from “Chypre” in the second part of the sumptuous volume he co-authored with Marie de Launay on Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873. Ouvrage publié sous le patronage de la Commission Impériale Ottomane pour l’Exposition universelle de Vienne, Constantinople, 1873 (Pl. 15 At least he commissioned Georges Nicole in 1904 to compile a catalogue of the Cypriote pottery in the Museum16. Hamdi Bey himself, however, wrote nothing significant about the island – he did not even contribute a preface or introduction to Nicole’s booklet – nor is he quoted as having expressed any opinions at all about the island, present or past17.

10. Karageorghis 2015, p. 25; cf. Karageorghis 2014, p. 20.Karageorghis 2015, p. 25; cf. Karageorghis 2014, p. 20.

11. Cf. Eldem 2013, p. 32-34.Cf. Eldem 2013, p. 32-34.

12. Chevalier 2002; see below.

13. Cf. Eldem 2004.

14. Eldem 2010a, 2010b, 2011a.

15. Eldem 2004, p. 128-129; Eldem 2010a, p. 63-66; Eldem 2013, p. 41-42; Ersoy 2013, p. 16-17; Chypre” is not amongst

16. See below.

17. Cf. Caillard 1900, p. 150.

48 CCEC 47, 2017

For the Ottomans in the 19th century A.D., Cyprus was a backwater of little value or consequence for the Empire. As part neither of the “Occident ‘civilisé’ ” – nor the “Orient ‘sauvage’ – les provinces surtout arabes”,18 Cyprus fell down a crack in popular perceptions, and once it had been handed over to the British in 1878 to administer, it ceased to be of any real interest to them except for the notorious “tribute”.19 Nevertheless Hamdi Bey was sufficiently concerned to remonstrate with the British Government in 1892 over the continued export of antiquities from Cyprus, getting the Embassy in Constantinople to send a copy of the 1884 regulations to the Island Administration.20 Officially Sir Walter Sendall, High Commissioner in Cyprus at the time, represented to the Colonial Office in London the argument that “the Turkish Law forbidding the export of antiquities was passed subsequently to the [British] Occupation and did not apply to Cyprus”.21 Sendall was here referring to the antiquities law enacted in 1884 by the Sublime Porte at Hamdi Bey’s instigation, strictly prohibiting archaeological finds from leaving Ottoman territory.22 Subsequently, and privately, Sendall, in a wonderfully imperial and condescending manner, explained to Mr Murray of the British Museum in a letter on 14 August 1893 that “We have lately received more than one communication from Constantinople on the subject of the exportation of antiquities from Cyprus, the tenour of which would seem to indicate some recent accession of sentiment on the part

18. Eldem 2010a, p. 66.

19. Cf. Georghallides 1979, p. 375-399; Markides 2014, passim, esp. p. 155-156.

20. Koçak 2011, p. 130.

21. Hill 1952, p. 609 n. 1.Hill 1952, p. 609 n. 1.

22. Eldem 2004, p. 131-139; Eldem 2010b, p. 27 n. 71.Eldem 2004, p. 131-139; Eldem 2010b, p. 27 n. 71.

Figure 2. Osman Hamdi Bey, Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum (1881-1910).


of the Ottoman Govt against their removal. I hope however that there is nothing in it that diplomacy cannot arrange, and that you will receive a favourable reply to your application from the Secretary of State”. Hamdi Bey hadn’t stood a chance of getting his way.

According to Hill, Lord Ripon, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, suggested that Hamdi Bey’s initiative was “an attempt of the Turkish Government to interfere in secular matters; previous instances of interference were confined to cases where Muhammadan religious interests were concerned, and H.M. Government was able to fall in with the views of the Turks”.23 In a draft minute dated 14 October 1892 from Edward Fairfield,

have had “no reason to believe that any considerable exportation of antiquities has recently taken place, and having regard to the fact that the most valuable of such objects had been removed by Mr.de Cesnola under the authority of a Firman before the British occupation, and that under the Convention of June 1878 and the agreement of August 1878, the right of administering and legislating for Cyprus free from the Porte’s control, has been made over to Great Britain, the action of the Turkish Government as now reported does not seem wholly free from liability to criticism; nor does Lord Ripon perceive that there is any strong obligation upon Her Majesty’s Government to comply with the request that has been made”. Fairfield himself entertained no doubts about the motives behind Hamdi Bey’s action. In an annotation dated 23 December 1892 on the last folio of the correspondence about the Ottoman démarche, he wrote : “I think this confirms my view that the Turks are making some crazy attempt at re-obtaining control of the administration [of Cyprus]”.24

Imperial Ottoman Museum: Cypriote collection

It should be emphasised at the beginning that not all the Cypriote antiquities in the Archaeological Museum derive from Cesnola25 and that some were acquired before as well as after his donation. Nevertheless it is safe to say that if Cesnola had not systematically plundered Cyprus’s past and been obliged to part with a substantial number of his ill-gotten gains, the collection of Cypriote antiquities in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums would have been minimal. Already, as early as 1848, the Sublime Porte was planning to establish a museum in the capital, and according to Austen Henry Layard, “orders have already been given to the Governors of the European, and some of the most western provinces of the Empire, to collect antiquities for a projected museum at Constantinople. The consequences have been that, as the Governors compel the inhabitants to excavate and transport objects of antiquity without remuneration, they (the inhabitants) destroy all remains that come within their reach to evade the forced labour. The work of destruction

23. Hill 1952, p. 609 n. 1.

24. I owe my knowledge of the archival documents about this episode to the kindness of Thomas Kiely.

25. See below.

50 CCEC 47, 2017

has already commenced”.26 Cyprus does not appear to have been affected by this edict. The earliest link recorded between the island and the Imperial collections, which were first formally constituted in 1845/1846, is due to the French artist and architect, Edmond Duthoit, who in April 1865 arrived in Constantinople, on his way to Cyprus, and was there commissioned by Halil Pasha, described as “le Gd Maître de l’artillerie”, to compile a report on all the cannons that could be found during his travels in the Dardanelles and Cyprus, with the view to developing the collection of ancient arms.27 On his return to Constantinople in August the same year, Duthoit wrote up his findings, submitted his report, which remains to be published, and travelled back to France before the end of the year. What action, if any, was taken on this report is unknown.

It would appear that some Cypriote antiquities had already entered the imperial collections by 1868 when Albert Dumont (1842-1884) published his catalogue, the Museum’s first, of the objets d’art in Hagia Eirene, as he mentions Cypriote terracotta heads though without illustrating them or specifying the basis of his attribution.28 There may well also have been some shown but not written up by Edward Goold, first Director of the Imperial Museum from 1869 to 1871,29 in his less than rigorous catalogue from 1871 of the archaeological material still in Hagia Eirene.30 Goold, about whom not much is known, had been employed as a school teacher at the Lycée de Galatasaray in Constantinople and was apparently not English or noble but Irish and Catholic.31

the text about the pottery and sculptures depicted make it impossible to tell from this source alone whether Cypriote artefacts were definitely represented : none is certainly identified as having come from the island. Of the activities of the second person in charge of the Museum, Mr Antonio Terenzio, who succeeded Goold in 1871, almost nothing is known. He was another foreigner, and painter, the son of the Agent-General of Austrian Lloyd at Constantinople, but not made Director as the post had been abolished on Goold’s departure. He lasted in this position only a year.32

27. Severis, Bonato 1999, p. 43; Bonato, Dondin-Payre 2017, p. 103, 110, 297, 330; cf. Eldem 2011, p. 314.

28. Dumont 1868, p. 24. He later wrote a treatise on Oriental terracottas, including a section on

p. iv; cf. Eldem 2014, p. 23-25), which is not included amongst the sources cited by St. Laurent, Taskömür 2013, p. 40 n. 19.

31. Eyice 1960, p. 103 n. 24; Chuvin 2007, p. 1094; Koçak 2011, p. 65. Chuvin’s claim that

32. Caillard 1900, p. 133 – not Ferinzio; Mendel 1912, p. xv-xvi; Duyuran 1956, p. viii; Koçak Caillard 1900, p. 133 – not Ferinzio; Mendel 1912, p. xv-xvi; Duyuran 1956, p. viii; Koçak 2011, p. 66, 73; Eldem 2012/2013, p. 154 n. 38; Eldem 2014, p. 23.


Thanks to Lucie Bonato’s assiduous research, we now know that some of the Ottoman Governors of Cyprus in the 1860s took an interest in the archaeological remains of the island.33 While a French observer in 1862 was not very complimentary about what he regarded as the mercenary approach of Mehmed Khairullah Pasha, the Governor of Cyprus from August/September 1860 to January/February or April 1862,34 to the island’s antiquities – “il pense que tout fragment sculpté est un trésor” – the latter’s successor, Abdulhamid Ziya Ed-din Pasha, whose short term was confined to early 1862,35 turned his hand to some idle excavation at Idalion, albeit unsuccessfully, “dans le louable désir de pouvoir doter de quelques antiquités le musée de Constantinople”.36 His successor, presumably Ali Tevfik Pasha, who ran the island from December 1862 to April or late 1863,37 was thought unattracted by antiquarian pursuits,38 but it is alleged that Ahmed

39

treasure.40 We also know, on the basis of Cesnola’s own testimony,41 that Kaiserli Pasha took away with him two cases of Cypriote antiquities, which could not afterwards be relocated.42 In this regards it is worth recalling that Savfet Pasha, the Ottoman Minister for Public Education, issued two directives in 1869 and 1870 to officials in different parts of the Empire (though Shaw does not list Cyprus amongst them) to acquire and send antiquities to Constantinople.43

Overlooked by all modern authorities is Dethier’s inimitable account of the

December 1873,44 and his interaction with Cesnola over the famous sarcophagus from Golgoi, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (74.51.2451).45 In Dethier’s own words, “Vaïssi pacha y a fait quelques fouilles, qui l’ont mené au sarcophage. Comme le couvercle seul, ayant aux quatre coins un lion accroupi, était intact, il l’enleva, laissant,

33. Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 212-213.

34. Luke 1969, p. 208-209; Bergia 1997, p. 642; Stavrides 2009, p. 362; Aymes 2010, p. 351.

35. Stavrides 2009, p. 362; Aymes 2010, p. 351.

36. Cf. Hill 1952, p. 228-236.

37. Bergia 1997, p. 642; Stavrides 2009, p. 362 ; Aymes 2010, p. 351.

38. Bonato and Emery 2010, p. 213.

39. See above.

40. Hill 1952, p. 248 n. 3; Luke 1969, p. 251.

41. See below.

42. See above.

43. Mendel 1912, p. xiii-xiv; Duyuran 1956, p. viii; Shaw 2003, p. 85-86; Koçak 2011, p. 66;

44. Hill 1952, p. 255-256; Bergia 1997, p. 643; Stavrides 2009, p. 362; Aymes 2010, p. 353.

45. Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 363-370 Cat. no. 491.

52 CCEC 47, 2017

comme sans importance, les nombreux débris du sarcophage même. M. de Cesnola, après avoir vu le couvercle, se rendit à Athiéno, se mit à ramasser tous ces débris, et les ayant, avec la patience qui caractérise le judicieux amateur, réunis et restaurés,46 il fit venir S. Exc. le gouverneur, et lui dit : ‘ De ce précieux monument une partie est en vos mains, une partie dans les miennes; il est de toute nécessité de ne pas séparer le sarcophage de son couvercle. Pour cela mettons-nous d’accord et faisons la convention que celui qui possède la partie la plus précieuse, aura aussi l’autre’. La convention fut acceptée; l’on alla voir le travail du général, et le pacha lui-même déclara que le couvercle revenait de droit à l’archéologue”. This account puts a different gloss on Myres’ statement that “the cover is perfect and has a gable roof, and a recumbent lion at each corner. The sarcophagus was found with its east side broken into many pieces by treasure-seekers [sic], and was put together afresh in New York about 1880”.47 Dethier ruefully remarked that “entre le pacha et le consul étranger c’était à qui ignorerait le plus l’existence d’une loi turque sur les antiques et le firman accordé. Et pourtant, si dans le monde il existe des monuments, dont la véritable place est dans un Musée ottoman oriental, à coup sûr, c’est celui-là”.48

Few Western writers during this period mention the Cypriote collection in the Imperial Museum. We know that Luigi Palma di Cesnola paid at least two visits to Constantinople in the course of his posting to Cyprus, on one of which at least he visited the Museum,49 and in addition Robert Hamilton Lang (1836-1913), Manager of the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Larnaca, British Consul and amateur archaeologist, who lived in Cyprus from 1861 to 1872 and was well acquainted with Cesnola,50 went to Constantinople on business, though he has left only passing references to his passage.51 On one occasion in that city he “disposed of” five hundred Hellenistic coins from a hoard discovered in 1870 near the Salt Lake in Larnaca.52 In 1875, in the course of a tour of the Levant, Charles Dudley Warner, an American writer, went to Larnaca, where he called on Cesnola, whose archaeological praises he sang,53 and to Constantinople, where he did some sightseeing. He has left us this graphic account of his visit to the Imperial Museum : “We went from the treasure-room [in the Seraglio] to the ancient and large Church of St. Irene, which is now the arsenal of the Seraglio, and become, one might say, a church militant.54 The

46. Cf. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 68.

47. Myres 1914, p. 227.

48. Dethier 1881a, p. 79.

49. Cesnola 1878, p. 58; see below.

50. Cf. Lang 1905, p. 636; Merrillees 2001, p. 227; Kiely 2010, p. 240; Cannavò 2012, p. 428; Merrillees 2014, p. 31-35.

51. Lang 1878, p. 305, 307; Lang 1905, p. 629.Lang 1878, p. 305, 307; Lang 1905, p. 629.

52. Lang 1878, p. 336-338.Lang 1878, p. 336-338.

53. Warner 1893, p. 338-356.

54. This sentiment was echoed by another American writer, Edwin Hodder, who wrote in 1882 that “the Church of St. Irene, founded by Constantine, is converted into an Armoury, in which are


nave and the aisles are stacked with arms, the walls, the holy apse, the pillars are cased in guns, swords, pistols, and armor, arranged in fanciful patterns, and with an ingenuity I have seen nowhere else. Here are preserved battle-flags and famous trophies, an armlet of Tamerlane, a sword of Scanderbeg, and other pieces of cold, pliant steel that have a reputation for many murders. There is no way so sure to universal celebrity as wholesale murder. Adjoining the arsenal is a Museum of Greek and Roman antiquities of the city, all in Turkish disorder; the Cyprus Collections, sent by General di Cesnola, are flung upon shelves or lie in heaps unarranged, and most of the cases containing them had not been opened”.55 In the illustrated edition of his travelogue he included a splendid illustration of the colossal Bes statue, evidently in its slot in the Tchinili Kiosk, identified as: “Statue of Hercules at Constantinople Museum, Exhumed at Cyprus by di Cesnola”56 [sic].

Despite her enthusiasm for collecting objets d’art, including Cypriote items, Mrs Brassey, the globe-trotting wife of a wealthy British Member of Parliament,57 does not seem to have extended her interest in antiquity to visiting the Imperial Museum during her two visits to Constantinople in 1874 and 1878, during the last of which she also circumnavigated Cyprus and became acquainted with the depredations of both Cesnola brothers.58 In 1879 A.H. Sayce (1845-1933), the distinguished British Orientalist,59 visited Constantinople and saw the Museum, of which he gave the following account: “Thanks to the kindness of Sir Henry Layard [British Ambassador to the Sublime Porte] and Dr. Déthier, the director of the museum, I have been allowed to examine the antiquities

the Church of St. Irene, in which they were formerly placed, to the Tchinili Kiosk, and, as the Turkish Government cannot afford to pay for assistants, a good many of them remain in the cases in which they were packed [...]. The objects already unpacked,60 however, include many of great interest, among them being the large collection of antiquities from Cyprus and Hissarlik. The large stone figure discovered by Gen. di Cesnola at Amathus [sic], where it had once served as a fountain, is most remarkable...” 61 Sayce had already made the acquaintance of Luigi Palma di Cesnola in London in 1877 or

cross where once stood the altar of the Christian Church!” (Hodder 1882, p. 34). He makes no mention of the Tchinili Kiosk.

55. Warner 1893, p. 421-422.

56. Warner 1893, between p. 348 and 349, List of Photogravures.

57. Taylor 2001.

58. Brassey 1880, p. 256, 280, 281-282; cf. Taylor 2001, p. 242.

59. Cf. Canpolat 2001, p. 146; Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 170; not in Gran-Aymerich 2001. 2001.2001.

60. According to Sayce, he was only able to examine « such antiquities as Dr. Dethier, the nomi-nal ‘ Director of the Museum ‘ and one of Layard’s servants could extract from the cases in which they were packed….” ( Sayce 1923, p. 163 ).

61. Sayce 1879, p. 214.

54 CCEC 47, 2017

1878,62 and visited Cyprus in 1887, where he spent two months touring the island, noting that “a Museum had now been established at Nikosia” and that “the government of the island was heavily handicapped by the want of funds; the tribute to the Porte was far in excess of what the island could afford...”.63 Though in his report on a subsequent visit to the Imperial Museum in Constantinople in 1905 Sayce did not specifically mention the Cypriote collection, he wrote in glowing terms of the welcome and co-operation he received from Hamdi Bey, and recorded that “everything was thrown open to me, and I was told that if I wished to make photographs, squeezes, or even casts of the monuments, I was at liberty to do so”.64

To Captain C.R. Conder (1848-1910), British soldier, explorer and antiquarian, we owe the following unadorned account of the Archaeological Museum, published in 1882: “I took advantage of my late stay in Constantinople to visit the Museum with a view to ascertaining what antiquities may be stored there which came from Syria. The director, Hamdi Bey, a distinguished artist, only lately appointed to the post, is actively employed in cataloguing and arranging the collection, which is far larger and more valuable than I had supposed. He received me with great courtesy, but was, unfortunately, not able to give much information, as he was as yet very little informed as to the contents of the Museum. His predecessor appears to have left everything in confusion. There is as yet no catalogue, and the objects are not marked, nor is it known in most cases where they were found. The coins are now being arranged and classed, but the statues, inscriptions, and bas reliefs are only very roughly divided out as Roman, Assyrian, and Egyptian. It appears that the pottery and many of the metallic articles have only been catalogued by weight – ‘ten pounds Cyprus pottery’, or ‘twenty tons bronze statues’, etc., etc., a method which perhaps is scarcely sufficient to mark the difference of value between the various objects. An attempt was however made a few years ago to classify the broken statues by placing all the legs in one case, the heads in a second, the arms in a third, etc., but this appears to have led to some uncertainty in the end as to the parts which together made up the original statue”.65

During the first two decades of Britain’s rule over Cyprus, Max Ohnefalsch-Richter (1850-1917),66 German journalist and amateur archaeologist turned antiquities dealer,67 who drove the Island Administration to distraction,68 had several links with Constantinople

62. Sayce 1923, p. 150.

63. Sayce 1923, p. 253.

64. Sayce 1905.

65. Conder 1882, p. 147.

66. Matthäus 2009, with references; Recke 2012, passim.

67. Renan made the following snide comment about him: “M. Ohnefalsch-Richer a fait de bonnes trouvailles ; mais il est un peu faiseur ; c’est un savant à la manière anglaise, visant beaucoup à la réclame…” (Briquel-Chatonnet, Fauveaud-Brassaud 2008, p. 221).

68. Merrillees 2000.


but seems to have made little use academically of the Cypriote collection in the Imperial Museum. For reasons not given he and Myres were unable in their catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, published in 1899, to “refer to the Museums either of Constantinople or of America”.69 In 1884 Ohnefalsch-Richter returned to Cyprus from a visit to Europe via Constantinople, where he had been in touch with Paul Schröder, dragoman in the German Embassy and philologist, three years beforehand.70 He was again in contact with the German Embassy there in 1887, this time with the Ambassador, Baron Joseph Maria von Radowitz, and planned another visit to Constantinople in 1894 on his way to Germany. In a letter written in 1895 Ohnefalsch-Richter spoke of residing in the city and trading with antiquities in the future,71 and in 1900 he actually moved to Constantinople where he ran an Austro-Hungarian flour mill,72 but had to leave the following year because of the illness of his wife, Magda. In his magnum opus, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, published in 1893, he included an illustration of the colossal statue of Bes from Amathus73 but took it from another publication, Perrot and Chipiez 1885,74 and made scant reference to other antiquities from Cyprus in the Imperial Museum.75 Whether he actually saw them for himself is another matter. There is no mention of the Bes statue in A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, which he co-authored with Myres,76 or of the Imperial Museum’s collection from Cyprus as a whole.77 Judging by their lack of interest in the Cypriote antiquities in Constantinople, archaeologists active in the island at this time appear to have consciously decided not to have anything to do with them. In this respect their indifference matched that of the Ottomans, and it must be assumed that behind this abstinence lay a sensitivity on both sides about the circumstances of the change in political regime on Cyprus.

Claude Delaval Cobham (1842-1915), the erudite District Commissioner of Larnaca from 1879 to 1908,78 was the author of a number of works on Cyprus, the Byzantine world and Islamic faith, including ‘Ilmu Hal : A Manual of the Doctrine and Practice of Islam, translated from the Turkish (Nicosia 1886, 1889 and 1902), “The Story of Umm

ám”, edited in the original Turkish and translated from a Turkish manuscript,79 and

69. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. ix.

70. Buchholz 1989, p. 8. I am grateful to Margit Krpata for supplying me with these details.

71. Cf. Krpata 1992, p. 338.Cf. Krpata 1992, p. 338.

72. Krpata 2003, p. 99.Krpata 2003, p. 99.

73. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. CIII, 4, p. 20 no. 44, p. 434.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. CIII, 4, p. 20 no. 44, p. 434.

75. E.g. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, p. 208 n. ***. E.g. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, p. 208 n. ***.

76. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 2-3.Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 2-3.

77. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 216-219.Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 216-219.

78. Cf. Merrillees 2005, p. 192-193; Pilides 2009, p. 85-87, 105.

79. The Royal Asiatic Society Journal 1897, p. 81-101.

56 CCEC 47, 2017

The Patriarchs of Constantinople (Cambridge 1911).80 He wrote nothing on matters archaeological. Cobham spoke Turkish and is recorded to have visited Constantinople at least once, in April/May 1880, during his tour of duty in the island, but there is no record that he ever visited the Imperial Museum.81 Nor, it must be added, was he particularly interested in antiquities as an academic or commercial pursuit, though he helped process them on behalf of others, for example, the Rev. Thomas William Jex-Blake (1832-1915), Headmaster of Rugby and Member of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, in 1884,82 83 He even for eleven years looked after the antiquities confiscated from Alessandro Palma di Cesnola in 1878,84 though in April 1883 he asked the Chief Secretary for permission to transfer to the custody of the “Island Museum” a part of this collection,85 and presented assorted Cypriote objects to the British Museum between 1880 and 1898.86

Edmond Françvisited Hamdi Bey in his “petit musée” in Constantinople, which he (About) found not yet very rich, and after enumerating the ancient monuments which the Western European countries had previously purloined, wrote in 1884 that “Aussi ne possède-t-il guère jusqu’à présent que des marbres de peu de prix, sarcophages, tombeaux, statues, bustes déterrés dans les îles et particulièrement à Chypre...” 87 On 17 February 1886 Osman Hamdi Bey showed the English couple, James Theodore Bent and his wife, Mabel, both inveterate travellers and explorers, around the Museum, where they saw “quantities of lovely things from Cyprus very much heaped together”.88 Theodore was much less complimentary about the Museum when he visited it two years later but made no mention of the Cypriote collection.89 The Bents never made it to Cyprus itself.90 Another Théodore, this time Théodore Reinach (1860-1928), French Hellenist, musicologist and politician, who was the brother of Salomon and as well a prolific author of learned works,91 went to Constantinople in the early 1890s and collaborated with Osman Hamdi Bey in the

80. Cobham 1908, p. 374-377; Jeffery 1929, p. 11.

81. State Archives, Cyprus, SA1 15628-15629.

82. State Archives, Cyprus, Secretariat Minutes 20797 (3123/1884).

83. Pilides 2009, p. 656; Merrillees forthcoming.

84. Given 2001, p. 256; see below.

85. State Archives, Cyprus, SA1/6552.

86. Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 169, 178, 182 n. 120; T. Kiely (ed.), Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum, Claude Delaval Cobham (Biographical details), accessed 21/03/2016; State Archives, Cyprus, Secretariat Minutes 20335 (2661/1884).

87. About 1884, p. 104-106.About 1884, p. 104-106.

88. Brisch 2006, p. 134. Brisch 2006, p. 134.

89. Brisch 2006, p. 230 n. 10.Brisch 2006, p. 230 n. 10.

90. Brisch 2006, p. 248.

91. Institut de France 1924, p. 272 ; Steve 2014.


publication of the latter’s finds at Sidon in the Lebanon.92 He also made a brief tour of Cyprus in April 1904 and wrote a short piece on a 3rd century A.D. inscription in Greek from Nicosia93 but is not known to have written anything about the Cypriote antiquities in Constantinople. According to Edwin Augustus Grosvenor (1845-1936), American historian, writer and teacher, who published a two volume work on Constantinople in 1895, “the Cypriote collection [in the ‘Museum of Antiquities’] rivals that in New York, and surpasses all others”.94

British born financier and President of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration from 1883 to 1898, wrote a highly complimentary article about the Imperial Ottoman Museum and Hamdi Bey, for whom he had a great admiration.95 He observed that “a whole room is given up to a very fine collection of Cypriot sculptures, pottery, and other objects of all periods...” 96 (Fig. 3). Charles Diehl also visited Cyprus, presumably after his trip to Constantinople, but devoted the sightseeing part his account, published in 1901, only to Famagusta.97

Though the collection of Cypriote antiquities in the Archaeological Museum has long been known to the academic community, it has not, for one reason or another, excited the interest or attention of archaeologists who have excavated and/or studied in both Cyprus and Turkey in the 20th century A.D. Leaving aside those who initiated the recording of the items in Constantinople and are discussed in detail in this paper, the first of the modern generation who worked, if only briefly, in both places was Friedrich Wilhelm Goethert (1907-1978), a German Classical archaeologist attached to the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Istanbul in the 1930s. Goethert started a catalogue of the Cypriote sculpture in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul and undertook a familiarisation visit to Cyprus in 1933/1934, in the course of which he made and published notes on the Pierides collection in Larnaca.98 It is presumably the photographs of the Cypriote sculpture taken by or for him that are now housed in the Fototek of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul.99

on various occasions in Cyprus in the 1930s and 1950s, visited Istanbul several times but had nothing to say about the Cypriote antiquities in the Istanbul Museum, where she took notes in 1936-1937 on the Syro-Hittite sculpture.100 Erik Sjöqvist, veteran of the

92. Cf. Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 302; Chevalier 2002, p. 110; Chuvin 2007, p. 1092 ; Steve 2014, p. 31; Eldem 2014a, p. 256-257, 260-261.

93. T. Reinach 1904.T. Reinach 1904.

94. Grosvenor 1895, p. 778; cf. Çelik 2016, p. 70-71Grosvenor 1895, p. 778; cf. Çelik 2016, p. 70-71.

95. Caillard 1900, passim.

96. Caillard 1900, p. 148.

97. Diehl 1901, p. 226-250; Bonato 2012, p. 77-78; see above.

98. Goethert 1934, cols. 106-118; see below.

99. See below.

100. Seton-Williams 1988, p. 58; cf. Merrillees 2013.

58 CCEC 47, 2017

Swedish Cyprus Expedition and author of Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, visited the Istanbul Archaeological Museums before 1940, when his thesis was published, but recorded seeing only two unpublished Monochrome sherds from Boghazköy in the “Oriental Museum”.101 Åström failed to realise that the source of Dikaios’ “unverified statement” about these occurrences must have been Sjöqvist himself.102

Also in the 1930s J.R. Stewart took part in excavations in Turkey and Cyprus, the latter of which he made his lifetime specialisation,103 and though he retained his interest in Anatolian archaeology, which was responsible for bringing him to Cyprus, he did not draw at first hand on the collection in Istanbul for his Corpus of Early Cypriote Artefacts.104 He did, however, visit the Museum in 1936 as he recorded three Yortan Culture askoi there in his notebook,105 and was aware of the Cypriote collection though there is no indication he studied it at that time.106 Nor have I uncovered any evidence of J.B. Hennessy, who followed in Stewart’s footsteps in the early 1950s, ever having visited the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul or even mentioning the Cypriote antiquities housed in it. Ian Todd, who conducted extensive archaeological research in Turkey between 1964 and 1969 and subsequently in Cyprus, has also published nothing on the Istanbul collection. To

101. Sjöqvist 1940, p. 77, 167.

102. Åström 1972a, p. 718; cf. Todd 2001, p. 210.

103. Merrillees 1984.

104. Stewart 1962; Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology

105. Stewart, Åström 1992, p. 52.

106. See below.

Figure 3. Cypriote and Classical sculptures in the Imperial Ottoman Museum, c. 1900 A.D.


him, however, we owe a valuable survey of the finds of Cypriote Bronze Age pottery in Anatolia,107 since supplemented and brought up to date by Ekin Kozal in a number of equally important studies,108 notably reports on the evidence for Cypriote ceramic imports in the Late Bronze Age, including Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, for which she claims, not without reason, an Anatolian origin.109 Kathryn Eriksson’s survey of Late Cypriote pottery in Anatolia and the Amuq, though published in 2007, took no account of Kozal’s works and was not in any case based on a first-hand acquaintance with the material in Turkey.110 Most recently Bleda Düring, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology

of his archaeological career, began in 2015 excavating the Chalcolithic site of Chlorakas Palloures in Cyprus.

Greek Cypriote archaeologists have been sparing in their references to the Cypriote collection in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum,111 which is conspicuous by its absence

in foreign museums,112 though it has more recently been included in his contribution on this topic to the Kyprios Character Website.113 His predecessor as Director of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, Porphyrios Dikaios, actually took part in the 22nd Congress of Orientalists in Istanbul from 15 to 22 September 1951, where he gave a paper on “Early Connections of Cyprus with Anatolia”, which was subsequently published in the proceedings114. It has since been airbrushed out of his own and everyone else’s bibliographies.115 Karageorghis himself attended the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology in Ankara and Izmir in 1973,116 and his paper on “The Relations between the Tomb Architecture of Anatolia and Cyprus in the Archaic Period” was published in its Proceedings.117 He describes this occasion in some detail in his memoirs.118

107. Todd 2001.108. Academia.edu/ekinkozal. Accessed 21/12/2015.

109. Kozal 2003, 2015, 2016, p. 55-57..

110. Eriksson 2007, p. 165-169.

112. Karageorghis 1998a; 2004; 2007, p. 183-188, 193. He did once try to include the Cypriote

antiquities in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum in his plans.

113. “Collections of Cypriote Antiquities in Foreign Museums” no. 19. The Archaeological Museums of Istanbul, in http://kyprioscharacter.eie.gr, published 07/06/2015, accessed 23/03/2016.

114. Dikaios 1957

115. E.g. Studies Presented in Memory of Porphyrios Dikaios (Nicosia 1979), p. 216-218.

116. Akurgal 1978, p. xx.Akurgal 1978, p. xx.

117. Karageorghis 1978.Karageorghis 1978.

118. Karageorghis 2007, p. 107-108.Karageorghis 2007, p. 107-108.

60 CCEC 47, 2017

In addition, individual archaeologists specialising in Cyprus have independently informed themselves about the Cypriote antiquities in Istanbul without going into the background, and none, to the best of my knowledge, has had access to the Museum’s archives. Most details about the antiquities seem to have been derived from previous publications and/or visits to the Archaeological Museum, including more recently the Cypriote gallery, where researchers made notes and took photographs. While Åström was informed by letter in 1961 about the Museum’s holdings of glass objects from Cyprus,119

the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul” to her enquiry about Cypriote Iron Age jugs with figurines holding an oinochoé.120 Cecilia Beer’s experience of making notes from peering through the glass case at the temple boys in the Cypriote gallery may be considered typical.121 In the following survey of the objects which have been published, all have original Imperial Ottoman Museum inventory numbers or were demonstrably acquired before 1974, the centenary of Cesnola’s donation.

To help follow the ensuing discussion, it should be noted that the nucleus of the

Müzeleri) was originally stored in the former Byzantine church of Hagia Eirene (Aya , Saint Irene, Sainte-Irène

Palace grounds. This building entered into use as a repository for national assemblages of antiquities and arms in 1845/1846122 and became the Imperial (Ottoman) Museum (Müze-i Hümâyûn) in 1869.123 It was here that the cases containing the Cesnola collection of Cypriote antiquities were initially deposited on their arrival in Constantinople in 1874.124 In 1875 the Tchinili Kiosk (Tiled Pavilion, Pavillon aux céramiques, Palais des faïences, Pavillon émaillé, le Kiosque aux Faïences, Kiosque Chinois [!]),125 which was built in 1472,126 was turned into a museum to which the accumulated objets d’art and artefacts in Hagia Eirene, but not

119. Åström 1965, p. 135.

121. See below.

122. Mendel 1912, p. xii; Duyuran 1956, p. vii; Du Crest 2002, p. 128; Shaw 2003, p. 72-73;

2014, p. 19; Çelik 2016, p. 116. All the alternative dates cited by Chevalier are erroneous (Chevalier 2002, p. 19 n. 19).

2011, p. 320.

124. Dethier 1881b, p. 1-2.Dethier 1881b, p. 1-2.

125. Metzger 1990, p. 9; cf. Chuvin 2007, p. 1095 n. 8.Metzger 1990, p. 9; cf. Chuvin 2007, p. 1095 n. 8.

126. Reinach says 1466 A.D. (Reinach 1882, p. 6).Reinach says 1466 A.D. (Reinach 1882, p. 6).


the arms, were progressively transferred.127 It was opened to the public in 1880 as the Imperial Museum128 but Bent records that inscriptions and other “objects of interest” were still stored in the vaults of Hagia Eirene in 1888, though he makes no mention of the Cypriote material.129 This repository was later supplemented by the first purpose-built accommodation, the Archaeological Museum, which was opened in 1891 with extensions made in 1902/1903 and 1907/1908 and in 1991.130

Though Nicole states that the Cypriote sculptures, terracottas and pottery were still in the Tchinili Kiosk in 1904,131 Michel-Charles Diehl (1859-1944), French historian of the Byzantine period,132 published in 1901 an account of his travels in the eastern Mediterranean, in which he said that the antiquities from Cyprus were in the Archaeological Museum, though he presumably meant by this the Tchinili Kiosk.133 They had evidently been moved to the new Archaeological Museum by 1909, when Halil Edhem Bey published a photograph of the interior of the building with the “Galerie für Kypern”,134 and in 1910 French Byzantinist, Jean Ebersolt (1879-1933), visited the museums where he observed that most of the antiquities still stored in Hagia Eirene had been transferred to the new Museum, though he made no explicit mention of the Cypriote collection.135 In 1928 Reshid records “pottery and statues found in Cyprus, and belonging to the archaic art”136 in Room No. 18 of the Archaeological Museum, though M. Djemal Bey makes no mention of them in his guidebook published in the same year,137 but by 1951 they certainly had disappeared from public view.138 The Tchinili Kiosk itself was restored in 1953 and in 1981 became the Tiled Kiosk Museum exhibiting Turkish tiles

127. Cf. Schroeder 1878, p. 134 n. 1; Sayce 1879, p. 214; Budge 1920, p. 344-353; Duyuran

attributed by Wallis Budge in 1906 to the British Consul in Constantinople, W.H. Wrench, contains a number of minor inaccuracies but was evidently based on Hamdi Bey’s own testimony. Budge supplemented this background with his personal observations, though he does not mention the Cypriote antiquities.

128. Eyice 1960, p. 98; Shaw 2003, p. 92; Shaw 2011, p. 430; Pasinli 2012, p. 175. According Eyice 1960, p. 98; Shaw 2003, p. 92; Shaw 2011, p. 430; Pasinli 2012, p. 175. According to the Direction of the Imperial Museum it was opened again to the public in March 1882 (Reinach 1882, p. 5).

129. Bent 1888, p. 731.

www.kultur.gov.tr –accessed on 07/02/2017; tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_Hamdi_Bey – accessed on 07/02/2017

131. Nicole 1906, p. 5 ; cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.Nicole 1906, p. 5 ; cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.

132. Institut de France 1924, p. 204.Institut de France 1924, p. 204.

133. Diehl 1901, p. 218; see below.Diehl 1901, p. 218; see below.

135. Ebersolt 1911, p. 1-4, 9 n. 1.Ebersolt 1911, p. 1-4, 9 n. 1.

136. Reshid 1928, p. 46; cf. Baedeker 1934 , p. 532; Devambez 1937b.Reshid 1928, p. 46; cf. Baedeker 1934 , p. 532; Devambez 1937b.

137. Djemal 1928.

et al. 1951, p. 192-198.

62 CCEC 47, 2017

and ceramics.139 The third building in the museum compound was constructed in 1883 for the School of Fine Arts, under the auspices of Osman Hamdi Bey, but when the Academy, as it became, moved in 1917 to another location, the vacated premises were used to house the Anatolian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian artefacts.140 It was reopened in 2001 as the Museum of the Ancient Orient.141 The main building in the complex is designated the

are collectively administered under the heading, Istanbul Archaeological Museums.142 For ease of reference, the terms Hagia Eirene, Tchinili Kiosk and the (Istanbul) Archaeological Museum will be used, as appropriate, in this study.

Colossal statue of “Bes” from Amathus

One of the earliest, and certainly the biggest of the objects acquired by the Imperial Museum before Cesnola’s donation, is the monumental limestone statue attributed conventionally to Bes (Inv. No. 3317)143 and dated by Hermary to the second half of the 4th century B.C. or beginning of the 3rd, 144 though it has been placed by other specialists both earlier and later (Fig. 4).145 It stands approximately 4 metres high146 and is the largest antiquity ever yielded by Cypriote soil. It arrived in Constantinople in the week beginning 16 February 1874 147 and was first placed publicly on show in the courtyard of the Seraglio in front of the entrance to Hagia Eirene.148 Salomon Reinach stated that it was found “à Amathus en 1873, acquise d’abord par M. de Cesnola, puis confisquée par le Gouvernement ottoman”.149 It was this remark that provoked Cesnola’s ire, for he claimed in his letter of 26 November 1882 to Reinach that he never acquired, in fact could

139. Pasinli 2012, p. 175#140. Pasinli 2012, p. 192.

143. Westholm 1939, with references; La Turquie Kemaliste no. 43, June 1941, p. 49 [sic]; Dolunay 1973, p. 4; Wilson 1975, p. 103 no. 16, with references; Masson 1983, p. 22, 202 n. 1;

Hermary 2007, with references; Parlasca 2009; see Appendix 1.

144. Hermary 2007, p. 88.

despite Westholm’s own, earlier study (1939).

146. Reinach 1882, p. 48 no. 372. Perrot and Chipiez put its height at 4.20 metres (Perrot, Chipiez

measurements generally very reliable.

147. Dethier 1874, p. 3; cf. Eldem 2014, p. 44 No. 17.

148. Dethier 1874, p. 27.Dethier 1874, p. 27.

149. Reinach 1882, p. 48-50 no. 372.Reinach 1882, p. 48-50 no. 372.


not have acquired this sculpture as he was away from Cyprus when it was discovered.150 However in an article dated 27 February 1874 Dethier, Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum at the time, referred to newspapers quoting a letter from Cesnola, according to whom the statue was found in a sown and cultivated field, at a depth of several feet underground, “près de la ville phénicienne d’Amathous”.151 On 14 June 1875 Cesnola wrote to Birch in the British Museum that he had turned up a sarcophagus at Amathus (Metropolitan Museum of Art Inv. no. 74.51.2453), in the north necropolis,152 “a few hundred yards from the spot, where the Colossal statue of Hercules (?) was discovered two years ago, and which is now in the Ottoman Museum”.153

According to Sorlin-Dorigny,154 the statue was accidentally brought to light in 1873 by a farmer working his field near Amathus. As soon as the news reached Larnaca, several consuls went to the spot to acquire the monument but during the talks the Turkish governor took possession of it and sent it to Constantinople where it decorated the entrance to the Museum in the Tchinili Kiosk.155 This version was further amplified by Dethier in a notice published posthumously in 1881.156 There he wrote that while all the Consuls headed for the site of the discovery, Cesnola was the more astute and found a way to make himself the owner by making a false contract with the owner, according to which the land had been sold to him (Cesnola) three years beforehand. The Ottoman government did not recognise this false act and according to the law of the land seized the antiquity which had been found under the ground and hidden from the authorities. A further gloss on this episode was provided by Georges Colonna-Ceccaldi (1840-1879), attaché at the French Consulate General in Beirut from 1866 to 1871 and a contemporary as well as a colleague of Luigi Palma di Cesnola,157 who claimed that the statue had been stolen by the Ottoman government from Cesnola! 158 Dethier, in a considered and rational way, rebutted Colonna-Ceccaldi’s accusation, arguing that Cesnola had behaved fraudulently over its

and returned to Larnaca in November 1873 (McFadden 1971, p. 129; Masson 1989, p. 86; Masson 1992, p. 133 n. 50; Masson 1996a, p. 3 n. 6; Marangou 2000, p. 229, 241 – according to her, the family reached Cyprus on 30 September 1873).

151. Dethier 1874, p. 3.

2014, p. 353-363 no. 490.

153. Masson 1989, p. 86.

154. Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 325.Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 325.

et alp. 44 no. 17; Pasinli 2001, p. 16, bottom photo; cf. Masson 1983, p. 335 n. 1.

156. Dethier 1881a, p. 40.

157. Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, p. 3-6, 286, 288; Masson 1992, p. 135; Merrillees 2001, p. 227-228; Cannavò 2012, p. 429.

158. Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, p. 137.

64 CCEC 47, 2017

acquisition, and that in principle no foreign national had a right to claim ownership of any of the antiquities from Cyprus or elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.159

There is no hint of this contretemps in McFadden’s account of the discovery, as follows: “While Cesnola had been in London and New York, some of his diggers had found in Amathus a fragment of a colossal Assyrian-style statue of a ‘Phoenician Hercules’ holding a headless lion by one of its hind legs. Cesnola told Johnston that the British consul contended for it with the Turks but lost out. It wound up in the Imperial Ottoman Museum of St. Frene [sic], ‘a dirty, small magazine of antiquities, without any order or classification’. The implication in his report was easy to read: if he had been there, the statue would have been his”.160 Marangou states, without quoting her source, that “during his [Cesnola’s] absence in London and New York, his workers had discovered, during a dig at Amathus, the statue of Hercules (Bes) which ended up in the hands of the British Consul and made its way later on to Constantinople.” 161 Hellman and Tytgat have overlooked nearly all the foregoing accounts in their survey of excavations at Amathus but sought to pinpoint the statue’s findspot, now confidently placed in the agora.162 Intriguingly Masson has remarked that: “C’est lui qui est mentionné dans une brève notice d’Ernst Curtius, relative au célèbre Bès colossal, découvert à Amathonte en 1873,

159. Dethier 1881a, p. 40-41.

160. McFadden 1971, p. 156; Cesnola 1878, p. 249.

161. Marangou 2000, p. 250.

162. Hellman, Tytgat 1984, p. 102-103; cf. Prête, Tassignon 2001, p. 63-65; Hermary 2007, p. 89, 91; Tassignon 2009, p. 118; Tassignon 2013, p. 29, 93.

Figure 4. Colossal statue of Bes. Istanbul Archaeological Museum Inv. No. 3317. Wikipedia Bes.

Figure 5. Sketch map of Amathus (!) marks the presumed place of discovery of the statue

of Bes, according to Alfred Westholm (1980).


dont il a pris une des premières photographies, sans doute encore in situ : ‘[...] nach einer Photographie [...], welche der deutsche Consularagent, Herr P. Vontiziano in Limassol, ein eifriger Freund des Alterthums, an Herrn Dr. Schröder in Constantinopel geschickt hat’ ”.163

of the statue, which she has re-designated the “Lord (or Master) of the Lions”, to “fouilles du Département des Antiquités de l’Empire ottoman” [sic].164

Amazingly all these stories about the discovery of the statue, apart from Cesnola’s own accounts [sic], appear to be misleading or just plain wrong. According to Hill, “it

Colossus of Amathus was found on land belonging to P.G. Loiso, the British consular agent at Limassol, who proposed to sell it to the British Museum. The Governor refused to admit his claim to the find, on the ground that the land was waste and belonged to the Crown, and sent a vessel to remove the figure to Constantinople”.165 Tatton-Brown has amplified this account by drawing on the same records in the National Archives in Kew and quotes from the messages from William Riddell, acting British Consul in Larnaca, to Sir Henry Elliott, British Ambassador in Constantinople, and to Lord Granville, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, concerning the affair of the statue.166 It emerges from this correspondence167 that on 11 October 1873 Pietro G. Loiso (Petros Loïzou,

168 informed his superior officer, William Riddell, Acting British Consul in Larnaca from 1872 to May 1876,169 by letter that a colossal statue of Hercules had been discovered “dans un terrain près d’Amathonte”, of which he (Loiso) was in possession, and that he was proposing to offer

National Archives in Kew, but its contents are known from the acknowledgement which Riddell sent Loiso on 13 October.

With commendable professionalism, and integrity, Riddell the same day informed the

safekeeping until he (Riddell) had received instructions from the British Government. On

163. Masson 1987, p. 13.

164. Tassignon 2013, p. 93-94.

165. Hill 1952, p. 258.

166. Tatton-Brown 1998, p. 114-115.

167. National Archives, London, FO 329. For copies of this I am deeply beholden to Thomas Kiely.

168. Coudounaris 2010a, p. 315; Özkul 2013, p. 256.

169. Bergia 1997, p. 261; Özkul 2013, p. 257.

66 CCEC 47, 2017

the statue in question had been found “par des ouvriers des carrières” and that he had known about it for several days. He had ordered the Caïmacan in Limassol to keep the statue and take care of it “en annonçant à l’instant par une dépêche télégraphique au gouvernement Impérial qu’elle était destinée pour le musée de Constantinople”. Riddell was taken aback by the tone of the Governor General’s reaction and promptly, on 16 October, informed Sir Henry Elliot, British Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, of all that had transpired up to that point, seeking instructions. Riddell also wrote to Loiso on 17 October, enclosing copies of the 1869 Ottoman rules relating to antiquities170 and suggesting that Loiso send a letter of protest to the Caïmacan if the latter had the statue moved. On 22 October Loiso did submit his case to the Caïmacan, claiming that “agir des fouilles sur le sol de ma possession, dont je suis locataire légal, et prendre des pareilles mesures, c’est m’enlever injustement ma propriété contre les lois de l’Empire”. Riddell

surprise to learn that, despite Loiso’s claims, the statue had been transported to Limassol and put in the Caïmacan’s charge.

What neither Loiso nor Riddell knew, until they were told by the Governor on 1

follows: “Suivant le bruit qui avait couru en ville la statue de l’ancienne Limassol avait été découverte dans un terrain d’un certain Coumè [or Coumé?] de Kellaoki. Ayant examiné bien l’affaire nous avons trouvé que le même terrain dans le quel la statue était découverte, est sis près du terrain de Coumè [or Coumé] et que l’Agent [consulaire] ne l’avait jamais semé, et que c’est un endroit plein de cailloux. Nous avons appelé Coumè [or Coumé] par devant nous pour nous dire de quel droit possédait-t-il ce terrain et il a déclaré que depuis le temps qu’il l’acheté il l’avait toujours laissé inculte, et aucun titre de propriété n’existe entre ses mains”. This is a contemporaneous translation into French of the Old Turkish original, and to Edhem Eldem I gratefully owe the following modern translation into English of the Ottoman minute : “Following the information conveyed that the statue was found in the field of a person by the name of Koumi from the village of Jelaja, the situation has been investigated and considering that it has appeared that it was found in the said Koumi’s field, and that the said location had not been cultivated by him nor by any other person, that it was a place covered with rocks, the said Koumi was called upon, and when asked about the status of his ownership, he declared and admitted that he had never cultivated this land ever since its purchase, that it was a place filled with rocks, and that he did not possess a title deed”.171

There are a number of problems associated not only with the inconsistencies in these two translations but with the story itself. In the first place the discrepancies between

170. Cf. Stanley-Price 2001, p. 268, 273; Eldem 2011, p. 312-320. According to this law the Cf. Stanley-Price 2001, p. 268, 273; Eldem 2011, p. 312-320. According to this law the

171. Could he have been Antonios Coumidis (Koumidis) (1852-1942) who was born in Kellaki (Coudounaris 2010a, p. 258)? The village of Kellaki lies 28 km north-east of Limassol, due north of Amathus (Goodwin 1978, p. 394).


the names of the individual and his village are due to the differences in the way the Old Turkish has been transliterated but still beg the question that the person named Coumé/Koumi is not identifiably the same as Loiso who claimed that the statue was found on his land. It would therefore appear that Loiso was not so much the owner as the tenant of the block which he leased from its real owner. It may also be significant that according to the French translation, the statue was discovered near the field belonging to Coumé/Koumi, whereas the English translation states it was in Coumé/Koumi’s field, and the French translation allows it to be understood that in the testimony of Coumé/Koumi, Loiso never cultivated his land. What is evidently not in dispute it that neither Loiso nor Coumé/Koumi was able to produce a title deed and that the piece of land concerned was not being used for agricultural purposes. According to British officials, the Sublime Porte claimed that all land in Cyprus which was “waste”, that is, uncultivated or unoccupied, belonged to the Crown, unless some officially recognised title could be produced.172

Fortunately some of the points of uncertainty in this drama are clarified in an item which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette No. 2735 on 20 November 1873, for knowledge of which I am also much beholden to Edhem Eldem. The details it contains can only have come from sources independent of the official record in both Cyprus and London as they reveal more knowledge of the circumstances of the find and reactions to it in England than all the other references assembled in this study. The following is the full text of the report:

“There is too much reason to fear that another serious difficulty is likely to arise between this country and Turkey, owing to an interesting but unfortunate archaeological discovery that has just been made in the island of Cyprus. Palaea Limisso, the site of the ancient town of Amathus, is situated on the southern coast of the island, in a district colonized at a very early period by the Phoenicians, who introduced the worship of Hercules, under the name of Melkart or Malika. It seems that some workmen employed the other day in digging up stones for Port Said unearthed a colossal statue of Hercules holding a lion before him by the hind paw, as if it were a lamb. The statue is perfect down to the knees, but the legs are wanting. It measures nine feet in length, the limbs are thick set and heavy, the face is bearded, and the whole is described as of ‘very archaic workmanship’ in calcareous stone. The discovery having been made in a piece of private land rented by the British vice-consul at Limisso, that gentleman was very quickly on the spot, and, settling about the price with the labourers, became the sole proprietor of the relic, which he intends to give to the British Museum. There is, however, ‘many a slip between the cup and the lip’, and it will be some time before we shall see the statue in London, even if it ever arrives here at all, for the Governor of Cyprus will not hear of its removal, and claims it for the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. By the latest accounts the statue is still in the place where it was found, and is guarded by zaptiehs. The whole affair, it is supposed, will be referred to Constantinople for decision, and in the

172. Hill 1952, p. 409; cf. Cavendish 1992, p. 43, 125 n. 1; Gole 1996, p. 21-22; Cyprus State Archives 2012, p. 42-44.

68 CCEC 47, 2017

meantime wears a very ugly aspect. The Mediterranean fleet will, of course, be at once ordered to the spot, and the railway intended for the coast of Africa will be immediately

of embarkation, from whence the statue (if we get it) will be shipped to this country. Have the statue we must, by fair means or foul, if it is only for the sake of Trafalgar-square” [sic !].

In his reply on 4 November 1873 the Ottoman Governor of Cyprus dismissed Riddell’s representations. Nevertheless Riddell renewed his démarche on 24 November in another

l’individu qui a élevé des prétentions sur le terrain où la statue a été trouvée est un sujet de la Sublime Porte. En outre, il ne possédait aucun titre lui assurant le droit de possession. Après l’examen de l’affaire il résulte que ce terrain est la propriété de la Couronne, et [...] le Consulat d’Angleterre n’a pas droit sur la statue”. Loiso, informed of this decision, reacted more in sorrow than in anger, telling Riddell in a letter of 11 December 1873 that “un Membre du Grand Conseil est arrivé ici de Nicosie hier ayant mission de prêter un navire et de faire embarquer et de transporter à Constantinople le colosse d’Hercule que je ne puis cesser de considérer comme étant de ma propriété incontestable”. Riddell made one more attempt, in a letter of 19 December to the Governor, to have the matter re-opened but

December 1873 [initial(s) illegible] Pierides, in Larnaca, passed a message to Riddell asking him, on behalf of Loiso, to forward to the British Ambassador in Constantinople a telegram, at Loiso’s expense, saying : “Authorities intend shipping Statue claimed by

was actually sent is unknown, but there is no indication in this dossier or the archives of the British Museum that the British authorities sent Riddell any instructions or that the British Museum was ever approached.

Nor is there any reference to the history of this acquisition in Pasinli’s earliest guide to the collections of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.173 Its photograph was, however, accompanied by a memorable caption in which the author writes that Bes is shown “holding a headless lioness by the hind legs. The big hole at the god’s loins was probably the seat of a colossal phallus. It has been politely claimed that it might have served as a fountain”.174 This exotic if not necessarily obscene aperture had its appeal to travel writers, one of whom, John Freely, declared that “the most spectacular of the museum’s exhibits is a colossal statue of Bes, the Cypriot Hercules, who is shown holding up a headless lioness by her hind legs; the great gap in his loins may have served as the spout of a very phallic fountain”.175 Despite the suggestive cavity, the missing member is more likely to

173. Pasinli 1989, p. 46 no. 40, p. 44.

174. Pasinli 1989, p. 44; cf. Westholm 1939, p. 518, 525-526, 527-528; Hermary 2007, p. 88.

175. Freely 1986, p. 45.


have been the head of the upside-down lioness.176 While based on the ancient Egyptian god, Bes, who was worshipped as a protector of households, especially women, and the enemy of evil, leading to his veneration as a symbol of pleasure, this kind of hybrid image owed its inspiration to Oriental, Greek and Cypriote influences and took on a local role as representative of the ruler of Amathus.177 In 1928 the statue was displayed in the so-called Hercules Room (No. 26) of the Archaeological Museum178 and reappeared in Room 12, the Assos Room, in 1951.179 It was inexplicably left out of Ergüleç’s catalogue of large-sized Cypriote sculpture of 1972180 and Pasinli’s photographic album of the collections in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums from 2003.181 It has also been omitted from subsequent editions of Pasinli’s guide182

of the Museum from 2010, the last time it has appeared in print in an official Turkish publication.183 One wonders if Salomon Reinach’s description of it as being of a “laideur presque repoussante”184 – Hermary, who studied it in less than satisfactory conditions in 1978, more delicately calls it “déconcertante”185 – had finally struck a chord with latter-day Turkish curators. In 2015 it was not visible in the Museum due to structural work being carried out on the ground floor.

While the provenance of the statue is not in doubt, the context of its discovery at Amathus is less sure. The proposition that it turned up in the vicinity of the agora rests more on circumstantial than direct evidence. The valuable large scale map of the site published by Aupert and Hellmann in 1984186 indicates that the statue came to light at

187 but the placement is said to be uncertain. This would put it by the complex west of the agora at point 3 on a more recent plan of the city published in 2000, which however, shows no sign of the northern cemetery.188

at Amathus, the location of this burial ground is not explicity marked on the plan in Aupert’s and Hellmannn’s compendium. It is presumably to be found at point 28 in

176. Westholm 1939, p. 518.

177. Cf. Counts, Toumazou 2006.

178. Reshid 1928, p. 50.

et al. 1951, p. 194.

180. Ergüleç 1972; see below.

181. Pasinli 2003.

182. Pasinli 1996, 2012.

184. Reinach 1882, p. 48; cf. Çelik 2016, p. 72-73.Reinach 1882, p. 48; cf. Çelik 2016, p. 72-73.

185. Hermary 2007, p. 82.

188. Aupert 2000, p. 12-13.Aupert 2000, p. 12-13.

70 CCEC 47, 2017

square III E, to the north of the presumed place of the statue’s discovery, where the tombs dug by Luigi Palma di Cesnola have been placed, and in the neighbouring zone C/c, described as the north-east necropolis.189 However this location is also considered uncertain. In a letter dated 4 August 1980 to Hermary, to whom I am grateful for this information, Alfred Westholm, of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, indicated on a plan of the site which Hermary had sent him the place where, according to his own memory and those of the oldest inhabitants of the village, the statue was found, with the following commentary: “As you certainly will understand it is difficult for me to mark exactly on your ‘plan schématique’ the depression on the ground which old people pointed out on the site. I make an attempt however! – It is on the west part of the port which in 1930 could be traced in the field (my suggested red line?) and as I remember less than 100 m from the present shore” (Fig. 5).

Luigi Palma di Cesnola: Life and career

Luigi Palma di Cesnola may not be familiar to specialists in Anatolian antiquity but needs no introduction to students of Cypriote archaeology. He, together with his collections of Cypriote antiquities, has been the subject of several biographies and biographical accounts,190 numerous catalogues, including those written and edited by Emeritus

of Cyprus,191 and countless articles. The artefacts Cesnola dug up in Cyprus after the mid 19th century A.D., amounting to what has been estimated at some 35,000 items,192 are now to be found in museums in many parts of the world, including Europe, North America and Australia, and the late Olivier Masson, outstanding French epigraphist and historiographer, devoted much time and effort to tracing their distribution and investigating their background193. The last of his papers on this subject, published posthumously, was fittingly entitled “Luigi Palma di Cesnola – ultimes considérations”.194 Ironically none of the thousands of objects which Cesnola amassed remained in Cyprus, having all been taken out of the island. However his younger brother, Alessandro Palma di Cesnola (1840-1914),195 who followed Luigi’s lead diplomatically and archaeologically, was not so lucky in 1878 as he fell foul of the incoming British administration and had part of his collection impounded,196 though not before he managed to export illegally almost 14,000 of the antiquities he had assembled in the previous three years. What remained of his

189. Aupert, Hellmann 1984, p. 103.

190. Cf. McFadden 1971; Marangou 2000; Gross 2009, p. 33; Bombardieri 2015, 2017.

191. E.g. Karageorghis 2000.

192. Johnston 1878, p. 451-454.

193. Masson 1996a, 1996b; Marangou 2000, p. 84-86.

194. E. Masson 2001, esp. p. xii.

195. Cesnola 1884, p. xxi.

196. Merrillees 2000, p. 109; Given 2001, p. 256; cf. Cannavò 2012, p. 429.


collection on the island became the nucleus of the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia but has never been fully documented or published.197

Luigi Palma di Cesnola was born in 1832 in Rivarolo Cannavese near Turin in northern Italy. He is commemorated there with a street in his name and in 2004, on the centenary of his death, the Regional Council of Piedmont issued an illustrated booklet in Turin, entitled Luigi Palma di Cesnola. Le gesta di un piemontese dagli scavi di Cipro al Metropolitan Museum. The untitled second son of an Italian Count, he gave up a monastic career in 1848 to enter the Sardinian army of the Savoys at the outbreak of war with Austria and a year later was promoted Lieutenant. After graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Cherasco, near Turin, in 1851, he saw active service with the British forces in the Crimean War of 1854/1855 as aide-de-camp to Major-General Georgio Ansaldi in the Sardinian contingent.198 199 where he served as a Colonel in the American civil war under the name Louis, which he adopted on becoming an American citizen, and distinguished himself in the fighting on behalf of the

this honorary appointment was never confirmed,200 contrary to the inscription on his tomb

right to bear this title.201 Åström describes him as “an imposter who falsely pretended to be both a general and a count”.202

in Larnaca, Cyprus, from 24 December 1865 to 14 June 1876,203 and there, as a hobby, devoted himself to archaeological diggings of a decidedly non-scientific character, in the company of other consuls and expatriates similarly inclined and mercenary if more academically minded, but surpassed them all in the range, volume and brazenness of his despoilations.204 The British Classicist, Stanley Casson, without undue exaggeration, wrote that “in effect General Cesnola justifiably acquired the reputation of being the most consistent and thorough looter of antiquities of the later nineteenth century”.205

Having sold large parts of his collections of Cypriote antiquities to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in the 1870s,206 Cesnola was appointed Secretary of the

197. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 192 Cesnola, A.P. di; Masson 1957, p. 34; Pilides 2008, p. 7; see below.

198. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 105.

199. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 105; Mertens 2015, p. 400.

200. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 41-42, 55-56.

201. Cf. McFadden 1971, p. 226-227; Gross 2009, p. 14, 23-24, 64.

202. Åström 1995, p. 78.

203. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 1; McFadden 1971, p. 81; Marangou 2000, p. 143, 274-275; Özkul 2013, p. 271.

204. Cf. Severis 2000, p. 147-150; Cannavò 2012, p. 429; Mertens 2015, p. 399.

205. Casson 1937, p. 8 ; cf. Gross 2009, p. 64.

206. Masson 1983, p. 23, 24, esp. p. 23 n. 2; Hermary and Mertens 2014, p. 20.

72 CCEC 47, 2017

Museum in 1877 and became its first Director on 15 May 1879 207 (Fig. 6). He remained in this position until his death in 1904208. To his credit Cesnola presided over the Metropolitan Museum’s move to its current Central Park location in 1880 and the expansion of its premises, the acquisition of its first collections of paintings and decorative arts, and the establishment of the institution as an integral part of New York’s cultural scene, open to the public at large.209 However his most enduring legacy, apart from his sententious and vainglorious publication, A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (New York 1885, 1894, 1903), of which he was not in any case the author, is the Metropolitan Museum’s large and controversial but outstanding collection of Cypriote artefacts. Long scorned and banished by the Museum’s Trustees and Curators210 but now fittingly exhibited in four galleries devoted to them, they occupy physically and symbolically a cross-roads between Eastern and Western civilisations, as befits the island’s geographical location, millennial history and inescapable destiny.211

207. Tomkins 1970, p. 58; McFadden 1971, p. 184; Marangou 2000, p. 281.

208. W.M.K. Shaw initially wrote that “the display of antiquities from Cyprus [in the Tchinili Kiosk] was probably spurred by the large-scale export of antiquities by Luici [sic] P. di Cesnola, American consul to Cyprus until 1879 [sicDirector of the Chicago Art Institute [sicwithout, however, acknowledging her previous misstatements (Shaw 2011, p. 430).

209. For a balanced (American) assessment of Cesnola’s achievements, see Herscher’s review in Archaeology

210. Cf. Hoving 1993, p. 290.

211. Karageorghis 2000; Karageorghis 2004, p. 68-77; Karageorghis 2007, p. 184-185.

Figure 6. Luigi Palma di Cesnola, Director, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. c. 1900.


By far the best summary of the academic worth of the Cesnola collection was made in 1885 by William James Stillman (1828-1901), American writer, diplomat and photographer, who in a report to the Council and Members of the American Numismatic and Archaeological Society of New York, wrote that : “having examined the evidence, accessible at this point, bearing upon the question of the authenticity and archaeological value of the collection known as the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities, I find that, while it contains many objects of unquestionably great value to the science of archaeology, its utility to students of that science is seriously diminished :

First. By a deplorable recklessness of attribution as to the localities of discovery, which makes it quite impossible to determine the place in the general archaeology of Cyprus to which the several pieces can be assigned;

Second. By evident repairs and alterations in certain pieces, and a thorough system of concealment of the original surfaces of others, and those the most important, which makes it impossible to decide whether they have, or have not, undergone similar alterations; and,

Third. By attributions which assign an important part of the Collection to a single deposit, although the evidence, both internal and external, points indisputably to the non-existence of the supposed deposit [the so-called Curium Treasure]”.212

The Western world was not the only recipient of Luigi’s archaeological finds from Cyprus. A consignment was donated in 1868 to the Syrian Protestant College in Beirut,

213 These antiquities

museums in Cairo and Istanbul as one of the three oldest in the Near East. The reasons for this gift have never been publicly stated but presumably derived from Cesnola’s desire to have published and publicised a catalogue of one of his earliest collections of Cypriote objets d’art, with a view to their eventual sale.214 This booklet was entitled, Catalogue of Greek and Phenician Antiquities Recently Found in the Island of Cyprus. For Sale to Suit Amateurs. May be Seen at the American Consulate in Larnaca. For good measure, and no doubt some financial or other consideration, Cesnola added at the bottom of the front page: “N.B. Only the Austrian Lloyd Steamers Touch at Larnaca regularly”.215 Though there is

212. Stillman 1885, p. 3.

213. Masson 1996a, p. 4; Masson 1996b, p. 25; Karageorghis, Badre 2009, p. 9.

and 4 July 1871, when hundreds of Cypriote antiquities and other objets d’art were put up for sale by auction (Masson 1996a, p. 5-7).

and contents in the following way: “Catalogue of the Collection of General Cesnola, American Consul at Cyprus, Comprising Crusaders’s and Oriental Arms; Phenician, Egyptian, Roman and

74 CCEC 47, 2017

no date or place of printing indicated in the booklet, Cesnola says in his introduction that he had been resident for three years in Cyprus, which could indicate publication in 1868. On the other hand McFadden gives the year as 1869, though the source of her information is dated 22 November 1868.216 She further records that Cesnola “arranged for some New York missionaries at Beyrouth to print a catalogue for travelers of his small collection of antiquities”.217 As there was no printing press in Cyprus at this time,218 Cesnola had no choice but to use the services of some nearby place like the Syrian Protestant College in Beirut, and evidently decided to make it worth their while by giving them an assortment of antiquities from the same collection as he was offering for sale. According to Myres, Dr Carl Friedrichs, at the time Director of the Antiquarium in Berlin, who was more than a mere “traveller”, attempted to describe Cesnola’s museum systematically during his visit to Larnaca in September/October 1869,219 but what came of his efforts is unknown.

Another lot of Cesnola’s antiquities was claimed by the Mediterranean when the “Napried”, a bark rigged merchant sailing vessel registered in Spalato, modern Split, in Croatia, burnt at sea and sank somewhere off the coast of the Lebanon or Syria on 20 June 1872.220 In April that year it had set sail from Larnaca with 63 boxes of Cypriote artefacts on board belonging to the Cesnola collection.221 They were consigned to his friend, Hiram Hitchcock, in Boston, not to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston,222 and contained over 2000 objects – 5000 seems an exaggeration223 – comprising, in descending order of quantity, coins, jewellery, grave stelae, cylinder seals, ceramic vases, statuary and javelin heads. On its way the ship had picked up in Beirut a secondary load of wool rags and

Rich Collection of Ancient Greek Glass; Phenician, Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman

216. McFadden 1971, p. 88-89, 99-100, 255 n. 18, 266; cf. Masson 1996a, p. 4; Lang to Newton,

217. There was no catalogue drafted by American missionaries in 1868/1869 (Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 13). It was published by them.

of a work in Greek by Archimandrite Kyprianos on the chronological history of Cyprus, originally

Cyprus Guide and Directory, published in Limassol in 1885 (Hutchinson, Cobham 1907, p. 55).

219. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 4; Myres 1914, p. xvii; Pohlsander 2006, p. 260; Di Paolo 2012, p. 384-385; Merrillees 2014, p. 33-35.

220. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 50; Greene, Leidwanger 2012, p. 84-85; cf. Johnston 1878, p. 454 – not 1871; McFadden 1971, p. 116.

221. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 110.

222. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 50, 93. The Museum nevertheless acquired a considerable number of Cypriote antiquities from Cesnola in May 1872 (Masson 1996a, p. 10; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 17).

223. Johnston 1878, p. 454; Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 49.


olive oil which somehow caught fire at sea, and in less than an hour, the vessel plunged to the bottom of the Mediterranean with the entire cargo on board. No physical search has ever been made for the wreck, and none of the Cypriote antiquities it held has ever been recovered. Though Cesnola wrote about the loss to his friend, Hiram Hitchcock,224 he had nothing to say about it in his book on Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples.225 It was not long afterwards that Cesnola began having problems with the Ottoman authorities, no doubt not so much as a result of Heinrich Schliemann’s misconduct but because of the ruse proudly perpetrated by Cesnola to remove his antiquities from Cyprus in 1871 despite the order from the Sublime Porte forbidding the American Consul to export them. He got around this embargo by representing himself, quite truthfully if deceitfully in this context, as the Russian Consul in Larnaca.226

Cesnola’s donation to the Imperial Ottoman Museum

It is also a fact that outside of Turkey almost no-one since Cesnola’s time, apart from Masson, has wanted to know how one lot of Cesnola’s Cypriote antiquities, and a large one at that, found its way to Constantinople. In his introduction to the catalogue of Cypriote artefacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, published in 1914, Myres implies that the Imperial Museum acquired some of Cesnola’s material from the consignment that evaded the Ottoman authorities’ vigilance due to the owner’s artful ruse in late 1871/early 1872 and went to London and New York.227 There is no documentary support for this claim.228 McFadden, in her biography of Cesnola, completely passes over his dealings with the Imperial Museum in 1874, but then she cites none of Salomon Reinach’s articles in her bibliography.229 Marangou at least made reference to Reinach’s articles but contented herself with a partial translation of Cesnola’s letter of 25 January 1883, without mentioning that the original was in French, and had nothing more to say about the Cypriote antiquities in the Museum in Istanbul.230 In an essay published in 2011 Allen introduced Cesnola as American Consul, adventurer and antiquities dealer in Ottoman Cyprus without referring to his gift to the Imperial Museum in 1874,231 and in her book which came out the same year on archaeological activities in the Ottoman Empire from 1840 to 1906, Koçak not only glossed over the history of the Museum’s acquisition of its Cypriote antiquities but omitted all mention of Cesnola’s name! 232

224. Greene, Leidwanger 2012, p. 84-85.

225. Cesnola 1878.

226. Cf. Allen 1999, p. 326 n. 38; see below.

227. Myres 1914, p. xvii; Marangou 2000, p. 227; see below.

228. Cf. McFadden 1971, p. 127-129; see below.

229. McFadden 1971, p. 263-267; see below.

230. Marangou 2000, p. 134-136; see below.

231. Allen 2011, p. 37-38, 41.Allen 2011, p. 37-38, 41.

232. Koçak 2011, p. 86.Koçak 2011, p. 86.

76 CCEC 47, 2017

Zeynep Çelik’s book published in 2016 is the latest in the recent crop of historiogra-phical treatises devoted to archaeology and antiquities in Ottoman times233 and is billed as a follow-up to the volume she co-edited with Bahrani and Eldem.234 Well researched, using original archival resources, if oddly phrased, it purports to have something new to say on this academically fashionable topic and at least acknowledges Cesnola’s existence. Disinterring the significance of the few relevant references is not, however, as straightforward as it might be. According to Çelik, “the collection [in the Imperial Museum in Constantinople] grew significantly under Philipp Anton Déthier, its German second director, especially around eighty-eight cases of antiquities from Cyprus, provoked by Cesnola’s acquisitions, which had ended up at the Metropolitan Museum of Art”.235 This statement makes some – awkward – sense if “around” qualifies the “collection” instead of the “eighty-eight cases”, as there were only eighty-eight cases recorded and this phrase would otherwise become ungrammatical, but Çelik does not specifically credit Dethier with the initiative to have the antiquities moved from Hagia Eirene to the Tchinili Kiosk. It also seems to imply that the consignment of Cypriote antiquities was acquired by Dethier to compensate for the loss of the Cesnola collection to New York, when in fact the cases in question contained objects in Cesnola’s own possession which were extracted from him under duress by Dethier in Larnaca.236 Furthermore Çelik did not mention that this transaction took place in 1874, by which time Cesnola had a massed another stack of objets d’art after the sale and transfer of the first lot to the Metropolitan Museum in 1872/1873.237

Likewise Çelik writes that “This record [Büyük Tarih-i Umumi] may give some indication of knowledge about the Metropolitan [Museum], but the state’s dealings with the museum went back to 1875-1877, to the excavation permits given to Luigi Palma di Cesnola, then its director, for work in Cyprus, followed by their cancellations and the rumours about Cesnola’s illegal smuggling of antiquities to London”.238 By “state” Çelik presumably means the Sublime Porte, but she has overlooked the fact that Luigi had already left Cyprus for good in June 1876 and did not become Director of the Metropolitan Museum until 1879.239 It seems likely that Çelik has confused Luigi with his younger

to 1877, in the course of which he spent eighteen months in London from the end of 1874 to the end of July 1876.240 Afterwards, until his ignominious departure from the

233. Çelik 2016.Çelik 2016.

234. Bahrani et al. 2011.

235. Çelik 2016, p. 34.

236. See below.

237. McFadden 1971, p. 139, 143.

238. Çelik 2016, p. 20.

239. See above.

240. Cesnola 1884, p. xi, xii, xxiv; Masson 1957.


island in February 1879, he conducted large scale excavations, more akin to looting, all over Cyprus, and it was to London that he sent his first lot of antiquities in 1876-1877 without official authorisation or presumably knowledge. Indeed he unashamedly admits that “I had, indeed, made application in Constantinople for a firman, but never received a positive answer; so I continued digging without it”! 241 In any case by 1874 Luigi had no need of a firman to carry on digging in the island,242 and there is no record that he ever sought a permit once he became Director of the Metropolitan Museum or wanted to return to the island for any purpose.

Luigi Palma di Cesnola’s dealings with the Ottoman Government are well recorded but scarcely flattering to either party.243 He himself recounted, in a letter datelined New York, 25 January 1883, to Salomon Reinach, the events leading up to the transfer of a collection of his Cypriote antiquities to Constantinople, and Reinach lost no time in publishing it after Cesnola’s death,244 remarking that “bien entendu, la véracité des assertions de Cesnola reste à établir, ou plutôt il est certain qu’il a mêlé le mensonge à la vérité, puisqu’il parle de la découverte du trésor de Curium, lequel n’a jamais existé en ce lieu”.245 For the sake of completeness, the following is an edited translation by me from the French of the relevant part of Cesnola’s letter, which Reinach himself had transcribed:

“You ask me as a matter of historical fact the reason why I gave nothing to the Turks from my discoveries at Kurium, and I have pleasure in informing you on this point. H.E. the American Minister, Mr Georges [sic] H. Boker,246 who was in Constantinople and is now in Philadelphia, can, if you so wish, give you all the official details. If you know the Turks as well as I do, you know where you stand with them, and I do not need to explain that point any further. You know that I was American Consul in Cyprus from 1865 to 1876. Shortly after my arrival in Cyprus, I visited the excavations which Mr Waddington and other French archaeologists had conducted in the island,247 and I was soon convinced that well organised excavations would give handsome results, and I wasn’t mistaken.

241. Cesnola 1884, p. xviii.

242. See below.

244. Reinach 1905a, p. 302-304.Reinach 1905a, p. 302-304.

245. Reinach 1905a, p. 301 n. 3; cf. Åström 1995, p. 78Reinach 1905a, p. 301 n. 3; cf. Åström 1995, p. 78#246. George Henry Boker (1823-1890) was an American poet, playwright and diplomat who

p. 137-139). He was not above a little material encouragement. According to Allen, “Cesnola had given Boker a gold signet ring and other gold trinkets from his excavations [...]. And in return, Boker secured the for Cesnola’s continued ‘excavation’ of Cypriot sites and arranged for the subsequent export of his antiquities collection [...]. Cesnola reciprocated with a vacation in Cyprus for Boker and his wife [...]” (Allen 1999, p. 326 n. 43).

247. Cf. Masson 1983, p. 20.

78 CCEC 47, 2017

“For several months a number of Consuls dug a little everywhere without the need of a firman and the Turkish authorities said nothing and let things be. My colleagues from France, England and Italy excavated simply to kill time and when it pleased them. However, not having like them a lot of consular business which required my attention, I set off in search of Cypriote antiquities with all the energy of which I was capable; I built up an archaeological library in Cyprus which cost me 10.000 francs, and I began from where my colleagues left off, that’s to say, reading Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, etc., etc., finally everything written on Cyprus, the ancient as well as the modern authors. After that I visited all the localities described by these authors and I became convinced in practice, through some diggings in each locality I visited, that there was everywhere a substantial collection of antiquities to be made. The result was that in eleven years I spent on my excavations 362.000 francs.

“In 1867 or the end of 1866 (I don’t recall it well now), I obtained, through the intervention of the American legation in Constantinople, a firman for one year only to carry out excavations in Cyprus, without any conditions.248 This firman was renewed year after year until 1872, a little after my great discovery at Golgos. My house at Larnaca had become a veritable museum,249 and the Turkish government was becoming more and more difficult in giving firmans. In 1869 or 1870 the Vali of the Dardanelles, Ahmet Kaiserly Pasha, came to Cyprus on a warship,250 saw my antiquities, and asked me if I didn’t want to give anything to his Government; I replied, willingly; I sent on board two large cases of antiquities for the Museum in Constantinople; but they stopped in the Dardanelles and from there disappeared (Kaiserly Pasha should know what he did with them). When I wished in 1871 to have my antiquities taken out of Cyprus, local jealousy and intrigues secured an order from Constantinople that ‘the American Consul could not export these antiquities’; I exported them as the Consul of Russia! 251

“On my return from America in 1873 I found the Turks even less well disposed towards me, because of Dr Schliemann, and the firman was granted only with great difficulty. In agreement with the American Minister, Mr Boker, I took the decision to offer a very large part of my duplicates to the Museum in Constantinople as a gift; this was accepted. The Porte however sent the old Dr Dethier to Cyprus who acted in such

248. Koçak has mistakenly described Jeremiah Augustus Johnson (1836-1914) (not Augustus J. Johnson [Cesnola 1878, p. 58]) as the American Consul in Cyprus (Koçak 2011, p. 61, 65) when in fact he was the American Consul in Beirut from 1858 to 1870 and a contributor to the American Palestine Exploration Society (Moulton 1926-1927, p. 59, 61; Koçak 2011, p. 63). His only known involvement with Cyprus occurred when he was appointed a member of the mixed commission sent to investigate the detention of Cesnola’s cavass, Mustafa Fefsi (Cesnola 1878, p. 58).

249. Cf. Cesnola 1878, p. 170-171.

250. It was actually 1870 when Ahmed Kaisarli Pasha made a short visit, his second, of two

251. Cesnola 1878, p. 173-176.


a stupid way towards me (he alighted in Larnaca and left for the capital of Cyprus incognito!), bringing a letter to the Governor according to which Dethier was coming to Cyprus to make a division of my antiquities! It was no longer a gift on my part and voluntary, but an official seizure by the Turkish Government! As you can well imagine, I showed the door to Dr Dethier with his official letters and orders, and told him to return to Constantinople and that I would not give him a single object; at the same time I wrote to the American Legation about the whole affair.

“When Dethier understood that in Cyprus and with the American Consul you couldn’t act as one could in Stamboul, and I didn’t in any way want to receive his visit, he returned to the island’s capital to consult the Governor. As a result that imbecile Dethier, who wanted to be diplomatic, had to arrange with the Governor of Cyprus that it was indeed I who had voluntarily offered to give half of all the antiquities which I then possessed; but he, in agreement with the Governor, thought he would give me a surprise: it cost them dearly. In short, the Governor and the old doctor offered their most humble apologies, and I let Dethier choose in my house everything he wanted; and he didn’t stint himself and took 88 packages [“colis”]! 252 But another complication awaited Dr Dethier upon arrival in Constantinople, with the 88 packages I had given him.

“Mr Boker, furious at the typically Turkish way in which I had been treated, had the 88 parcels confiscated, and Dr Dethier was beside himself! Telegram after telegram was sent from Cyprus and Constantinople, and finally the American Minister decided to give the 88 parcels to the Museum, on condition that an official thank-you letter to me was addressed by the Porte to the American Legation (which was a little late) and that my firman was renewed immediately (which was never again done). The Turkish baccalum lasted longer than the American Minister wished to wait and he went to

before. Everything was promised but nothing done; the Porte didn’t want any longer to give me a firman as I had before; a firman as the Porte wanted to give me was no

“Finally a ‘modus vivendi’ was found, that’s to say, the matter was resolved in a typically Turkish mannerConstantinople instructing him to let the Consul of America continue his excavations in Cyprus until a new firman was issued by the Porte. I therefore continued to dig for

Cyprus was one of my good friends, he said to me laughing : ‘I hope that you are now no longer in a hurry to obtain a firman, eh?’ And, in fact, the question of the firman was dormant and I didn’t want to revive it. My gold objects were discovered at Kurium when I was excavating without a firman and with the telegraphic authorisation of the

252. Cf. Chevalier 2002, p. 32 n. 64. Given the quantity and size of the antiquities which were packed, Cesnola must have meant boxes or crates.

80 CCEC 47, 2017

had no right to a share of these objects...”In his volume on Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples, first published in

1877, Cesnola described his experiences with the Ottoman authorities both in Cyprus and in Constantinople up till the year of publication, including a detailed account of his dealings with Mehemet [sic] Kaiserli Pasha and the Governor General of Cyprus over the export of antiquities.253 In particular he noted that the two large cases of antiquities which he had entrusted to Kaiserli Pasha for the Ottoman Museum in 1870 had disappeared without trace, and that “on a subsequent visit to Constantinople, I went in company with the American Minister and Dr. Dethier, who has charge of that lumber-room styled the Imperial Museum, to see if I could recognise among the heaps of objects there were any of the pieces I had sent, but failed to find any of them”.254 Conspicuously, however, he had nothing to say about the saga of his donation to the Imperial Museum in 1874, and no other report has ever been published about it. Despite Salomon Reinach’s reservations and making allowance for Cesnola’s self-serving expostulations and lapses of memory, there seem no good grounds for doubting the essential accuracy of the writer’s narration, and his report can be given the general benefit of the doubt.

All the summary accounts which have subsequently appeared about the consignment that went to Constantinople must be read in the light of Cesnola’s epistle. For example, John Taylor Johnston (1820-1893), founding President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, from 1870 to 1889,255 wrote in an appendix to the American edition of Cesnola’s book on his fieldwork in Cyprus that “a large and judiciously selected collection was transferred to the Ottoman government by the explorer as a royalty for the firman granted him”.256 This makes it sound as if the whole transaction was done in accordance with agreed procedures when it was nothing more than a gesture by Cesnola to buy off and curry favour with the Ottoman authorities who were insisting on respect for their authority and the law and unwilling to grant him another concession to dig.257 Likewise Tomkins states that “Cesnola had foresightedly presented a large group of objects from his second collection to the Ottoman government...,” 258 as though he had planned the donation in advance and been under no pressure to do so. And Ergüleç is surely mistaken when he writes that Dr Dethier bought a large part of Cesnola’s Cypriote collection, unless Ergüleç knew something we don’t.259 Officially the acquisition was recognised as

253. Cesnola 1878, p. 171-176; see above.

254. Cesnola 1878, p. 172.

255. Tomkins 1970, p. 33-37; Gross 2009, p. 16-17.

256. Johnston 1878, p. 454.

257. Cf. Wright 2001, p. 265-266; Stanley-Price 2001, p. 267-268.

258. Tomkins 1970, p. 57.Tomkins 1970, p. 57.

259. Ergüleç 1974, p. 7; cf. Polat 2001, p. 202.Ergüleç 1974, p. 7; cf. Polat 2001, p. 202.


a gift, since the panel introducing the Cypriote antiquities on show in the Archaeological Museum reproduces what appears to be a formal certification or registration of the agreement with Dr Dethier,260 specifying that the 88 cases of objects constituted a “cadeau” from Cesnola.261 This is confirmed by Dethier himself who records, with surprising graciousness, given the way he was treated, that Cesnola gave them to the Museum “sans y être encore obligé, et rien que par égard pour ma personne” [sic].262

Cesnola was no stranger to disagreements and disputes with the Ottoman authorities. Already by 1872 he was having difficulties, as he saw it, with the policies of the Sublime Porte, and reported his views to Sir Austen Henry Layard, British Ambassador in Constantinople, in the following terms : “The Turkish Government has forbidden diggings and although I had a firman which authorised me to dig and I spent over 4.000 pounds out of my private purse in the excavations, the Porte made a special law, forbidding also the exportation of antiquities from Turkey263 in order to force me to give the half of it as ‘royalty’ to the Ottoman Government, but ere that unjust law could be put into execution I shipped my entire collection to London and is now opposite the British Museum in a house 61. Great Russell Street. It numbers over 12.000 pieces though many are duplicates. The New Yorkers are now trying to raise funds to buy it but I doubt whether they will be able to ap[p]reciate it”264. It is clear that this pressure from the Ottomans was responsible for the representation by Cesnola of their demands as “royalty” rather than as legitimate request from the appropriate authorities for their sovereign dues.

The introductory panel to the Cypriote collection on show in the Archaeological Museum also states that the Cesnola material was acquired (not bought) by the Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum, Dr Dethier, on 10 October 1874, “after the signing of a protocol in Larnaca”.265 This document, which has never been published or cited again, was signed by Mehmed Nazif Pasha, Ottoman Governor of Cyprus from 13 March 1874 till after 10 October 1874,266 Cesnola and Dethier.267 Philipp Anton Dethier

260. See below.

261. Pilides 2008, p. 6, bottom centre photo; cf. Eldem forthcoming. Reinach says sarcastically that the sculpture “provient presque entièrement des dons plus ou moins volontaires faits au gou-vernement ottoman par l’heureux explorateur de Chypre, M. de Cesnola” (Reinach 1884, p. 89).

262. Dethier 1881b, p. 1.

-ties and allowed free trade in antiquities within the Ottoman territory but prohibited exportation (cf. Özel 2010, p. 178).

264. British Library Add MS 39000 ff. 286-287.

266. Hill 1952, p. 259; Stavrides 2009, p. 362.

267. Eldem 2010b, p. 27 n. 71. It is worthwhile noting that the saga over the donation to the Eldem 2010b, p. 27 n. 71. It is worthwhile noting that the saga over the donation to the It is worthwhile noting that the saga over the donation to the It is worthwhile noting that the saga over the donation to the Museum began before the promulgation of the new Ottoman antiquities law on 20-21 April 1874 and ended afterwards. This decree provided that one-third of antiquities discovered in legal excavations was to be kept by the State, while one-third was to be given to the land owner, and the remaining

82 CCEC 47, 2017

(1804-1881), a German school teacher and amateur archaeologist, whom Salomon Reinach described as “half mad”,268 ran the Museum from 1872 till the time of his death.269

organisational and administrative abilities,270 and his reputation has been overshadowed by his justly renowned successor, the charismatic Osman Hamdi Bey (1842-1910), who was appointed Director of the Museum on 4 September 1881.271 Nevertheless Dethier proved to be a staunch defender of the Museum’s interests and deserves appropriate recognition for his propriety and achievements. In particular it was as a result of the arrival of the Cesnola collection in the cramped quarters of Hagia Eirene that Dethier recognised the need for a new building to house the Cypriote and other objets d’art in the Museum’s possession, and obtained approval from the Sultan for Tchinili Kiosk to be converted for this purpose.272 This operation, which began in 1875, ended only in 1880 when the new premises were officially opened.273 All the same Cyprus was not Dethier’s special interest but Salomon Reinach credits him with having written “avec beaucoup de soin” an inventory of the Cypriote pottery in manuscript form, numbering around 1500 pieces, classified according to their shapes, as their findspots were almost all unknown.274 This inventory was entitled : “Catalogue détaillé des objets de la collection de Mr le général de Cesnola échus en partage pour le musée ottoman le 1 oct. 1874”, but has never been published or referred to again.

Coincidentally, another German teacher, Felix Theodor Mühlmann, who was appointed Director of the Deutsche Schule in Constantinople in 1879, was reported by Georg Ferdinand Dümmler (1859-1896),275 a German Classical philologist and

neither the 1869 nor 1874 laws shows it to have been a purely diplomatic or politic gesture.

268. Reinach 1910b, p. 408.

269. Eyice 1960, p. 96-98; Strauss 1999, paras. 47-48; Pilides 2008, p. 6, bottom right photo –

70 n. 49; Eldem 2012/2013, p. 501-506; Eldem 2014a, p. 258-259; Eldem forthcoming. Though

French, but German (cf. Eldem 2012/2013, p. 506 n. 19).

270. Cf. Caillard 1900, p. 133-135; Reinach 1910b, p. 408-409.Cf. Caillard 1900, p. 133-135; Reinach 1910b, p. 408-409.

271. Perrot 1882; Bent 1888; Reinach 1910b; Institut de France 1924, p. 225 ; Chevalier 2002, Perrot 1882; Bent 1888; Reinach 1910b; Institut de France 1924, p. 225 ; Chevalier 2002, p. 35-37; Eldem 2004; Chuvin 2007, p. 1095; Eldem 2010b, p. 20; cf. Shaw 2003, p. 97-105.

272. Dethier 1881b, p. 1-2; Eyice 1960, p. 98; Shaw 2003, p. 92; Koçak 2011, p. 70-71, 86; Shaw Dethier 1881b, p. 1-2; Eyice 1960, p. 98; Shaw 2003, p. 92; Koçak 2011, p. 70-71, 86; Shaw There were, I have been told, other reasons for the move, due to

the Ottoman authorities’ sensitivity to the exposure of a certain kind of weapon to public gaze in Hagia Eirene, but these have not yet been put on the public record.

273. See above.

274. Reinach 1882, p. 74.

275. www.museum-kassel.de. Antike Steinskulpturen. Kypriaka. Inv. No. T 417. Accessed 01/02/2016.


archaeologist, to have had a small collection of Cypriote antiquities in the mid 1880s.276 How these came into Mühlmann’s possession is unrecorded, but he did, it is known, keep the company of other antiquarians in Constantinople, with whom he established in 1885 a local archaeological community to study the city’s topography.277 He himself carried out and published archaeological and historical explorations in Constantinople, chiefly of the Byzantine period, but wrote nothing, so far as know, about artefacts, including his own collection.278 However we do know what became of some at least of his antiquities as a Cypro-Archaic limestone female figurine with a tympanon from Mühlmann’s estate was presented in 1926 by Rektor Seelig to the Museum Schloss Wilhelmshöhe in Kassel, Germany.279 It also seems too much of a coincidence that another limestone figurine of a person turning a potter’s wheel or grinding, of possible Hellenistic date, from Cyprus was gifted to the same museum in 1899 by the father of Ferdinand Dümmler, who made a study tour of Cyprus in 1885 and published a long and superficial article on his findings in Athenische Mittheilungen.280 He had evidently included Constantinople in his itinerary, and some of his collection of Cypriote antiquities ended up as well in the Museum für

281

Salomon Reinach’s catalogue

Salomon Reinach (1858-1932), the eminent French Classical scholar,282 was the first in 1882 to have described, though in a very summary fashion and without illustrations, in his Catalogue du Musée Impérial d’Antiquités,283 some of the Cypriote artefacts housed in the Tchinili Kiosk.284 He expressed himself very dissatisfied with the booklet because it had not only been printed “avec une négligence extraordinaire” – it was, he said, full of errors as he didn’t (presumably have the opportunity to) correct the proofs285 – but gone out of print by 1885.286 By then he had already drafted the greater part of a detailed

276. Dümmler 1886, p. 234.Dümmler 1886, p. 234.

277. Reinach 1891, p. 140.Reinach 1891, p. 140.

278. Reinach 1891, p. 119-120. Reinach 1891, p. 119-120.

279. www.museum-kassel.de. Antike Steinskulpturen. 01/02/2016.

280. Dümmler 1886 ; Recke 2012, p. 91, 111. Dümmler 1886 ; Recke 2012, p. 91, 111.

281. Recke 2012, p. 91, 107.Recke 2012, p. 91, 107.

282. Institut de France 1924, p. 272; Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 302; Gran-Aymerich 2001, p. 568-570; Chuvin 2007; Réunion des musées nationaux 2014, p. 204 ; Steve 2014, p. 17-24; Eldem 2014a, p. 256-269.

Chuvin has made a mistake in the title of this “fascicule”. For “de Constantinople” it should read “d’Antiquités” (Chuvin 2007, p. 1096).

284. Reinach 1882, p. 45-54, 73-74.Reinach 1882, p. 45-54, 73-74.

285. Reinach 1910b, p. 409.Reinach 1910b, p. 409.

286. Reinach 1891, p. 203; cf. Reinach 1885b, p. 320 n. 2.Reinach 1891, p. 203; cf. Reinach 1885b, p. 320 n. 2.

84 CCEC 47, 2017

catalogue of the archaeological collections but needed for its completion drawings and photographs from the Museum’s staff, which were not in the end forthcoming.287 It never saw the light of day. In addition Reinach was taken to task by Cesnola himself in a letter datelined New York, 26 November 1882, for perceived inaccuracies in his (Reinach’s) catalogue about the way the Cypriote collection had been made and acquired by the Museum in Constantinople.288 Reinach’s indignation at Cesnola’s reaction undoubtedly inspired him to publish soon after the latter’s death the two letters he had received from Cesnola, in order to set the record straight. In fact Reinach had already reproduced in a sanitised form the gist of Cesnola’s letter of 25 January 1883, in an article which appeared in the Gazette archéologique of 1884.289 There he pointedly noted that “l’histoire de cette collection [...] est loin, d’ailleurs, d’être parfaitement élucidée”.290

Reinach’s catalogue lists a mixed lot of Cypriote antiquities, sculpture, metalwork, pottery and terracottas, amongst others, but is far from complete. It was evidently based on what was publicly visible. In it he made no attempt to recount in detail the circumstances in which the Cypriote collection as a whole was acquired, other than his comments on individual items, nor did he describe all the objects separately, contenting himself with the observation that “les objets retenus par le gouvernement ottoman et conservés aujourd’hui à Tchinili-Kiosk composent, par la variété des spécimens et l’importance capitale de quelques pièces, une des collections les plus remarquables de ce genre, la première, peut-être, après la collection de New-York”.291 He did, however, like other students of the collection, give the provenance of the items catalogued simply as “Chypre”, without specifying the source, leaving it to be inferred that some if not most were acquired from Cesnola.292

objects themselves is rendered particularly difficult not only because of the abbreviated descriptions and lack of illustrations in the catalogue but because of the changes that were subsequently made to Reinach’s numbering system, though the measurements he gives are most reliable. In a commentary on his own summary guide he expressed resentment that his sequence of numbers was not being followed in later catalogues,293 and it is clear that his numerical order was supplanted by inventory numbers when the antiquities were

287. Cf. Reinach 1882, Avis, p. 7.Cf. Reinach 1882, Avis, p. 7.

288. Reinach 1905a, p. 302.Reinach 1905a, p. 302.

289. Reinach 1884, p. 88-89.Reinach 1884, p. 88-89.



292. E.g. Reinach 1882, p. 17 no. 109; p. 44 no. 354; p. 45-54 nos. 372-526; p. 65 no. 604; p. 66 nos. 608, 612, 615; p. 73 no. 630; p. 73-74 no. 632; p. 74 nos. 633, 634, 636-638; p. 79 no. 649.

293. Reinach 1891, p. 120, 203.


formally accessed by the Museum.294 Where they can be identified, his entries are noted in subsequent references in this study of mine to Cypriote objects in the Museum.

The inadequacies in Cesnola’s recording of provenance are well known and nowhere better explained – and pilloried – than in D.G. Hogarth’s commentary published in 1889, as follows : “The fact that the General has ascribed two inscriptions of Armagetti to Old Paphos (v. J.H.S. vol. ix. p. 262) proves that he had very little knowledge of the provenance of the antiquities collected by Besh-besh, who held a roving commission, and was the real discoverer of the treasures now in New York…The truth of the matter seems to be that the General seldom directed his excavations in person, and was not present when the treasures were found; he undertook some rapid tours about the island, stopping for instance one day only at Old Paphos (cf. his book, p. 206, ‘I superintended excavations there in 1869 for several months’), but his collection was amassed by the labours of his dragoman Besh-besh, both by excavation, and by purchase in the villages and in the bazaars of the towns [...]. The ridiculous depths to which excavations are said to have been carried, e.g. forty-one feet at Old Paphos (p. 209) in a spot at which solid rock lies only two to three feet below the surface, and forty to forty-five feet at Amathus (p. 255) where a tomb at twenty feet in depth is quite exceptional, appear to be inventions of Besh-besh’s, who spent so much of his patron’s money on mastica and other things unarchaeological, that he was obliged to manufacture satisfactory explanations of his large expenditure. When General di Cesnola travelled in person he knew nothing of the necessity for keeping accurate notes...”.295

Cypriote stone objects

The problem over attributions is also well illustrated by three stone objects with Cypro-Syllabic inscriptions, which were not individually listed by Salomon Reinach296 but catalogued by Olivier Masson. A marble base with a Cypro-Syllabic inscription in Greek of the 4th century B.C. (Inv. No. 3096) was first published in 1878 by Paul Schröder (1844-1915), who made at least two visits from Constantinople, where he was assigned from 1869 to 1882, to Cyprus in 1870 and 1873 297 and published several works on the island and its ancient inscriptions.298 He stated that the stone had no known provenance but on circumstantial grounds most likely came from Paphos.299 He went on to say that

294. Eldem’s observation that Reinach’s work “was also the occasion for a proper and systematic inventory and recording system to be set up” should be read in the light of the author’s own com-ments (Eldem 2104, p. 23).

295. Hogarth 1889, p. 18-19 n. 2.Hogarth 1889, p. 18-19 n. 2.

296. Reinach 1882, p. 83 no. 657 bis.Reinach 1882, p. 83 no. 657 bis.

297. Schröder 1878; Lang 1905, p. 629; Masson 1983, p. 21-22 ; Pohlsander 2006, p. 261-262; Schröder 1878; Lang 1905, p. 629; Masson 1983, p. 21-22 ; Pohlsander 2006, p. 261-262; Bonato 2012, p. 51-52.

298. Jeffery 1929, p. 56-57. According to Cesnola, Schröder visited him in Cyprus in 1871 or 1872 (Testimony of the Defendant 1884, p. 4).

299. Schroeder 1878, p. 134

86 CCEC 47, 2017

“it had been brought over in 1875, I suppose, along with other antiquities, from Cyprus to Constantinople”.300 According to Dethier, it was the Governor of the island who first alerted him to this find which was made in a vineyard at Kouklia/Palaepaphos, and the stone was sent to Constantinople on the Sublime Porte’s express order.301 Schröder wrote that he examined it, sometime before May 1877, in the small museum of antiquities in the Old Seraglio in Constantinople.302 Another stone with a Cypro-Syllabic inscription in Greek is said to have come from Dhrymou, been identified by 1869, and located in the museum at Hagia Eirene in 1874.303 One part of it, however, turned up by chance in 1969 in the Louvre in Paris (AM 2750), and, having investigated its modern history, Masson found no record of how it came to be there.304

However, another fragment with a Cypro-Syllabic inscription in the Louvre (AM 550 bis), which was also housed in the Hagia Eirene museum in 1875, had entered the Louvre by 1894 together with a group of antiquities from Asia Minor and Cyprus, having be-longed, according to Masson, to “Alexandre Sorlin-Dorigny, médecin français résident à Constantinople à la fin du XIX

e siècle, érudit et collectionneur, et qui s’!"#$"%$&"!'())!%#*+%#&"$,*$"!)%-./0'$1"()”305. In fact Ludovic François Alexis Marie Sorlin-Dorigny (1855-1932), customarily called “Alexis” or “Albert”, worked in Constantinople from 1882 to 1896 as a dentist, accredited to Sultan Abdülhamid II, as well as a restorer of fine arts, two not unconnected professions, and amassed, by one means or another, a varied collection of Old World antiquities, many of which found their way to the Louvre in Paris and the Musée d’Archéologie nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye.306 It was also he who in 1895 sold the Louvre a collection of Iznik ceramics, including 60 tiles from the tomb of Sultan Selim II in the Hagia Sophia Museum, Istanbul, which have recently been reclaimed by the Turkish Government, on the grounds that they were fraudulently removed from the country and replaced with imitations. 307 (Ironically it was this Sultan who planned the attack, occupation and colonisation of Cyprus in 1570-1571308 and Sultan Abdülhamid II who ceded Cyprus to Britain’s administration in 1878 under the Cyprus Convention).

300. Schroeder 1878, p. 134; cf. Masson 1983, p. 22-23, 101, 103-104 no. 6. 301. Dethier 1881a, p. 60-61.

302. Schroeder 1878, p. 143.

303. Masson 1983, p. 22-23, 142-143 no. 87, 409 no. 87.

304. Masson 1971, p. 439-440 ; Masson 1997, p. 18.Masson 1971, p. 439-440 ; Masson 1997, p. 18.

305. Masson 1971, p. 440; Masson 1983, p. 335 no. 337, 418; cf. Réunion des musées nationaux 2014, p. 63; see above.

306. Cf. Revue archéologique 1874, p. 129-130; Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 325; Réunion des musées nationaux 2014, p. 63.

307. Historia, Le Louvre Spécial No. 127, September 2010, p. 12 ; Ömer Erbil, “Louvre puts ‘sto-len’ Turkish tiles on display at Islamic Arts Gallery show”, Hurriyet Daily News, 29 October 2012.

308. Hill 1948, p. 817, 879-880. He is said to have been partial to Cypriote wine, evidently commanderia.


However neither the Turkish side, nor the French, seems to have its homework properly into the circumstances surrounding the alleged theft by Sorlin-Dorigny, which are on the public record.

The events leading up to this appropriation have been graphically and no doubt au-thentically recounted by James Theodore Bent, in his supremely patronising article about Osman Hamdi Bey published in 1888, as follows :

“Not so long ago a certain Pasha of exalted position borrowed a sum of money from a Frenchman, and when the time for repayment came he was unable to raise the required amount. ‘But,’ said he, ‘if I cannot give you the money, for I have none, I can at least give you a lucrative post – namely, the repairing of the tombs of the Sultans, which are in a bad state, and you can remove those old tiles which people care for, and replace them by modern ones made in France’. Needless to say, this post was willingly accepted, and on setting to work the delighted Frenchman discovered, in a vault beneath one of the tombs, a whole heap of ancient tiles, which provident Turks of a bygone age had put there with a view to restoration, but of the existence of which the Turks of this generation were ignorant. Endless cases of valuable tiles were thus collected and despatched to France, and, when it was found absolutely necessary to make restorations, cheap new tiles made in France were put up, and thus did the French creditor make over and over again the sum of money he had advanced to the Pasha”.309

Sorlin-Dorigny’s life, collecting and writings have never been subjected to detailed study.After the appearance of his ill-fated catalogue, Salomon Reinach published, with

photographs, in two short articles in 1884 and 1885, three limestone heads from the Iron Age of assumed Cypriote provenance. The first, the head of a bearded male with wreath around the hair, was given no number of any kind by Reinach310 but is no. 301 in his catalogue of the Imperial Museum311 and has since been republished by Erg2345$67)8#$9(#$--:0).312 It belongs to the 5th century B.C. A second head, that of a kouros (Inv. No. 1645), was not found in Cyprus, as Reinach tentatively surmised,313 or probably in Rhodes, as Gjerstad believed,314 but in Samos.315 Reinach did, however, give his own catalogue entry numbers for the two Cypriote heads he subsequently published, one the bust of

309. Bent 1888, p. 732; cf. Eldem 2014a, p. 62-65; see above.

310. Reinach 1884, pl. 13, right, p. 88.

311. Reinach 1882, p. 41 no. 301– not marble; Perrot, Chipiez 1885, p. 509 n. 1.

author.

314. Gjerstad 1948, p. 362.

315. Reinach 1884, pl. 13, left, p. 89-90; Duyuran 1956, pl. I, p. 38; Pasinli 2003, p. 125; Pasinli

88 CCEC 47, 2017

a garlanded female (Inv. No. 3350),316 dating to the 6th century B.C, and the other, the bearded head of a male with Phrygian cap (Inv. No. 3356),317 which belongs to the late 5th or 4th century B.C. Reinach thought that these two may have come from Golgoi and been amongst the antiquities ceded to the Ottoman government by Cesnola.318 In the end Reinach’s experiences in Constantinople did not predispose him to look kindly on Cypriote antiquities. We have already seen how he associated himself, in the second of his two articles, with Perrot’s derogatory remarks.319 This, it must be said, sits oddly with his own independent and earlier judgement on Cypriote sculpture that it was possible to speak of an original style and type.320 He never, in any case, returned to the subject in detail and allowed himself, in his text book on the history of plastic arts published in 1905, to dismiss sculptors during the Cypriote Iron Age as “médiocres imitateurs” and claim that the island’s “produits industriels, où les motifs sont d’inspiration étrangère, ne suffisent pas à constituer un art”.321 For all that he wrote about Cyprus, this Reinach never once, so far as we know, visited the island.

Cypriote antiquities from the Caridis collection

Several antiquities were also assigned by Salomon Reinach to excavations conducted by a “M. Caridès” in Cyprus, without specifying the location(s). Just when they entered the Museum is not recorded, but it must have been before 1882. They include the remarkable bronze helmet with iron band probably datable to the 6th century B.C., found in a tomb with a skull inside it (Inv. No. 16);322 glassware,323 and a group of jewellery, which Reinach dated to the 7th century B.C., consisting of gold leaf, three small gold rings, and gold earrings, one of them decorated with a bull’s head.324 In the absence of the relevant inventory numbers, it is not possible to determine whether one of these earrings may have been Inv. No. 536, a gold hoop earring with a disk encircled by a leaf design, attached to the loop end, and an empty stone mount in the middle of the disk.325 Its

316. Reinach 1885a, pl. 3, left, p. 11-12; Reinach 1882, p. 50 no. 379; Ergüleç 1972, p. 44 pl. III, Reinach 1885a, pl. 3, left, p. 11-12; Reinach 1882, p. 50 no. 379; Ergüleç 1972, p. 44 pl. III, üleç 1972, p. 44 pl. III, III, p. 11-12 no. C.4.

318. Reinach 1885a, p. 1.

319. See above.

320. Reinach 1882, p. 46.

321. Reinach 1905b, p. 28; cf. Eldem 2014a, p. 266.Reinach 1905b, p. 28; cf. Eldem 2014a, p. 266.

4, p. 28, 30, with bibliography, p. 40; Pasinli 2003, p. 402, bottom; Matthäus 2014, p. 109, with bibliography.

323. Reinach 1882, p. 78-79 no. 648; Åström 1965, p. 135.Reinach 1882, p. 78-79 no. 648; Åström 1965, p. 135.

324. Reinach 1882, p. 70 no. 623 bis.Reinach 1882, p. 70 no. 623 bis.

325. Ergil 1983, p. 42 no. 102.Ergil 1983, p. 42 no. 102.


provenance is given as Cyprus and date of acquisition or registration, 1882. This “Caridès” was undoubtedly Christodoulos Caridis (Karydis) ( or ) (1833-1885), who was at one time Chancelier of the French Consulate in Larnaca, where he was born, and later became a merchant and shipping agent in Limassol.326 In 1878 he was appointed by the British to replace the Turkish district governor in Limassol and in May 1884 elected President of the Municipal Council of Limassol, which he remained until the time of his death.327 In November 1878 Mrs Brassey records that in Limassol “when it was time to embark the mayor saw us off, and gave me two or three specimens of old glass, of which great quantities are found in the tombs near here”.328 It was also he who guided Charles Newton of the British Museum on his visit to Amathus in April 1879,329 and, according to his direct descendant, Aristides Coudounaris, he is reputed to have recovered ancient stone items from the Classical site of Amathus and sold them to the Suez Canal Company for construction work in Egypt.330

Thanks to a letter preserved in the State Archives, Nicosia (SA1/4015),331 we also know that on 28 November 1883 Christodulo Caridi of Limassol, who did not specify his position or occupation, asked the Chief Secretary for permission to dig at Kourion, Ama-thus and Nikoklia. He stated that he had for about three years been the “Agent” of Cesnola for excavations in the Limassol district and was better acquainted with the archaeology of the area than others who had dug previously dug there, claiming somewhat enigmatically that his excavations would greatly benefit the Cyprus Museum. Lieutenant H.M. Sinclair, Honorary Secretary of the Cyprus Museum, in a minute dated 5 December 1883, argued that only one permit should be granted at a time for excavations – he crossed out “in one place” – and noted that Mr Charles Watkins, an expatriate businessman,332 had already applied for Curium, though evidently not for Amathus or Nikoklia. Following this advice the Chief Secretary’s office in a letter to Caridi on 13 December 1883 denied his request for permission to excavate, on the specious grounds that they were unable to grant more than one permission at a time and already had previous applications. Perhaps this was one of the refusals that gave rise to the complaints in the local press of the time that British officials were being given preferential treatment in the granting of licences.333

326. Koudounaris 1985, p. 20; Coudounaris 2010a, p. 229-230.

327. Coudounaris 2010b, p. 294-295.

328. Brassey 1880, p. 259.

329. Kiely 2010, p. 248.

330. Cf. Karageorghis 1998b, p. 54; Hoak-Doering in this volume.

331. I am endebted to Thomas Kiely for this information.

332. Given 2001, p. 258.

333. Cf. Given 2001, p. 256.

90 CCEC 47, 2017

Ironically, in response to a renewed request for permission to excavate, this time by Mr Caridi and Mustafa Fethi Effendi,334 said to have been a powerful land owner who

the same time as Caridi, the Chief Secretary, Colonel Falkland Warren,335 pointed out to Sinclair in a minute of 1 February 1884 that the “the question of excavating has been settled by formal fixed rules, none of which appear to be to the effect that only one per-son can excavate at a time” [sic]! 336 Sinclair was evidently nonplussed by this policy development and cleverly adapted his previous advice by recommending that “during the continuance of excavations already authorised, [...] no others be allowed by the Govt. At the expiration of the present permits the applicants might be informed that permission can be obtained on the conditions now laid down...”. Caridi was so informed by letter on 10 March 1884. Sinclair was clearly determined that Watkins have no competition at Curium. In this regard Salomon Reinach was particularly critical of the laxity of the local (British) authorities, during Caridis’ watch, over the exploration for antiquities when he wrote that “des fouilles tout ;$"&<=$tumultuaires ont été pratiquées à Limisso aux frais de M. R. Mitchell, commissaire du gouvernement à Limassol, à la fin du printemps de 1883. Le manque de surveillance paraît avoir été tel que les objets des époques les plus diverses furent confondus…”.337 Just how or why objects from Caridis’ excavations should have ended up in Constantinople is unknown, unless it had something to do at an earlier stage with his Turkish Cypriote confrère.

This Caridis is not to be confused with John Caridi, of Caridi Taylor & Co., General Merchants and Commission Agents, London,338 who in 1889 arranged the sale to the British Museum, on behalf of G. or J. Pavlides 339 in Cyprus, of three small antiquities from the island, a chloritite scaraboid (GR 1889.11-10.1),340 a serpentine scarab (GR 1889.11-10.2)341 and an inscribed ivory counter or tessera (GR 1889.11-10.3). On the other hand there may have been a link between Christodoulos Caridis and Pierre Caridi, of Pierre Caridi et fils, Georges Caridis, and/or Timoleon Caridis, an employee of the Imperial Ottoman Bank, all of whose files were kept in the Bank’s headquarters in

334. In December 1883 the District Commissioner in Limassol forwarded to the Secretariat in Nicosia an application from Fetti Effendi asking for permission to excavate for antiquities on land belonging to the Evkaf at Episkopi (State Archives : Minute Papers : SA1/4016 L.1/33/1).

335. Given 2001, passim.

336. State Archives, Nicosia, SA1/620/1884 = SA1/18288.

337. Reinach 1891, p. 199; cf. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 8, 175.Reinach 1891, p. 199; cf. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 8, 175.

338. Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 178.

339. Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 182 n. 119 – not Parlides; www.british.museum.org/research/collection_online (accessed 15/02/ 2015) – not Partides; Coudounaris 2010a, p. 464 (?).


Constantinople.342 In 1918 it is recorded that there were no fewer than 1.200 Cypriotes living in Constantinople, Smyrna, Aleppo and Mersin.343 There is, however, little documentary evidence for the travel to Constantinople during the second half of the 19th century A.D. by native born Cypriotes with antiquarian interests. While this may be easy to understand after Britain took over the running of the island’s affairs from the Sublime Porte in 1878, it is more difficult to explain while Cyprus was still part of the Ottoman Empire and governed from Constantinople.

It is nevertheless worth recording in this connection that another prominent Greek Cypriote was also actively involved in collecting and disposing of Cypriote antiquities in the 19th century A.D. Demetrios Pierides (1811-1895) worked for the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Larnaca and devoted his spare time to the study of the island’s archaeology, especially epigraphy and numismatics, on which he wrote a number of scholarly papers.344 History does not relate how he made his collection but he evidently obtained his antiquities both by excavation and purchase, hundreds of which he once sold at auction in Paris in 1873.345 Presumably he required (or requested?) no permit from the Ottoman administration for this purpose – there is certainly no indication in his correspondence with the British Museum, for knowledge of which I am endebted to Thomas Kiely,346 that he dealt with or even consulted the local Ottoman authorities – and Karageorghis credits him with preventing his acquisitions leaving the country and thus saving them for posterity in Cyprus.347 Demetrios Pierides overlapped with Luigi Palma di Cesnola during the whole of the latter’s posting in Larnaca and evidently enjoyed cordial relations with him if a Cesnola family photograph presented to Pierides in 1887 is any guide;348 and Luigi’s younger brother, Alessandro, who also ransacked Cyprus archaeologically from his Consular position in Paphos between 1874 and 1878,349 did not hesitate to seek the philological advice of Pierides, whom he described as his “learned friend”.350

On 18 July 1871 Demetrios Pierides wrote from Larnaca to Count Melchior de

beneficial only to Mr Goold’s Agent here personally, for the Museum of Constantinople

342. Eldem 1994, p. 295.

343. Morgan 2010, p. 83.

344. Perrot 1879, p. 587; Masson 1983, p. 18; Bonato 2000; Lazarides 2006, p. 287; Coudounaris 2010a, p. 491-492; Kiely 2010, p. 237, 238-239;2014, p. 33-35.

345. E.g. Antiquités chypriotes 1873; cf. Kiely and Merrillees 2012, p. 248.

346. Pierides to Newton, Original Letters 1861-1868 Nos. 582-593 ; 1869-1872 Nos. 495-497 ; Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 169, 178.

347. Karageorghis 1973, p. 9; cf. Bonato 2000, p. 115.

348. Cf. Bonato 2000, p. 100.

349. Masson 1996a, p. 18.

350. A. Cesnola 1882, p. 257.

92 CCEC 47, 2017

gets very shabby returns for its outlays: so the pursuit which, whilst helping the poor peasants during the hard times we have had in Cyprus, contributed to the achievement of discoveries of interest to the historian, the philologist and the artist [sic].351 This agreeable pursuit is no longer possible”.352 This intriguing reference to an “Agent” of the Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum requires further investigation as no-one is known to have worked for Goold in Cyprus unless it was one of the Ottoman officials stationed in the island. Though Pierides’ own links with Constantinople are unrecorded, he is said to have been a member of the Greek Literary Society there353 and was related through his mother to Christodoulos Caridis, who was her brother and therefore Demetrios’ uncle.354 Zenon Demetrios Pierides (1839-1911), the son of this Demetrios, was also at one time employed by the Imperial Ottoman Bank.355 He too was a member of the Greek Literary Society in Constantinople, and it was his son, Luke Zenon Pierides (1865-1933), who in 1922 asked Professor Persson of Sweden for a loan to enable him to complete his journey from Serbia to Constantinople.356 This chance encounter helped launch the Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

Joubin’s catalogue of Cypriote metal artefacts

In 1898 there appeared another unillustrated catalogue, this time by André Joubin (1868-1944), another French archaeologist, of items of bronze and jewellery in the Tchinili Kiosk.357 It included non-ornamental antiquities in other metals as well. Elsewhere Joubin reproduced with engravings some of the unpublished pieces in bronze, none Cypriote, “qui méritent mieux qu’une sèche description dans un catalogue sommaire, dépourvu malheureusement de gravures”.358 From this it may be inferred that he had encountered the same problems with his work as Salomon Reinach.359 Of approximately 1000 antiquities in these two categories,360 Joubin listed less than half,361 and of these only 13 were assigned a provenance in Cyprus :

Inv. No. 16. Bronze helmet with iron band and skull inside;362

351. This sentence is incomplete as the main clause is missing.

352. Bonato 2000, p. 116; cf. Antiquités chypriotes 1873, p. 2.

353. Karageorghis 1973, p. 9.

354. Koudounaris 1985, p. 19-20; see above.

355. Karageorghis 1973, p. 10; Eldem 1994, p. 368; Coudounaris 2010a, p. 492.

356. Karageorghis 1973, p. 10; Gjerstad 1980, p. 9-10.

357. Joubin 1898a; cf. Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 238; Chevalier 2002, p. 67-71, esp. p. 67 n. 220 and p. 70 n. 238, 84-86; Du Crest 2002; Eldem 2014a, p. 278-279.

358. Joubin 1899, p. 203.

359. See above.

360. Joubin 1898a, Introduction.

361. Cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.Cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.

362. Joubin 1898a, p. 43 no. 272; see above and below.


Inv. No. 44. Copper ball or roundel representing the sun, found in a tomb at Citium;363

Inv. Nos. 51-55, 57, 59, 60. Bronze jugs;364

Inv. No. 76. Fragmentary bronze hydria;365

Inv. No. 529. Gold ring with a cornaline bezel featuring Minerva;366 Inv. No. 530. Gold ring with a lozenge-shaped bezel featuring two joined stalks.367

The bronze jugs of Byzantine type belonging to the 7th century A.D. have recently been published with photographs by Bursa and Pitarakis.368 They have recorded only seven (Inv. Nos. 51-54, 57, 58, 60),369 whereas Joubin has listed eight (Inv. Nos. 51-55, 57, 59, 60).370 There is no doubt about their provenance, which is consistently given as Cyprus, but there is no guarantee that they came from the Cesnola collection.371 Another four small

372 as a “vase de sacrifice destin!%#*%21'">, in his catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the Museum, were said to have had a Cypriote provenance.373 In addition to Inv. No. 44, Salomon Reinach lists under his No. 608 “Pointes de lance. Fragment de casque. Strigiles” as coming from Cyprus.374 Particularly mysterious is the provenance and source of the incomplete lion in bronze (Inv. No. 77), dated provisionally by Devambez to the first half of the 5th century B.C. and assigned by him to Cyprus,375 whereas Reinach and Joubin give it no findspot.376 It is presently on show in the Cypriote gallery of the Museum, though in 1937

Cypriote antiquities.377 In addition to these and other artefacts listed by Reinach, a small bronze warrior with shield, said to have been found in 1871 in a tomb at Citium,378 may or

363. Joubin 1898a, p. 51 no. 367; Reinach 1882, p. 66 no. 608.

364. Joubin 1898a, p. 32 nos. 167-174.

365. Joubin 1898a, p. 32 no. 165; Reinach 1882, p. 65 no. 604; Pasinli 2003, p. 412, left.

366. Joubin 1898a, p. 80 no. 176.

367. Joubin 1898a, p. 64 no. 34.

368. Bursa, Pitarakis 2005; cf. Durand, Giovannoni 2012, p. 75.

369. Cf. Reinach 1882, p. 66.

370. Joubin 1898a, p. 32 nos. 167-174.

371. Bursa,Bursa, Pitarakis 2005, p. 29-30.

372. Cf. Canpolat 2001, p. 90.Cf. Canpolat 2001, p. 90.

373. Scheil 1898, p. 57-58 nos. 916, 115, 111, 117 ; cf. Metzger 1988, p. 681-682, 1990, p. 55-59.

374. Reinach 1882, p. 66.

et al. 2006,

www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/photo - accessed on 11/03/2017 ).

376. Reinach 1882, p. 65 no. 602; Joubin 1898a, p. 24 no. 126.

377. Baedeker 1934, p. 523.

378. Reinach 1882, p. 66 no. 613; Joubin 1898a, p. 13 no. 53 (Inv. No. 36) (?).

94 CCEC 47, 2017

may not have been part of the Cesnola collection. None of the bronze objects other than the lion is recognisable in Devambez’s illustrated guide of 1937.379 It could be that Inv. Nos. 529 and 530 in Joubin’s catalogue belonged to the assemblage dug up by Caridis in Cyprus.380 The unprovenanced shallow silver bowl with embossed body, which was acquired by the Imperial Museum in 1885 (Inv. No. 88), could be the “bol en argent, à larges bords, ornés d’une rangée d’oves” of the same diameter, without provenance, listed by Joubin but under another Inv. No. 87.381 Matthäus has attributed it to Cyprus and dated it to around 500 B.C.382

Joubin was not especially interested in the island, which rates no mention in his report on the Museum to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1898,383 but he did foreshadow the imminent publication of a catalogue of vases and terracottas,384 though not specifically Cypriote. His earlier catalogue of the Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Frankish sculptures completely ignored the Cypriote collection.385 This is not to underestimate his achievements, which were considerable in the short time he spent at the Museum in Constantinople, given the state in which he found the collections on which he was commissioned to work. In his own words :

“Tchinili Kiosk, à mon arrivée, présentait l’aspect d’une boutique de bazar de Stamboul où des monuments de tous styles s’empilaient les uns sur les autres, ou bien étaient jetés pêle-mêle contre les murs”.386

According to Radet, “Joubin, détaché en 1893 au Musée de Constantinople, rendit l’inappréciable service

d’en classer et d’en inventorier les collections. Si sa mission à Tchinili-Kiosk, si sa délégation auprès de l’ambassade de France n’ont pas donné tous les résultats que l’on espérait, c’est que la Turquie est un terrain semé de chausse-trapes, où il faut un infini labeur pour ravir à la fortune ce qu’on peut lui ôter par conseil et vigilance”.387

Nicole’s catalogue of Cypriote pottery

The first and so far the only (unillustrated) catalogue of the Cypriote pottery in the Archaeological Museum, then still in the Tchinili Kiosk, was produced by Georges Nicole (1880-1970), a Swiss Classical archaeologist who also published a similar (unillustrated)

379. Devambez 1937b.

380. Reinach 1882, p. 70 no. 623 bis; see above.

381. Joubin 1898a, p. 34 no. 192.

382. Matthäus 1985, pl. 33 no. 419, p. 156 no. 419, p. 376.

383. Joubin 1898b.Joubin 1898b.

384. Joubin 1898b, p. 467.Joubin 1898b, p. 467.

385. Joubin 1893; Eldem 2014, p. 23.Joubin 1893; Eldem 2014, p. 23.

386. Chevalier 2002, p. 70 n. 238.

387. Radet 1901, p. 233.


Catalogue des vases cypriotes du Musée d’Athènes (Geneva 1906). The former appeared formally in the Bulletin de l’Institut National Genevoisbut was separately issued under the title, Catalogue des vases cypriotes du Musée de Constantinople, by the Librairie Kündig, Geneva, in 1906 with its own independent pagination. It is this version which is customarily used for bibliographical purposes. In it there is no hint that Nicole drew on Dethier’s unpublished manuscript for his catalogue entries. Instead he states that Osman Hamdi Bey entrusted him in the summer of 1904 with the task of classifying and describing the Cypriote room in the Museum, and that he found more than 800 vases arranged in the central case without chronological or typological order.388 Certainly his listing of the vases is far from complete, judging by the inventory numbers of those which have been subsequently published but cannot be found in his catalogue. He did, of course, also record several pieces which had no inventory numbers, at least at that time, but the lack of illustrations makes correlations problematic. It is also a fact that Salomon Reinach referred to 1.500 Cypriote vases in the Museum, of which he described only two,389 and the inventory numbers of the vases itemised by Nicole range between 1 and 2000 with numerous gaps in between.390

Instead of relying solely on the Museum’s inventory numbers for his catalogue, Nicole introduced his own numbering system and omitted all further mention of the vases’ provenances and sources. He justified this on the following grounds, leaving it to be inferred that they all came from the Cesnola collection: “malheureusement, l’inventaire ne porte que l’indication générale Chypre, et reste muet sur les provenances particulières de chaque objet. On sait toutefois par M. Salomon Reinach, Chroniques d’Orient, I, p. 188, que la nécropole d’Haghia-Paraskevi a fourni la plupart des vases.391 Le même savant a décrit sommairement notre collection dans son Catalogue du Musée ottoman, brochure devenue fort rare”.392 Finally Nicole expressed regret that his booklet had no illustrations but hoped to be in a position to publish the most interesting pieces, including the terracottas and limestone sculptures, in his Catalogue illustré des antiques cypriotes du Musée ottoman,393 which in the end never came out.394 Likewise Gustave Mendel395 omitted all the Cypriote terracottas from his catalogue of the Greek figurines, published in 1908, since they were to be included in the special catalogue to be made of

388. Nicole 1906, p. 5-6; cf. Du Crest 2002, p. 130.

389. Reinach 1882, p. 73-74.

390. See above and below.

391. Cf. Cesnola 1878, p. 246.

392. Nicole 1906, p. 6 n. 2. So rare, in fact, that Nicole got the title wrong.

393. Nicole 1906, p. 6.Nicole 1906, p. 6.

394. Cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.Cf. A.J. Reinach 1911, p. 375.

395. Cf. Chevalier 2002, p. 100-102; Poulain et al. 2013; Eldem 2014.

96 CCEC 47, 2017

the antiquities from Cyprus by Georges Nicole.396 The Archaeological Museum has had a long history of failed publishing ventures.

At some stage the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, which came into being in 1927, took or came into possession of photographs of Cypriote pots in the Museum. We know this not because of illustrations published by members of the Expedition but through references made by Stewart, in his Corpus of Cypriot Artefacts of the Early Bronze Age, to these images in the Expedition’s archives. How, where and when he got access to them – he quotes no negative numbers or their location – is unknown, and enquiries of the Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm have failed to identify their present whereabouts. As Gjerstad is known to have visited the Istanbul Archaeological Museum in the course of research for his doctoral thesis,397 there is a strong presumption that he took the snaps himself before 1926, when Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus was published, but none has been identified in this work, though some of the unidentified illustrations could be of vases in Istanbul.398 They appear in any case not to have been a complete photographic record of the pottery collection, unless Stewart were especially selective, and the ones Stewart chose to mention are random and unrelated to each other. The following is a list of the occurrences in Stewart’s Corpus, which has been published in toto in Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology

Istanbul Archaeological Type ReferencesMuseum Inventory No.

29 Red Polished III juglet Nicole 1906, p. 14 no. 70, 17 no. 121; Type ID1d1 var. a No. 4 Åström 1972a, p. 178 n. 6; Stewart, Åström 1988, p. 135

64 Red Polished III juglet Stewart and Åström 1992, p. 31; Type IIB!k No. 2 not in Nicole 1906

67 Red Polished III juglet. Nicole 2006, p. 14 no. 72, 17 no. 122; neck only. Type IDd1 No. 9 Stewart and Åström 1988, p. 135

Type IIIE!h No. 1 Nicole 2006, p. 24 no. 273

1480 Red Polished (Philia) Webb and Frankel 2012, p. 124; Stroke Burnished bowl Nicole 1906, p. 22 no. 213. Said to be from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi

In his substantial contributions to the final results of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition Åström has dealt with some of the native Middle and Late Bronze Age Cypriote

397. Åström 2008, p. 153.

398. Åström 2008a.


pottery in Istanbul,399 but Gjerstad, in his major work on the Iron Age for the same series of publications, almost completely ignored the antiquities from Cyprus in the Archaeological Museum apart from the material housed there which was found in excavations outside Cyprus.400 In particular the Mycenaean pottery from Cyprus in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum has been largely overlooked by all specialists, whatever their nationality. In addition to the Mycenaean figurine published by Atakan,401 Åström listed individually only two of the several Mycenaean vases recorded by Nicole,402 a Mycenaean IIIA1 squat alabastron-shaped jar (Inv. No. 576?),403 and a Mycenaean IIIA2b-IIIB small globular jug (Inv. No. 127).404 Even these were omitted from the notes for the plates volume to accompany Furumark’s Mycenaean Pottery, which was co-edited by Åström.405 An unpublished and unillustrated Mycenaean one-handled jug of unknown provenance, without a Museum Inventory Number, decorated with “two delicate birds

406

to the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Cyprus, which was published in 1956, the Cypriote collection in Istanbul might not have existed.407 It is worth noting that Westholm subsequently became Director of the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul from 1969 to 1973.

Goethert’s abortive catalogue of Cypriote sculpture

Osman Hamdi Bey was succeeded as Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museums by his brother, Halil Edhem Bey (1861-1938), who served in this position from 1910 to 1931. It was a barren time for Cypriote studies in the Museum.408 Edhem Bey himself wrote nothing about the Cypriote antiquities in his care – the collection did not rate a mention in the text of his article on “Das osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel” published in 1909 though it appeared in Fig. 10 “Galerie für Kypern, Palmyra und den Yemen”409 – and not a single Cypriote object was included in Meisterwerke der türkischen Museen zu Konstantinopel Band 1, published in 1928 under his direction.410 The collection was

399. See below.

400. Gjerstad 1948; see below.

401. See below,

402. Nicole 1906, p. 29-30 nos. 570-608.

403. Åström 1972a, p. 321 Type 84 No. j; Nicole 1906, p. 29 no. 596.

404. Åström 1972a, p. 328 Type 114 No. h2 bis; not in Nicole 1906.

405. Åström et al. 1992, pl. 49 Type 84, pl. 64 Type 114.

408. Cf. Çelik 2016, p. 119-128.Cf. Çelik 2016, p. 119-128.

409. Edhem 2009.Edhem 2009.

410. Schede 1928.Schede 1928.

98 CCEC 47, 2017

again conspicuous by its almost complete absence from the report by Adolphe J. Reinach (1887-1914), the nephew of Salomon Reinach411, on the state of the Museum in 1911.412 Furthermore none of Gustave Mendel’s catalogues of the Classical statuary published in 1912 and 1914 dealt with Cyprus as such,413 and it is only when we get to 1934 that we learn that the Cypriote sculptures had been studied, classified and photographed for a scientific catalogue being prepared by F.W. Goethert.414 In addition to his abortive work on the sculpture, of which nothing was ever published, he took part in the American excavations at Troy415 and some time in 1933/34 visited Cyprus on which he wrote and published a report about archaeological finds there during the previous fifteen years.416 He also assembled between 1948 and 1974 a small collection of antiquities, including the unprovenanced head of a Cypriote 5th century B.C. female limestone statue, in the

the Director.417 Dr Matthias Recke has been entrusted with the manuscript of Goethert’s catalogue of Cypriote sculpture in Istanbul, which he intends publishing.

The photographic archives of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Istanbul contain a substantial number of pictures of the Cypriote sculpture in the Archaeological Museum, many of which have never appeared in print but can be accessed on-line through

Archaeological Institute at http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/. Other than those negatives bearing R and KB numbers, which were taken by D. Johannes, Hubertus von Gall and Wolfgang Schiele, the rest appear to have been made in the 1930s for Goethert’s abortive catalogue. All the information on the Museum’s Cypriote sculpture in the Arachne database was said to have been originally taken from photographic prints since stuck on cards in the Fotothek of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Istanbul. Any details missing from Arachne about the Museum’s inventory numbers, if recorded on the back of these prints, is now inaccessible. The glass negatives from which the prints were taken are themselves marked with the Institute’s negative numbers, not with the Museum’s inventory numbers. With a view to facilitating further research on Goethert’s long delayed study, I initially drew up in Appendix 1 a concordance between the Museum inventory numbers, where known, the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut’s negative numbers, and references to publications. As a result of a visit in September 2015 to Istanbul, where I was rendered every professional service in the Fotothek of the German Institute by Nurhan Özgenler, I

411. Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 302; Réunion des musées nationaux 2014, p. 204 ; ; Steve 2014, p. 19, 20, 160.

412. A.J. Reinach 1911.A.J. Reinach 1911.

413. Mendel 1912, 1914.Mendel 1912, 1914.

414. Annuaire 1934, p. 53; Archäologischer Anzeiger 1934, p. vi; see above.

415. Blegen 1934, col. 61.

416. Goethert 1934.

417. Recke 2012, p. 107-108.


was able to add some previously unrecorded negative numbers to the list in Appendix 1, a few more Museum inventory numbers, and some details about the sculptures on show in the Museum. For obvious reasons this list is not complete or definitive.

The rigid stylistic compartmentalisation into which the antiquities from Cyprus had been thrust by successive generations of foreign and Turkish archaeologists became en-trenched in the corporate consciousness of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum and was reflected again in an illustrated guidebook published in 1956. Regardless of their origins or inspiration, the sculptures of Cyprus were regarded as sui generis and excluded not only from R. Duyuran’s guide to the Greek, Roman and Byzantine Architectural and Sculptural Collections, but from show as they formed part of the Cypriote collection which remained out of sight.418 Never mind that comparable, even Phoenician pieces from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, such as Crete, north Africa and Syria, found their due place in the galleries and guide, or that the sarcophagi from Sidon were put on display separate from the rest of the material from Syria/Palestine. Nevertheless the iconic if off-putting statue of Bes, which shared the company of its Greek and Roman brethren in the public spaces, could not be ignored, despite its serious lack of Classical features.419 At least it was given its inventory number (Inv. No. 3317),420 unlike the only other itemised object from Cyprus, “a thick marble block with two lines [of] inscription in Cypriote script”.421 It was almost certainly Inv. No. 3096.422 Cyprus had been well and truly cast into the background, and as if to confirm the neglect to which Cyprus had been consigned, Necati Dolunay, Director of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, made only a passing reference to Cesnola’s gift in his 1973 volume dedicated to the fiftieth an-niversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic and illustrated not one of the island’s antiquities apart from the statue of Bes.423

?ström’s catalogue of Middle Cypriote pottery

Nothing more is heard of the Cypriote collection until 1957 when Paul Åström, the distinguished Swedish archaeologist who ended up carrying on single-handedly the out-standing work of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, published his doctoral dissertation on the Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. It was subsequently re-issued in 1972 as Part 1B of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition 424 In it he stated that he had seldom been able to include in his corpus of pottery vases which had only been described, not illustrated,

418. Duyuran 1956, p. vi.

419. In 1928 it was displayed in the so-called Hercules Room (No. 26) (Reshid 1928, p. 50) or

et al. 1951, p. 194).

420. Duyuran 1956, p. 40.

421. Duyuran 1956, p. 2.

422. Musées d’Istanbul 1935, p. 22; cf. Djemal 1928, p. 16; see above.

423. Dolunay 1973, p. 3-4; see above.

424. Åström 1972.

100 CCEC 47, 2017

and specifically mentioned in this context Nicole’s catalogue of 1906.425 As a result he appended asterisks to many of his entries for the vases he listed in the Istanbul Archaeo-logical Museum, to indicate his uncertainly about their classification or shapes.426 In his corpus he listed the following, without reference to Nicole’s catalogue:

Inv. No. 29. Red Polished III jug (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 178 n. 6; Nicole 1906, p. 14 no. 70).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 77; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 560).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 77; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 561).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 54; Nicole 1906, p. 25 no. 321).

Inv. No. 354. White Painted String-hole Style bird-shaped vase (?'=@AB$ *+C0a, p. 46; Nicole 1906, p. 26 no. 446).

Inv. No. 368. White Painted III bird-shaped vase (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 25; probably Inv. No. 68 in Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 545; see below; Fig. 6 ).

Inv. No. 466. Black Slip III amphoriskos with animal-shaped handles (?'=@AB$ *+C0a,

Inv. No. 568. Red-on-Black bowl (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 110-111; Nicole 1906, p. 29 no. 568; Myres 1914, p. 31).

Inv. No. 749. Red Slip bottle (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 107; Nicole 1906, p. 16 no. 92).

Inv. No. 856. White Painted String-hole Style ring-vase (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 45; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 540).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 71; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 567; Chantre 1898, p. 84 fig. 69; see below).

Inv. No. 946. White Painted String-hole Style jug (?'=@AB$*+C0.$/#$-CD$)(=$<)$Nicole 1906).

Inv. No. 1063. White Painted Cross Line Style bird-shaped vase (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 62; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 546).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 71; not in Nicole 1906).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 49; Nicole 1906, p. 24 no. 284).

?'=@AB$*+C0no. 529; see below).

Inv. No. 1185. White Painted String-hole Style bird-shaped vase (?'=@AB$ *972, p. 46; Nicole 1906, p. 26 no. 456).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 49; Nicole 1906, p. 24 no. 291).

no. 530; see below).

Inv. No. 1499. White Painted Cross Line Style askos (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 62; not in Nicole 1906).

Inv. No. 1999. Black Slip III bottle (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 107; Nicole 1906, p. 16 no. 95).

Inv. No. unknown. White Painted String-hole Style vertical ring-vase (?'=@AB$ *+C0a, p. 46).

425. Åström 1972, p. 11 n. 5.

426. Åström 1972, p. 12.


Inv. No. unknown. White Painted String-hole Style small flat bird-shaped vase (?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 46).

?'=@AB$*+C0a, p. 69).

Cylinder seals: Kenna’s contribution

The Istanbul Archaeological Museums have a substantial collection of ancient Near Eastern seals of which no comprehensive catalogue has ever been published.427 Some of them are on display in the Museum of the Ancient Orient. It is not recorded or known whether the Cesnola donation contained any cylinder or stamp seals. However, in 1969

-enance in the Archaeological Museum (Inv. No. 12.807).428 Said to be made of hematite, it was attributed by Kenna to Crete, whereas Pini classified it as Cretan with Cypriote influence or “Kypro-Ägäische”.429 Kenna gave no details about the circumstances of its acquisition, including date, and, for obvious reasons, omitted it from his contribution to the Swedish Cyprus Expedition 430 Though Kenna evidently had access to the glyptic collection in the Archaeological Museums and published as well a trial piece from Anatolia,431 he recorded no seals specifically from Cyprus. In the absence of any further information, it is impossible to say whether the hematite cylinder seal came from the Cesnola consignment or from Cyprus. Particular care must be exercised in automatically attributing a Cypriote findspot to any of the seals published by Luigi Palma di Cesnola or from his collection as a whole. Collon has found that the Old Babylonian cylinder seal of hematite illustrated by Cesnola, allegedly from the “Curium Treasure”,432 was originally part of the Rich collection which was formed in Western Asia and has nothing at all to do with Cyprus433. It is also worth noting that the Cesnola collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York contains 13 Sasanian stamp seals of Iranian derivation434.

The meaningless stylistic terms used by Kenna and Pini to classify the cylinder seal in Istanbul complicate the search for its likely place of manufacture by downgrading the relevance of provenance, material and date for determining its origin. Not only are its findspot and even source unknown, but of the 20 specimens attributed by Pini to this so-called “Cypro-Aegean class”, five are from Crete, two from Greece, six from Cyprus,

; Ornan et al. 2013, p. 14-20.

no. 12, with references.

430. Kenna 1972.

431. Kenna 1969b.

p. 162; Åström 1995, p. 78.

now in the Department of the Middle East in the British Museum No. 89737.

434. Brunner 1978, p. 7.

102 CCEC 47, 2017

one is said to have come from Latakia in Syria, and the provenance of six are unknown435. This distribution can hardly be said to provide a compelling argument in favour of their production in Cyprus, or for that matter, Crete. More telling is the material from which they were made, which is said in nearly all cases to be hematite. This material does not occur naturally in a workable form in Cyprus, and in the Late Bronze Age there was no tradition in the island of cutting hard stones like hematite436. It is extremely unlikely that any hematite cylinder seals were ever manufactured in Cyprus, unless by foreign crafts-men using imported material. Again almost none of the seals came from closed deposits and can be closely dated. This makes it impossible to establish chronological priority, which is essential for corroborating the putative original source.

?ström’s catalogue of Late Cypriote pottery

Though no acknowledgement was extended to the Istanbul Archaeological Museum in Gjerstad’s preface to the Swedish Cyprus Expedition 437, published in 1972, it is clear from the Index 438 and particularly the Addenda 439 that Åström had had access to unpublished data about the Late Cypriote pottery in the Museum as he recorded details

unable to give inventory numbers for most of the vases he mentioned and illustrations of any, but his classification is sufficiently precise to be able to visualise the items con-cerned. From his precious and up-to-date record, which remains unsurpassed, we know

ring I and II. Of these the following have been recorded with their Museum Inventory Numbers:

Inv. No. 164. Part of Base-ring I strainer;440

Inv. No. 179. Base-ring I juglet;441

Inv. No. 364. Base-ring II bull vase;442 443

435. Pini 1979, p. 126. Salje does not have Inv. No. 12.807 in her corpus (Salje 1990). 436. Merrillees 2006, p. 143-144, 148.

437. Åström 1972a, p. iv-v.

438. Åström 1972a, p. 836.

439. Åström 1972a, p. 852-853.

440. Åström 1972a, p. 853 P. 166; Nicole 1906, p. 18-19 no. 139.

below.

references; Karageorghis 1991, p. 197-198 no. 4; Merrillees 2014, p. 41 n. 84; see above.


Inv. No. 536. Coarse Monochrome jug,444 Inv. No. 564. Base-ring I jug,445

Inv. No. 634. Base-ring II vase with animal-shaped protome,446

Inv. No. 1025. Base-ring I jug,447 Inv. No. 1406. Base-ring II bowl.448.

In addition to the two Mycenaean vases from Cyprus,449 Åström included in his corpus of Late Cypriote pottery two Bucchero Ware containers in the Museum, without their Inventory Numbers, a jug (Inv. No. 1540) 450 and an amphora (Inv. No. 1543).451 Whether or not he obtained details about the White Slip vases in the Archaeological Museum is unknown, and unfortunately Popham made no comprehensive corpus of the Ware for the Swedish Cyprus Expedition 452 but three pieces have been published:

Inv. No. 2. White Slip I – II tankard;453

Inv. No. 187. White Slip II juglet,454

Inv. No. 1369. White Slip II milk bowl.455

Ergüleç’s catalogue of large-sized Cypriote sculpture

It was presumably due to Åström’s initiative that we owe Haluk Ergüleç’s catalogue of the large-sized Cypriote sculpture in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, which was published by Åström in his Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology series, also in 1972.456 It is the first detailed and illustrated account of this material and the only one of its kind to appear since 1945. While it may seem odd that the items were chosen on the basis of their size – no definition is given of the eligible measurements – Caubet, in her review of the volume, felt it was justified by the social context in which the sculptures were presumably produced.457 Though Ergüleç himself offered no explanation for the choice, it

444. Åström 1972a, p. 853 P.108.

445. Nicole 1906, p. 21 no. 185; Åström 1972a, p. 852 P.157.

447. Åström 1972a, p. 852 P.156: two specimens; Pasinli 2003, p. 400; Pasinli 2012, p. 160

448. Åström 1972a, p. 853 P.174 ff. – two specimens; Pasinli 2003, p. 397; Pasinli 2012, p. 160

449. See above.

450. Åström 1972a, p. 428 Type IBe no. 114; Nicole 1906, p. 36 no. 767.

451. Åström 1972a, p. 429 Type IId no. 3; Nicole 1906, p. 36 no. 768.

452. Popham 1972.

456. Ergüleç 1972; Pilides 2012, p. 13; cf. Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 17.

457. Caubet 1973.

104 CCEC 47, 2017

was doubtless inspired by Devambez’s earlier catalogue of large size bronzes in the same Museum.458 What is more surprising is the absence not only of bibliographical references for all the items but an entry for the largest statue of them all, the huge Bes (Inv. No. 3317),459 which stood at the head of the Museum’s Cypriote sculpture inventory and was followed closely in this list by most of the pieces catalogued by Ergüleç. Furthermore we are left to infer that some if not most of the sculpture came from the Cesnola collection,460 though the provenance and source of each entry are nowhere specified in the catalogue itself. A few examples of the missing and additional references will suffice:

Inv. No. 3318A and B. Limestone statue of a man and head (body A = Ergüleç 1972, p. 52

C.40] is not the same).

Inv. No. 3323. Limestone statue of a woman (Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. I, left, p. 10 no. C.1; Reinach 1882, p. 50 no. 381; Pasinli 2003, p. 404; Fig. 7, right ).

right, p. 31-32 no. C.52; Reinach 1882, p. 50 no. 382).

Inv. No. 3355. Ergüleç has given three different limestone male busts this inventory number (C.5 = Ergüleç 1972, p. 44 pl. p. 408 = Negative DAI-IST-4006; C.26 = Ergüleç 1972, p. 54 pl.

409 (Inv. No. 3356) = Pasinli 2012, p. 163 fig. 198 (Inv. No. 3356).

C.45; Reinach 1882, p. 50 no. 387; Marangou 2000, p. xviii, right; Pasinli 2003, p. 411; Negative No. DAI-IST-71/107, KB 4051).

Reinach 1882, p. 53 no. 519; Pasinli 2003, p. 410, bottom; Poyiadji-Richter 2014, p. 175 fig. 4 – misattributed to the Cyprus Museum, p. 176 – with bibliography; Negative No. DAI-IST-R5844).

catalogue were wrongly restored.461 For example, after restoration in the sculpture workshop, the head (Inv. No. 3320B) 462 was separated from the body of the statue of a man (Inv. No. 3320A) 463 to which it did not belong. The combination must have been done before the 1930s as the statue was photographed in its former state at this time.464 This evidently happened then to the other mixed marriages. Again the head on Inv.

458. See above.

459. See above.

460. Cf. Counts 2012, p. 157.

461. Cf. Pilides 2012, p. 13.

462. Ergüleç 1972, p. 68 pl. LI, p. 34 no. C.59.

464. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul Neg. No. 4039.Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul Neg. No. 4039.


3324A 465 was found not to belong to this statue (Inv. No. 3324B) 466 and was removed in the Museum’s sculpture workshop. The head on Inv. No. 3339A 467 (Fig. 7, left) had been wrongly placed on this statue and belonged to another one, and was separately catalogued by the author under Inv. No. 3339B.468 Ergüleç has listed several more instances of statues with the wrong heads, and the nicest illustrations were provided by the discovery in the Museum’s sculpture workshop that in two cases the front of the head on the limestone statue of a man (Inv. No. 3318A 469 and Inv. No. 3341A 470) had been shaved off and another face fixed on to it (Inv. No. 3318B 471 and Inv. No. 3341B respectively 472). This kind of remodelling must have been done in the late 19th century A.D. as a third limestone head with a helmet and face sawn off (Inv. No. 3367) 473 can be seen in a photograph taken by a Swede, Guillaume Berggren, of Classical and Cypriote sculpture in the Imperial Museum (Fig. 3 no. 28). All these facts provide interesting confirmation that the practice of rebuilding statues from Cyprus with all their bodily and other parts, whether or not they belonged together, was not confined in the late 19th century A.D. to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.474 However, it may be that these falsifications date back to Cesnola’s time in Larnaca as it appears that even then he had no compunction joining unrelated pieces of sculpture to each other to produce a more unified and harmonious whole.

Despite Cesnola’s denial that he ever made a single restoration of any object or part of any object in stone,475 a contemporary eye-witness account from Larnaca tells a different story. In a series of letters to Charles Newton and Samuel Birch in the British Museum, R.H. Lang talks about his archaeological activities in Cyprus and mentions Cesnola on several occasions, including the latter’s sculptural “doctoring”, which he caegorises not as forgery but as the “rearrangement of pieces”.476 In 1868 Lang was already aware of Cesnola’s tampering with the Cypriote sculptures in his possession, which Lang thought

C.9; Reinach 1882, p. 51 no. 394.

467. Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. I. 2, p. 10-11 no. C.2 – not Inv. No. 339A.

468. Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. II, p. 11 no. C.3.

469. See above.

471. See above.

474. Cf. Olien 2016.

475. McFadden 1971, p. 199.

476. Tatton-Brown 2001b, p. 173; Lang to Birch, British Museum ANE Original Letters 1871-1876, No. 3577 of 18 December 1872, No. 3579 of 1 February 1873; see above. I am grateful to Thomas Kiely for the relevant typescripts of these and the following letters in the British Museum.

106 CCEC 47, 2017

had been carried to excess,477 but in 1872 he wrote that “he [Cesnola] is busy making noses for the heads which want them 478 and bringing all into an attractive state for the Yankee antiquarian [presumably Hiram Hitchcock]!! In thus repairing the pieces he is uncommonly clever and deserves richly all the profits that he makes”.479 Lang attributed Cesnola’s gift for “doctoring” to his Italian blood! 480 At the same time the condition in which Conder saw the ancient sculpture in the Tchinili Kiosk in the early 1880s 481 could have been responsible for some of the maladroit restorations. At least the Imperial Ottoman Museum was spared the controversy which swirled around Cesnola when evidence for the fake rebuilding of sculptures from his own collection surfaced during his tenure as Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.482 In this regard Salomon Reinach mentioned that he had in his possession in 1910 an entire manuscript written by Henri de Morgan on the Cesnola collection and “les manipulations dont elle fut l’objet”, and would be willing to make it publicly available.483 This manuscript is to be found in the Musée d’Archéologie nationale, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, under the title, Archéologie chypriote. Une enquête sur certaines découvertes en Chypre. L’affaire Cesnola, n.d., Bibliothèque, Manuscrits, 14153.484

Despite this welcome addition to our sparse and random knowledge of the Cypriote sculpture in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, there are numerous shortcomings in Ergüleç’s work which was not very carefully edited. This applies not so much to the substance of the catalogue as to its presentation and especially its referencing. Not only have seventeen pieces been catalogued without their Museum inventory numbers (C.12, C.14, C.15, C.27, C.29, C.31, C.32, C.35, C.37, C.38, C.41, C.46, C.49, C.50, C.56, C.62, C.66) but the inventory numbers of some of those which have been cited are inconsistent or inaccurate. While Ergüleç took the sensible decision to give A and B subdivisions to the same inventory number where the sculpture in question had been physically separated into two, there are, for example, two different sculptures (C.61 and C.64) with the same inventory number (3468) and even another three (C.5, C.26, C.48) with the same inventory number (3355), and at least two are obviously wrong due to typographical error (C.2 – not 339A but 3339A; C.51 – not 3965 but 3695). As nearly

478. Cf. Testimony of the Defendant 1884, pp. 7, 37, 76-77.

479. Lang to Fox, British Museum GR Original Letters, No. 367 of 10 May 1872.

480. Lang to Birch, British Museum ANE Original Letters 1871-1876, No. 3579 of 1 February 1873.

481. See above.

482. Cobham 1908, p. 517; McFadden 1971, p. 190-201; Marangou 2000, p. 304-329; Hermary 2001, p. 153; Merrillees 2010, p. 117-118, with references; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 20-21; Bombardieri 2015, p. 41-46.

483. Reinach 1910a.Reinach 1910a.

484. Lorre 1998, p. 14 n. 15.Lorre 1998, p. 14 n. 15.


none of the items catalogued by Ergüleç, who was a Curator in the Museum, had appeared in print before 1972, the author must have had access to unpublished inside information, which makes the lack of inventory numbers for certain sculptures all the more puzzling as

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Istanbul as a guide, it has been possible to assign inventory numbers to a few of the pieces in Ergüleç’s catalogue where they are said to be “unknown”. The correlation is set out in Appendix I.

There remain a large number of smaller scale Cypriote sculptures presumed to have been found in the island which are still to be properly published. One category that has been classified authoritatively but not included in this survey are the Iron Age sculp-tures of “Cypriote type” recovered from sites in the eastern Aegean, including the Ionian coast of Asia Minor, and the Levant, as well as Egypt.485 Most are considered to be have been made in Cyprus or by Cypriotes abroad and some are to be found in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.486

object, ones that appeared after Ergüleç’s work took a more catholic view of the sources and included items from Cyprus amongst those artefacts of the same general type but different provenances and origins. Tülay Ergil, for example, produced a catalogue of the

485. Kourou Kourou et al. 2002.

486. E.g. Gjerstad 1948, p. 323-325, 333; Hermary 2010, p. 87, 92-97. There is no mention in Kourou et al. 2002 of any of these sculptures in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums.

Figure 7. Cypriote Iron Age sculpture. Istanbul Archaeological Museum Inv. Nos. 3339A (left) and 3323 (right).

https://www.turkeycentral.com/Statue Section, Istanbul Archaeology Museum.

108 CCEC 47, 2017

earrings which had been in the Classical Arts Section of the Archaeological Museum since 1955 but never before exhibited.487 The total number of earrings in the Museum was estimated at 196, of which 120 were displayed in the Treasury Room but not included in Ergil’s volume.488 The only earring from Cyprus was a gold hoop with stone mount (Inv. No. 536).489 In 1995 Dominique Kassab Tezgör and Tahsin Sezer produced a catalogue of terracotta lamps in the Museum and included a number from Cyprus, two (Inv. Nos. 5799 and 5800) belonging to the “ancien fonds, 1873”, attributed to the Middle or Late Bronze Age, the latter more likely,490 and eight (Inv. Nos. 5777-5780, 5795-5798) belonging to the “ancien fonds”, dated from the Cypro-Geometric period to Cypro-Classical I.491 They were presumably part of the Cesnola collection.

Cyprus: “A Neighbouring Culture”

The opening of the exhibition hall on “Neighbouring Cultures of Anatolia – Cyprus, Syria, Palestine” in 1991 on the top floor of the new wing of the Archaeological Museum gave an opportunity for previously unillustrated Cypriote Bronze Age antiquities to be displayed and published, almost all for the first time.492 Nilüfer Atakan catalogued, with photographs and drawings, eight Red Polished, White Painted, Mycenaean and terracotta figurines, none of which had been individually recorded before (Inv. Nos. 5602, 5603, 5631, 5622 or 5652, 5661, 5774, 5775, 5771),493 except for Inv. No. 5775, which was illustrated by Chantre.494 In addition Güldem Polat published a number of White Painted

but not all had been listed by Nicole and two republished by Åström and Karageorghis:

Inv. No. 93. Polat 2001, p. 209 fig. 21; not in Nicole 1906;

Inv. No. 192. Polat 2001, p. 208 fig. 19; Nicole 1906, p. 26 no. 431;


487. Ergil 1983, p. 5.Ergil 1983, p. 5.

488. Ergil 1983, p. 11 n. 1.Ergil 1983, p. 11 n. 1.

489. Ergil 1983, p. 42 No. 102; see above.

490. Kassab Tezgör, Sezer 1995, p. 34 nos. 6-7.Kassab Tezgör, Sezer 1995, p. 34 nos. 6-7.

491. Kassab Tezgör, Sezer 1995, p. 40-41 nos. 32-39. Kassab Tezgör, Sezer 1995, p. 40-41 nos. 32-39.

Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism (www.kultur.gov.tr : Istanbul : Archaeological Museum – accessed on 10/12/2014) the Museum did not win a European Council Museum Award in 1991 – the European Museum of the Year Award went, ironically, to the Leventis Municipal Museum

Archaeological Museums of Istanbul and the Cypriot Antiquities Section in these Museums”, and in Athens in 1997 on “Newly opened galleries at the Istanbul Archaeological Museums”, but these have not been published.

493. Atakan 2001.











Inv. No. 929. Polat 2001, p. 211 fig. 29; Chantre 1898, p. 84 fig. 69; Nicole 1906, p. 28 no. 567; see above;






Inv. No. 1180. Polat 2001, p. 211 fig. 31; Nicole 1906, p. 27 no. 529; Åström 1972a,

Inv. No. 1306. Polat 2001, p. 211 fig. 30; Nicole 1906, p. 27 no. 530; Åström 1972a, .

This was also the first occasion on which any Iron Age pottery or terracotta figurines had been illustrated, apart from a model boat (Inv. No. 5793) of probable Cypro-Archaic date.495 In the second edition of his guide to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, published 1996, Pasinli reproduced a White Painted III jug (Inv. No. 1530) of Cypro-Archaic I;496 a Bichrome III amphora (Inv. No. 1557) of Cypro-Archaic I;497 and a Hellenistic lagynos (Inv. No. 1554).498 This was later supplemented by a Black-on-Red

499 Also illustrated in the second edition of the guide, belonging to the Cypro-Archaic period, were four terracotta figurines (Inv. Nos. 5601, 5579, 5606, 5614), three of horses with riders (presumably Inv. Nos. 5579, 5601, 5614) 500 and one of a chariot with riders, drawn by four horses (presumably Inv. No. 5606). 501 There is, however, some confusion over these inventory numbers as the same four numbers appear in Pasinli’s album of 2003, though in a different order, Inv.

DK Eyewitness Travel. Turkey. rev. ed. (London 2014), p. 77.

499. Pasinli 2003, p. 401.

110 CCEC 47, 2017

Nos. 5601, 5606, 5614, 5579.502 They cannot, however, be easily matched up with the terracottas illustrated as only three are the same in both publications and a fourth, different one appears in each volume.503 The whereabouts, presumably in Turkey, of two figurines of birthing scenes said to be from Cyprus, both published by Bossert,504 are unrecorded.505

The most comprehensive photographic survey of the Cypriote antiquities so far made was handsomely published in Turkish by Pasinli in 2003 in an album devoted to the Mu-seum’s collections as a whole.506 It illustrates, in colour, with detailed captions, 23 vases, terracottas, sculptures and metalwork with a Cypriote provenance. Some of them had already been mentioned in print before but others were being illustrated for the first time, especially the remarkable White Painted III bird-shaped vase with round panniers either side of the body (Inv. No. 368) 507 of probable Middle Cypriote II date, which is displayed in the Museum; the bronze helmet minus the skull (Inv. No. 16) 508, also on show; and a striking if incomplete Classical bronze hydria of the 5th century B.C. (Inv. No. 76).509 There are, however, some unusual features about this welcome presentation. The Base-ring II bull-vase (Inv. No. 364) 510 looks decidedly the worse for wear. Though taken from the other side in this publication,511 it lacks the two horns which are clearly visible in the first photograph published before by Pasinli,512 as well as any obvious trace of the white painted decoration so evident in the original illustration. Despite the fact that both photographs have been given the same inventory number and the vases, the same length, I suspect they may not be the same piece. Nicole records “364 [Inv. No.] et deux spéc. Sans no d’inv. Vases en forme de quadrupèdes; têtes de taureaux; une anse sur le dos. Long. 0.18”.513 Åström has noted five examples in the collection,514 and there are four on display in the Museum. In addition the Cypro-Archaic three horse chariot with two riders (Inv. No. 5606 [?]),515 which is missing the fourth horse, looks as if it had been involved

502. Pasinli 2003, p. 406.

504. Cf. Canpolat 2001, p. 44-61, 118.

505. Bossert 1951, p. 52 no. 156, p. 10 no. 156.

506. Pasinli 2003, p. 394-411. This volume is almost impossible to obtain and can only be consulted in those libraries in Turkey that have a copy.

507. Pasinli 2003, p. 397, top; see above.

508. Pasinli 2003, p. 402, bottom; see above.

509. Pasinli 2003, p. 412, left; see above.

.511. Pasinli 2003, p. 402, top.

513. Nicole 1906, p. 21 nos. 197-198.

514. Åström 1972a, p. 853 P.191 (2).

515. Reinach 1882, p. 74 no. 633.


in another traffic accident. While the front, and smaller rider had already lost his head,516 the rear rider, whose head was still in place, had also by then been decapitated,517 but his head was separately reproduced in Pasinli’s 2003 album! 518 This object is on show in the Museum but the head is absent.

The limestone sculptures illustrated in this volume by Pasinli (Inv. Nos. 3318A, 3323, 3355, 3356, 3372, 3374) have already been mentioned,519 but missing from this publication is the limestone temple boy (Inv. No. 3400) which is illustrated in his guide to the Museums’ collections.520 There is a whole mob of temple boys, thought to be of 4th century B.C. production, on display in one of the cases in the Cypriote gallery of the Museum. Though their provenances are unknown, the customary location of this type of figure in Cyprus was a sanctuary. According to Hermary and Mertens the term temple boy is “traditionally applied to the statuettes representing seated children, of which hundreds are known in Cypriot limestone sculpture of the Classical and Early Hellenistic period. Their poses, physiognomy, and dress define them as very young children (probably one or two years old)… The small animals held by the figures show that they are entering an active stage of childhood. It is likely that these children – essentially boys, whose genitalia are exposed with pride – are placed under the protection of the divinity at the difficult age of weaning. The chain of amulets that they wear stresses this need for protection”.521 Beer estimates that the Cypriote collection in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum contains at least 23 specimens, two of terracotta and the rest of limestone. She managed to describe them by looking at them through the glass of the exhibition cases in the Museum but was unable to obtain any inventory numbers, dimensions or illustrations.522 Photographs of two of them (Inv. No. 3415 and another) made in the 1930s are kept in the Fotothek of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Istanbul.523 Matching Beer’s catalogue entries with their respective inventory numbers will be another challenge for future researchers. She did, however, separately record the one temple boy published by Ergüleç (Inv. No. 3322) 524 and noted that the assemblage of small sized sculptures in the Museum would be published by Nilüfer Atakan.525 Needless to say the promised catalogue has never eventuated.

517. Pasinli 2003, p. 407.

518. Pasinli 2003, p. 406 top.

519. See above.

521. Hermary and Mertens 2014, p. 201.

522. Beer 1994, p. 45-49.

523. Neg. Nos. 4066 and 4063 respectively.

525. Beer 1994, p. 45 n. 33.

112 CCEC 47, 2017

With that all new studies on the Cypriote collection ceased. The latest guide to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums in English is a 2012 reprinting of the edition published in 2001, which was itself a revision of the guide initially published in 1989 under the same title.526 There have also been issues of this guide in English in 1992, 1995 and 2004. The 1989 edition was confined to the Archaeological Museum, whereas the later revisions, produced after 1991, have taken in the collections of the Tchinili Kiosk Museum and Museum of the Ancient Orient as well. The gallery exhibiting the Cypriote antiquities is situated on one side of the top floor of the new wing of the Archaeological Museum. It does not hold all the material from Cyprus. The rest is in store. The opposite side of the gallery displays archaeological material from Syria and Palestine.527 Together they constitute the “Cultures Neighbouring Anatolia”.528 There is also in the Archaeological Museum a considerable amount of Cypriote Bronze and Iron Age pottery from sites which were excavated in Ottoman times in Syria and Palestine, like Gezer, some of which is on show.529 Again this material has never been assembled and fully published.

The Cypriote collection in Istanbul: an overview

What do we know of the Cypriote antiquities from the Cesnola collection and other sources in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums as a whole? According to the panel introducing the relevant gallery in the Museum, most of the objects were obtained from Cesnola and consist of pottery, stone items and terracottas. Glass and metal artefacts are fewer in number. As far as provenance is concerned, few have reliable findspots, but it is stated that the antiquities on show came from the following sites, without necessarily being able to say which ones came from where : Alambra, Amathus, Aphrodision, Karpasia, Golgoi, Idalion, Kition, Kourion, Old Paphos, Ormidia and Salamis.530 Findspots and sources, where known, are not indicated on the labels accompanying the objects on display. The size of the Cypriote collection is not easy to calculate. To Gustave Mendel we owe a detailed and valuable description of the records kept in the Imperial Ottoman Museum, in the introduction to his magnum opus on the Greek, Roman and Byzantine sculptures in the Museum.531 In particular he has listed the categories of papers belonging to the time of Dethier’s Directorship and summarised their contents;532 and though Mendel did not include the Cypriote sculptures in his catalogue, he drew attention, in Dethier’s “Journal”,533 to an entry of 21 November/3 December 1874 where he (Dethier) listed

, not Museums.

527. Pasinli 2012, p. 164-174.

529. E.g. Gjerstad 1948, p. 252, 257; Åström 1972a, p. 740.

530. Pasinli 2003, p. 394. Pasinli 2003, p. 394.

531. Mendel 1912, p. ix-xxi.Mendel 1912, p. ix-xxi.

532. Mendel 1912, p. xvi-xviii.Mendel 1912, p. xvi-xviii.


around 1200 Cypriote numbers (“environ 1.200 nos chypriotes”).534 It is not clear if each of these numbers refer to one or more objects, but the entry does at least confirm the period of entry of Cesnola’s gift to the Museum in Constantinople.

According to Ergüleç, the material from Cyprus bears the following Museum inventory numbers:535

- 303-470, 532-642: glass objects,- 6[sic = 5]576-5774: terracotta objects,- ceramics,

- 3317-3702: stone objects, including sculpture.

Ergüleç did not give inventory numbers for the pottery, which is the best represented amongst all the categories of artefact, and omitted the metal items, including jewellery. From his listing we can calculate that there were some 277 glass items,536 198 terracottas and 385 stone objects.537 The exact quantity of pottery is difficult to work out. Reinach puts the figure at 1500,538 while Nicole listed 857 entries, not always including those vases without inventory numbers. Furthermore the inventory numbers recorded by Nicole were not consecutive but ranged between 1 and 2000 with many gaps in between. It would seem that Nicole listed only those vases on show in the “salle Cypriote du Musée”.539 Furthermore there is no doubt that bronze objects and items of jewellery were included in the consignment that Dethier brought back from Cyprus and in acquisitions from other sources, but just how many is presently unknown, and it is impossible to form an adequate idea of the overall amount from Salomon Reinach’s and Joubin’s incomplete catalogues.540 There are a number of bronze objects of all periods, especially the Bronze Age, on show in the Cypriote gallery of the Museum, but no indication if coins are present in the collection. If we take the maximum recorded figure for the number of vases, together with other classes of artefact, excepting possibly coins, and a notional quantity for the metal items, based on the number of glass objects, we arrive at a grand total of around 2500 antiquities from Cyprus, making the collection in Istanbul one of the larger in the world and at the same time the least known, studied and appreciated.

The Cypriote collection covers a substantial chronological range from the Philia Phase of the mid third millennium B.C., down to late Roman/early Byzantine times.541.There is no material from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods.542 Some hundreds of Cypriote

534. Mendel 1912, p. xvii-xviii n. 3.Mendel 1912, p. xvii-xviii n. 3.

535. Ergüleç 1972, p. 7-8.Ergüleç 1972, p. 7-8.

536. Cf. Åström 1965, p. 135.Cf. Åström 1965, p. 135.

537. Cf. Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 17.


539. Nicole 1906, p. 5.Nicole 1906, p. 5.

540. Reinach 1882; Joubin 1898a.Reinach 1882; Joubin 1898a.

541. Cf. Pasinli 2001, p. 26.

542. Pasinli 1990-1991, p. 71.

114 CCEC 47, 2017

objects, sculpture, pottery, glassware and metal objects, have been put on public show along almost the whole of one side of the gallery on the top floor of the new part of the Archaeological Museum. All the Cypriote material has been arranged in descending chronological order according to periods, from the Philia Phase/Early Cypriote down to Hellenistic/Roman times, with one case containing a reconstructed burial with skeleton accompanied by Middle Cypriote Bronze Age pottery, and another devoted to glass. A bay is devoted to some of the smaller limestone sculpture of the Iron Age, and the case populated by temple boys has already been mentioned. Some of the larger limestone Iron Age statuary has also been set up at the appropriate (chronological) end of the central aisle between the two rows of wall cases on either side of the gallery (Fig. 7). This permanent display contains none of the smaller, more precious items, such as jewellery and possibly seals and coins, which are presumably stored in the Treasury and not open to the public at present.

The collection on show contains many unusual and even unique pieces which have an archaeological importance in their own right, notwithstanding their lack of known provenance. A classic example amongst those which have been illustrated is the exceptional White Painted (Philia) jug with cut-away spout (Inv. No. 1485).543 It has no type in Stewart’s corpus of Early Cypriote artefacts or Dikaios’ report on the Philia

544 It is in fact a White Painted version of the typical Red Polished (Philia) jug with cut-away spout 545 and is most likely to

Ayia Paraskevi.546 There are other interesting but unpublished Philia Phase vases on show with this jug in the gallery case, including the Red Polished (Philia) Stroke Burnished bowl (Inv. No. 1480).547 Indeed the items from Cyprus in the Museum which have been illustrated in print over the years amount to no more than 10% of the total. Furthermore there is no separate guide to the Cypriote collection as such, and the most up-to-date notice is to be found in Pasinli’s guide to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums.548 No plans have been announced for a comprehensive study of this remarkable and historical collection, which deserves to be professionally catalogued and published or otherwise made publicly available for the benefit of the whole archaeological community without ready access to the Museum and the scattered and scarce literature about it.

544. Stewart 1962, p. 224-225, 359; Dikaios 1962; Webb, Frankel 2012, p. 151-155.

545. Stewart, Åström 1988, p. 19-20 Type e1.

546. See above.

547. See above.

548. Pasinli 2012, p. 159-163.


Acknowledgements

My first debt is to Antoinette Merrillees and James Larsen, whose generous and unstinting welcome in Ankara made this undertaking feasible. Without Thomas Kiely’s willing cooperation and advice my essay would never have acquired its present amplitude and form, and Antoine Hermary and Ian Todd kindly read through the text at various stages of its preparation and made some valuable observations. I cannot thank all of them enough. I first became acquainted with Edhem Eldem’s studies in Turkey, and my one and only meeting with him in Istanbul confirmed my assessment of him as an exceptionally fine historian, whose contributions to our knowledge of his relative, Osman Hamdi Bey, and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century A.D. are as en-lightening as they are authoritative. It has been a privilege to become acquainted with him and his work, and I am especially grateful for his interest in my research. I also much appreciate the interest initially shown by Andreas Schachner, Director of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul, in my project, and the assistance I received from the Fototek of that Institute. Elif Denel was kind enough to offer me the opportunity to present the basic results of this project in a lecture to the American Research Institute in Turkey in Ankara on 12 November 2015 and pro-cure for me a scarce publication essential for my investigations. I am very grateful for her help and hospitality. I have also to thank for their valued contributions to my work : Giorgos Bouro-giannis; Burçak Delikan and Tuna Çapar, library, British Institute at Ankara; Aristides Cou-dounaris; Uwe Dathe, Handschriften und Sondersammlungen, ThULB, Jena; David Frankel; Elizabeth Greene, Department of Classics, Brock University, St. Catherines; Ruth Keshishian, Moufflon bookshop, Nicosia; Reinhard Senff and Eric Laufer, German Archaeological Institute, Athens; Rita Severis, Centre of Visual Arts and Research, Nicosia; Mimis Sophocleous, Pat-ticheion Municipal Museum in Limassol; and the State Archives of Cyprus, Nicosia. I am alone responsible for the views expressed in this paper.

APPENDIX 1. Sculpture Concordance

Istanbul Archaeo- Deutsches Archäologisches Referenceslogical Museum : Institut Abteilung Istanbul : (IAM = Istanbul Inventory Number Negative Number Archaeological Museum)

3317 R28. 575-578; See Appendix 2

R28. 583-584

3318A on show in IAM

C.40 -this does not look like 3318B

on show in IAM

on show in IAM

3320B Ergüleç 1972, p. 68 pl. LI, p. 34 C.59

3321 On show in IAM

on show in IAM

116 CCEC 47, 2017

3323 3958 Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. I. 1 p. 10 C.1; on show in IAM


p. 14-15 C.11

3325


3326B Ergüleç 1972, p. 67 pl. L, p. 34 C.58

on show in IAM

3330 On show in IAM

3332 On show in IAM


on show in IAM

on show in IAM

on show in IAM

3336B on show in IAM

3337 R5845, KB 4050 Reinach 1882, p. 53 no. 516; Pasinli 2003, p. 412, right, 413 – with an inscription

3339A+B 3955 Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. I.2, p. 10-11 C.2 ; 3339A on show in IAM

3339B Ergüleç 1972, p. 43 pl. II, p. 11 C.3 ; on show in IAM

p. 18-19 C.21 ; 3341A on show in IAM

p. 25-26 C.39 ; on show in IAM

3343 On show in IAM

3344 On show in IAM

on show in IAM


3346 On show in IAM

3347

on show in IAM

on show in IAM

3350 Ergüleç 1972, p. 44 pl. III, p. 11-12 C.4

3352 3967 Ergüleç 1972, p. 58 pl. on show in IAM

one of these two images has been reversed

– not 3355

on show in IAM

– not 3355; on show in IAM

on show in IAM

3358 4026

3359 On show in IAM

3360

3362

3364

3365

3367 Reinach 1882, p. 52 no.478; Ergüleç 1972, p. 46-47 pls. on show in IAM

3368

3369

3370

on show in IAM

3373

Reinach 1882, p. 53 no. 519; on show in IAM

Reinach 1882, p. 53 no. 521; Marangou 2000, p. xviii, left; on show in IAM

118 CCEC 47, 2017

3376 On show in IAM

3377

3378

on show in IAM3380

3381

3382

3383 On show in IAM

[All unattributed Inv. Nos. are omitted from this point onwards]

3390 On show in IAM

3400 Pasinli 2012, p.163 fig.200

3404 3977

3415 4066

3432 4062

3446 On show in IAM

3457 5224

3459 4018

3468 4007 Ergüleç 1972, p. 69 pl. LIII, p. 35 C.61

3480 4076

3487 On show in IAM

3543 4072

3555 3961

3574 4009

3624 3995

3651 4010

3697 4037

– one of these images has been reversed ; Reinach 1882, p. 53 no. 517.

3950 Head of a man

3953 Head of a man

3954 Head of a man with beard

3959 Head of a woman

4063 Temple boy

p. 35-36 C.64 – not 3468


APPENDIX 2. Objects

Istanbul Archaeological Museum

2 ........................... 103 16 ............. 88, 92, 110 29 .................. 96, 100 36 .......................... 93 44 .................... 92, 93 51 ..................... 92, 93 52 .................... 92, 93 53 .................... 92, 93 54 .................... 92, 93 55 .................... 92, 93 57 ..................... 92, 93 58 .......................... 93 59 .................... 92, 93 60 .................... 92, 93 61 ........................ 100 64 .......................... 96 67 .......................... 96 76 ................... 92, 110 77 .......................... 93 85 .......................... 96 87 .......................... 94 88 .......................... 94 93 ........................ 108 95 ........................ 100 111 ........................ 93 115 ........................ 93 117 ........................ 93 119 ....................... 100 127 ........................ 97 164 ...................... 102 179 ...................... 102 187 ...................... 103 192 ...................... 108 249 ...................... 108 278 ...................... 108 325 ...................... 108 354 ...................... 100 364 ............... 102, 110 368 ............... 102, 110

466 .............. 100, 102 518 ...................... 108 529 ........................ 93 530 ........................ 93 536 ........ 88, 102, 108 564 ...................... 102 568 ...................... 100 576 ........................ 97 608 ........................ 93 634 ....................... 103 659 ...................... 108 706 ...................... 109 749 ...................... 100 757 ........................ 96 790 ...................... 109 794 ....................... 109 796 ....................... 109 856 ...................... 100 908 ....................... 109 916 ......................... 93 929 .............. 100, 109 946 ...................... 100 1025 .................... 103 1047 ..................... 109 1063 .................... 100 1070 .................... 109 1074 .................... 109 1098 .................... 100 1106 .................... 109 1122 .................... 109 1153 .................... 100 1180 ............ 100, 109 1185 .................... 100 1232 .................... 100 1306 ............ 100, 109 1369 .................... 103 1406 .................... 103 1480 ............... 96, 114 1485 ......................114

1499 .................... 100 1530 .................... 109 1540 .................... 103 1543 .................... 103 1554 .................... 109 1557 .................... 109 1574 .................... 109 1645 ...................... 87 1999 .................... 100 3096 ................ 85, 99 3317.. 62, 99, 103-104, 115 3318A ... 104, 105, 111 3318B .......... 104, 105 3320A ................. 104 3320B ................. 104 3323 ............. 104, 111 3324A ................. 104 3324B ................. 104 3326 .................... 104 3339A ......... 104, 106 3339B ................. 105 3341A ................. 105 3341B ................. 105 3350 ...................... 87 3352 ...................... 87 3355 ..... 104, 106, 111 3356 ....... 88, 104, 111 3367 .................... 105 3372 ............. 104, 111 3374 ............. 104, 111 3400 ..................... 111 3415 ..................... 111 3468 .................... 106 3695 .................... 106 3965 .................... 106 5579 .................... 109 5601 .................... 108 5602 .................... 108 5603 .................... 108

Inv. No. .............. Page Number Inv. No. .............. Page Number Inv. No. .............. Page Number

120 CCEC 47, 2017

5606 ............. 109, 110 5614 .................... 109 5622 .................... 108 5631 ..................... 108 5652 ..................... 108 5661 .................... 108 5771 .................... 108

5774 ..................... 108 5775 ..................... 108 5777 ..................... 108 5778 ..................... 108 5779 ..................... 108 5780 ..................... 108 5793 .................... 109

5795 .................... 108 5796 ..................... 108 5797 ..................... 108 5798 ..................... 108 5799 .................... 108$ :,EE$$#################### $108

$ *0#,EC$$################# $101

Inv. No. .............. Page Number Inv. No. .............. Page Number Inv. No. .............. Page Number


II. CYPRIOTE ANTIQUITIES

IN THE GREEK EVANGELICAL SCHOOL MUSEUM AND

THEIR TRADING IN LATE OTTOMAN SMYRNA (MODERN IZMIR)


Résumé. En 1888 Max Ohnefalsch-Richter a publié en France un article sur « La croix gammée et la croix cantonnée à Chypre ». Pour illustrer ce thème il a choisi, entre autres objets, un cratère chypriote White Slip II du Bronze Récent conservé au musée archéologique de l’École Évangélique grecque à Smyrne, acquis dans des circonstances indéterminées. Ce n’était pas la seule antiquité chypriote qui se trouvait dans le musée, mais il a disparu avec tous les fonds de l’École lors du grand incendie de septembre 1922. Au XIX

e siècle, Smyrne était bien connue comme un centre du commerce d’antiquités dans le Levant, particulièrement du commerce des monnaies. Ces objets provenaient principalement d’Anatolie, mais aussi de Chypre, dont la « tête Chatsworth » au British Museum est la plus célèbre. La signification à Chypre de la croix gammée, qui n’est bien représentée qu’à l’Âge du Fer, reste à éclairer.

Since the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and the indigenisation of its Department of Antiquities, greater attention has been devoted to the display and recording of the Cypriote antiquities transferred abroad in modern times, with a view to making good use of them for diplomatic, cultural and academic purposes where they are not embroiled in public controversy. It has all told been a very worthwhile operation, made even more successful because otherwise reluctant or resistant institutions have come to see the benefits of making their Cypriote works of art better known and appreciated by a wider audience. Out of this effort has come a wealth of new data of archaeological and historiographical significance but the scope for further discoveries in the basements and archives of foreign museums is far from exhausted, and nowhere is this more true than in Cyprus’s own region. While the ancient Cypriote imports and modern acquisitions in the archaeological museum of the American University of Beirut in the Lebanon are now comparatively well known,1 the collections in Turkey are not, and it is to remedying these gaps in our knowledge that I have taken advantage of fortuitous family circumstances to assemble as much information as I can from accessible sources on the Cypriote antiquities that found their way to the Istanbul Archaeological Museum

1. See above, p. 73-74.

122 CCEC 47, 2017

and to Smyrna in the 19th century A.D. Research into the Istanbul holdings has presented fewer challenges than the Cypriote material which once ended up in Smyrna but the latter has proven just as revealing as the voluminous literature on Smyrna’s recent past has dealt with almost every aspect of its singular history, especially the catastrophe that befell it in 1922, except for its museums and private collections and the fate of the antiquities that once passed through it.

Ohnefalsch-Richter and a Late Cypriote White Slip II Crater

Max Hermann Ohnefalsch-Richter (1850-1917) is a familiar figure from the early days of Cypriote archaeology and has been the subject of numerous summary accounts,2 to be supplemented by the volume accompanying the exhibition, “Between Royal Graves and the Pawnshop. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter (1850-1917) and the Archaeology of Cyprus”, which opened in the Cyprus Room of the Neues Museum, Berlin, on 1 December 2017, to commemorate the centenary of his death. A maverick character, he came to Cyprus in 1878 not in one of the usual Western occupations such as consul, banker or businessman, but as a journalist, intending to cover the assumption of British rule over the island. He quickly, however, caught the archaeological bug, to such an extent he largely gave up writing for newspapers, except to promote his new found interest, and became an excavator and antiquities dealer, depending on his self-taught trade to make a precarious living. No-one else posted in 19th century Cyprus ever did that. For the rest of the amateur antiquarians resident in Larnaca, hunting for artefacts was more a remunerative hobby than a financial necessity. Ohnefalsch-Richter, like the Cyprus Museum in his day, was always short of money. Secondly his native language was German, which was as foreign to most of the anglophone officials in Cyprus as Greek and Turkish. Though he knew French, he was forced to learn English but never mastered it properly. By the same token he did not fit into British Colonial society – though its members did not hesitate to use his archaeological services – and encountered prejudice on account of his foreign origins.3 Nevertheless his peppery and obsessive temperament did not endear him locally or make him an easy person to work with. George Jeffery, Curator of Ancient Monuments in Cyprus, nicely summed him up in 1903 as “the notorious M.O. Richter who became a sort of professional grave digger for ‘antikas’ ” and “was employed by Mr. Cobham [District Commissioner, Larnaca] in spite of his very unprepossessing manners and unfortunate antecedents”4.

The one feature that set him most apart from his European contemporaries, and predecessors in this field, was his original lack of academic qualifications in the humanities. Destined for life as a farmer, he became attracted by culture through a long sojourn in Italy, to which he wanted to return, but he was diverted to Cyprus by news of

2. E.g. Buchholz 1989; Krpata 1992, 2003; Merrillees 2000; Brönner 2002; Matthäus 2009, p. 123-129; Kiely 2017!

3. Given 2001.

4. Pilides 2009, p. 86.

R.S. MERRILLEES, II. CYPRIOTE ANTIQUITIES IN LATE OTTOMAN SMYRNA 123

the British takeover and attendant publicity about the island’s past.5 Without the benefit of training or experience in ancient studies or pursuits, he taught himself how to dig, record and publish, and it shows. It was bad enough that his archaeological field techniques, note taking and analytical work were on the whole dire, but that he should have produced anything as mind-bending as his magnum opus, Kypros, die Bibel and Homer,6 after the serious attempts by Lang and Sandwith to make historical sense of their finds,7 shows him to have been less of a pioneer than a poseur. At least he acknowledged the worth of Sandwith’s contribution, even if he didn’t know about it at the time it came out,8 and he did produce a more substantive if still flawed work on the cult places of ancient Cyprus, for which he was awarded a Doctorate by the University of Leipzig in 1891.9 What gives Ohnefalsch-Richter his particular cachet in the history of Cypriote archaeology is not his scholarly contribution to knowledge of the island’s past but the vast quantity of antiquities he dug up and disposed of by sale, exchange and donation. In the last quarter of the 19th century A.D., he emptied ancient cemeteries and sanctuaries of their contents the length and breadth of Cyprus, for his own benefit and that of others, as well as purchasing stray finds from the local population, and amassed a quantity of artefacts second only in size and scope to the ones brought together by the Cesnola brothers. However no estimate can be formed of the real numbers as he off-loaded his acquisitions as soon as he could after he made them, and they are now scattered all over Europe as well as North America and Australia, without necessarily retaining details of their source or context.10

In 1888 Ohnefalsch-Richter published an article in the Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris Vol. 11 (p. 669-681) on “La croix gammée et la croix cantonnée à Chypre”, in which he illustrated a number of Cypriote Bronze and Iron Age pots decorated with swastikas and “cantoned crosses”, an heraldic term meaning here crosses with designs in each of the four empty angles. These vases included a White Slip II crater with wish-bone type handle belonging to the Late Cypriote period, said to be “au musée de Smyrne”11. He must have seen and handled the piece himself as he did the drawing (Fig. 1 left) and stated that it definitely came from Cyprus as he checked its provenance in the museum’s records.12 He gave no further details about the piece, including the date of its acquisition by the museum in Smyrna, but placed it, rather mystifyingly, amongst the

5. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891, p. iii.

6. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893; cf. Perrot, Chipiez 1894, p. 648 n. 3; Karageorghis, Brennan 1999, p. 2.

7. Merrillees 2001.

8. Merrillees 2001, p. 232.

9. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891; Buchholz 1989, p. 3, 16.

10. Buchholz 1989; Karageorghis, Brennan 1999. Buchholz 1989; Karageorghis, Brennan 1999.

11. .11, p. 459; cf. .11, p. 459; cf. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 345.

12. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 671.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 671.

124 CCEC 47, 2017

“antiquities first appraised and brought into the market by me”.13 Its size is not indicated, but similar ones of this type are mostly between 20.0 and 30.0 cms. in height, diameter of rim and width of body. It has not, to the best of my knowledge, been seen or published again. The vase in Ohnefalsch-Richter’s drawing belonged to Popham’s White Slip II crater Type 2, which Popham describes as “fairly frequent”.14 It was not included in Popham’s catalogue. Unfortunately he did not follow Åström’s example and note all the specimens known to them both, and a more comprehensive listing of the occurrences of this type in Cyprus, which amount to 22 and include ones more correctly classified as Transitional White Slip I-II, is set out in Appendix I. The closest parallel to the crater once in Smyrna is No. K-AD 366 from Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 5 (1980), which can be dated to Late Cypriote IIA, B, C (?) 15 (Fig. 1 right). The concentration of examples of this kind on the south coast of Cyprus suggests that the one in Smyrna came originally from the same general area, obviously a tomb, but does not help answer the question of when it left the island, in ancient or modern times.

Archaeological Museum of the Greek Evangelical School, Smyrna

Though Ohnefalsch-Richter did not specify the name or location of the museum, it can only have been the Museum and Library of the Evangelical School of Smyrna, the premier Greek educational institution in the city, which was established in 1733/1734.16 In 1747 it was placed under the protection of Great Britain and the first library was founded, housed in one of its halls. Its existence was deemed necessary by the school’s teachers, amongst whom were the most prominent scholars of Smyrna, not only to cater for their needs and those of their pupils but to establish a literary and educational society, called the “Museum”. The library also had a lecture hall and a collection of antiquities. The “Museum” was dissolved in 1841, but some citizens of Smyrna re-established the society in 1845, housing it in a room of the Evangelical School under the name ‘Philological Museum’. This second phase of its life lasted until 1858. In the meantime, the library and its collection of antiquities grew continuously through the donations and purchase of new books and artefacts. For this reason, the supervisory committee of the Evangelical School decided in December 1873 to found an archaeological museum inside the school’s premises, which would include a library as well. This was no doubt inspired by the acquisition that year of a substantial number of antiquities from the auction sale

13. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. CL.11, p. 349, 459. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. CL.11, p. 349, 459.

14. Popham 1972, p. 468.

15. No. 11 in Appendix I.

16. The following account of the School and Museum is an edited version of the entry under “Museum and Library of the School ‘Evangeliki Scoli’, Smyrna”, in the Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor, accessed at www.ehw.gr on 14/09/2016 (cf. Rayet 1877, p. 105; Reinach 1883b, p. 163-164; Deschamps 1893, p. 307-308; Diavast 1899, p. 298; Anestides 2004, p. 139-142).


of the large collection formerly belonging to Jacob Guido von Gonzenbach (1810-1873), trader in antiquities and zoological specimens and Swiss Consul in Smyrna.17

In 1874 the “Museum and Library of the Evangelical School” came into existence, accompanied by special regulations and a curator. Until 1878 the Museum was a society managed by its members who paid an annual membership fee. Later, however, the supervisory committee of the Evangelical School undertook the maintenance of the Museum and the Library and the payment of the curator. Between 1875 and 1885 the “Museum and Library of the Evangelical School” published in Smyrna its own periodical under the Greek heading, , covering the years 1873 to 1885, with articles written in Greek and French, containing catalogues of antiquities and manuscripts in their collections, philological and literary studies, and reports on the new discoveries of excavators and epigraphists working on Classical remains in Asia Minor.18 While it is clear that the two constituent entities were administered together, there is no plan or illustration known to me to show where and how they were both arranged physically. Though the title, the “Museum and Library of the Evangelical School”, remained the same until these facilities ceased to exist, their location in Smyrna did not, and their movement from one place to another has yet to be properly documented and traced (see below).

In the early 20th century the archaeological museum, which was divided into eight sections, housed a significant collection of finds, most originating from Asia Minor. They consisted of around 3000 items of all kinds – inscriptions (270), sculpture,19 metalwork (103+), weights (192), glassware (157), terracottas,20 ceramics (1514),21 etc. – and some 15,000 ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman coins, including at least one from Cyprus.22 The Museum is said to have been visited every year by many archaeologists and numismatists, well known writers and travellers, and men of politics and science, not many of whom, however, wrote anything about it and its contents. Indeed Baedeker went so far as to say in 1905 that it was of interest only to archaeologists! 23 It appears also to have been used at this time as a storage depot for finds from scientific excavations.24 Apart from the archaeological museum, the Evangelical School housed a “physiology

17. Curtius 1872, p. 65-66 ; Stark 1874, p. 381-391; Rayet 1877, p. 105-106; Reinach 1888a, Curtius 1872, p. 65-66 ; Stark 1874, p. 381-391; Rayet 1877, p. 105-106; Reinach 1888a, p. 122; Allen 1999, p. 289 n. 171; Rous et al. 2009, p. 17; Kontente 2012, p. 530 - not “Gozenbach”.

18. Cf. Reinach 1886, p. 25, 74-75; Reinach 1891, p. 211-217; Kouroupou 1982, p. 163-169 nos. Cf. Reinach 1886, p. 25, 74-75; Reinach 1891, p. 211-217; Kouroupou 1982, p. 163-169 nos. 28, 29, 30, 34, 42, 58, 61.

19. Kontente puts the number of marble sculptures (statues, reliefs and architectural elements) at 500 (Kontente 2012, p. 531).

20. Cf. Reinach 1888b, p. 217 n. 5.Cf. Reinach 1888b, p. 217 n. 5.

21. Cf. Kontente 2012, p. 531.Cf. Kontente 2012, p. 531.

22. Cf. Rayet 1877; Engel 1884, p. 13-21; Babelon 1901, col. 324.Cf. Rayet 1877; Engel 1884, p. 13-21; Babelon 1901, col. 324.

23. Baedeker 1905, p. 198.Baedeker 1905, p. 198.

24. Shaw 2003, p. 118.Shaw 2003, p. 118.

126 CCEC 47, 2017

museum” in which embalmed animals were exhibited, no doubt supplied by von Gonzenbach, and an “experimental museum” in which the instruments necessary for the teaching of physics and chemistry were stored. The school’s premises also contained a picture gallery with works by noteworthy Greek and foreign painters. The library and the archaeological, physiological and experimental museums were all consumed in the Great Fire of September1922.25

25. Cadoux 1938, p. xi-xii, 230 n. 1; Kurt 2016, p. 5-6; cf. Housepian 1972; Llewellyn-Smith Cadoux 1938, p. xi-xii, 230 n. 1; Kurt 2016, p. 5-6; cf. Housepian 1972; Llewellyn-Smith 1998; Milton 2009.

Figure 1. White Slip II crater.

Archaeological Museum, Evangelical School, Smyrna (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 670 fig. 1).

Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 5 (1980) No. K-AD 366 (Appendix I No. 11).

Figure 2. Bichrome IV “free field” jug.Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (MVF.XI b 3713 [74/655]).

Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 673 fig. 2. Marangou, Malecos 1994, pl. 11.


Unfortunately no guide was ever produced to the archaeological collection, though a register was certainly kept, and the records consulted by Ohnefalsch-Richter must have been destroyed in the fire. Judging by the publications and photographs of the antiquities once housed in the archaeological museum, the objects were given an inventory number, which means that by rights the White Slip II crater should have had one. If so, Ohnefalsch-Richter does not mention it. In any case the only illustrations extant of the artefacts in or near their original settings appear to have been taken in the 1890s and are now kept in the photographic archives of the German Archaeological Institutes in Athens and Istanbul, where most can be consulted in the University of Köln’s indispensable Arachne Website under “Evangelische Schule”.26 In two cases at least we get some idea of the way all the materials used by the School were once stored. Some of the pots from the Gonzenbach collection (not including any identifiably Cypriote) were photographed in 1890 standing on books and/or ledgers evidently taken from the library or from the museum’s own archives.27 In the background can be seen the floor to ceiling wall cases full of the library’s books, with a ladder leaning against them. More graphically two pieces of ancient sculpture were awkwardly placed in 1898 in front of glass cases containing what look like specimen or pharmaceutical bottles and other paraphernalia such as might have been kept in the physiological museum and/or the experimental museum.28 Whether the antiquities were moved to these positions from the same room or another for the sake of being photographed cannot now be determined.

Nor is it entirely clear from the available documentation which building(s) housed the archaeological museum in September 1922 when the Greek quarter of Smyrna was ravaged by the conflagration. According to George Vassiadis,29 writing in 2007, the new structure intended to accommodate the Evangelical School was completed that same year but never occupied. It survived the destruction of this part of the city, due, it is said by some sources, to the intervention of the Turkish forces who pulled down the structures surrounding the school in order to prevent the fire reaching it. The building is now a

Alsancak, Konak, and remains a handsome edifice in a large block of land, north of Kültürpark, a substantial green space in downtown Izmir created out of the ruins left by the Great Fire.30 The quarters that preceded the building intended in 1922 for the Evangelical School were occupied from 1882 on the south-eastern side of the courtyard

26. The accompanying annotations are, however, by no means infallible and need to be carefully checked each time for accuracy and updates, especially where published references are concerned.

27. www.arachne.uni-koeln.de No. 404620 : D-DAI-ATH-Smyrna 0003 - accessed on 28/11/2016; cf. Stark 1874, p. 390; www.arachne.uni-koeln.de No. 404622 : D-DAI-ATH-Smyrna 0005 - accessed on 28/11/2016.

28. www.arachne.uni-koeln.de No. 194616: D-DAI-ATH-Kleinasien 0210 - accessed on 11/04/2017.

29. www.levantineheritage.com - accessed on 07/01/2017.

30. Kurt 2016, p. 2.

128 CCEC 47, 2017

of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Agia Photini in central Smyrna, and though the only ground plan I have been able to find of the School in this location31 does not give any clear indication of the spaces occupied by the library or museums, we know from Baedeker’s guide of 1905 that access to the archaeological museum and library was had through a passageway in the south-eastern corner of the courtyard.32

Izmir Archaeological Museum

It is worth noting that under the new Turkish Republic the original Archaeology Museum in Izmir was established in 1924 and opened in 1927 in Aya Vukla, the former Greek Orthodox Church of Ayios Voukolos, which was damaged but not destroyed in 1922.33 The building occupied by the present Izmir Archaeology Museum was opened in 1984, and the new Izmir History and Art Museum, situated with its three separate wings in the Külturpark, was opened in 2004.34 The division of objects between these two institutions today is not immediately explicable as they both contain Classical sculpture, pottery of Greek derivation, going back to Mycenaean times, and other artefacts of Anatolian and Classical origin. It does not seem to have been based on provenance, as some accounts would have us believe, since some of the sculpture at least in the Izmir History and Art Museum comes not only from Smyrna itself but from other Classical sites in the region, including one which was once in the Evangelical School and allegedly found in Miletus (Inv. No. 000.708).35 Unfortunately research on this subject in Izmir is hampered by the language barrier and the difficulty of locating the relevant publications; and, of course, the substantial Greek presence formerly in Smyrna has disappeared as though it never existed, and with it the memory in Izmir of places like the Evangelical School. The irony of seeing both modern museums filled with superb two thousand year old Greek and Roman statuary, without reference to the city’s recent past, can be lost on no dispassionate observer.

In a carefully worded, diplomatic article Melania Savino has recently illustrated this phenomenon through the life and career of Aziz (Bey) Ogan (1888-1956), Turkish Inspector General of Antiquities in the Smyrna/Izmir region from 1914 to 1931 and subsequently Director of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums from 1931 to 1954.36 However, while acknowledging his contribution to the establishment of the new Archaeology Museum in Izmir, she makes no mention of its predecessor, the archaeological museum in the (Greek) Evangelical School, or the source of its antiquities, which has now been revealed

31. The “Plan d’assurance de Smyrne (Smyrna)” issued by Charles E. Goad in 1905 (https://archnet.org/publications/10377 - accessed on 26/09/2017)!

32. Baedeker 1905, p. 198, map of Smyrne between p. 194-195 B4, 5.

33. Savino 2015, p. 93; Kurt 2016, passim, esp. p. 9.

34. Cf. Gültekin 1965, p. [2-3]; Rous et al. 2009, p. 20.

35. Aybek et al. 2009, p. 193-198; see below.

36. Savino 2015.


by Kurt drawing on the same archives as Savino used for her own study.37 While it could be argued on technical grounds that the first archaeological museum in Izmir as opposed to Smyrna was opened to the public on 15 February 1927, as Rous, Laugier and Martinez have done,38 it again overlooks the existence of the one in the Evangelical School, about which Shaw as well has nothing to say in her survey of “Museum Enterprises outside of Istanbul” in Ottoman times.39 In this regard it should be noted that Izmir did not become the internationally recognised name for the city until 1930 with the passage of the Turkish Postal Service Law of 28 March.40 Up till that time Smyrna and Izmir were both still in popular use and used interchangeably, nicely demonstrated by Aziz (Bey) Ogan’s guide to the new Archaeology Museum published in 1927.41. The Turkish edition was

have been careful to avoid using the word “Greek”, as though it might compromise the achievements and even legitimacy of the new Turkish Republic, but Edhem Eldem, on the other hand, has addressed the issue of Turkey’s involvement with Greece fairly and squarely with characteristic insight and eloquence in a paper on “Greece and the Greeks in Ottoman History and Turkish Historiography”.42

Aziz Ogan’s guide of 1927 to the new archaeological museum in Smyrna/Izmir is as informative for what it does not say as what it does. Firstly it does not give a name to the “old abandoned church” (Ayios Voukolos) which was restored as temporary premises to house the exhibits until a new building could be constructed, and designated Aya Vukla.43 Nor does it mention the existence of the archaeological collection formerly in the Evangelical School. Rather it simply states that all the antiquities which were to be found almost everywhere in the town after the Great Fire as well as those from excavations were brought together in the one place to demonstrate the ancient history of Smyrna and its surrounds. Nearly all the objects which are described and illustrated in the guide are pieces of Classical sculpture, many of them without provenance. None has been published with an inventory number or year of acquisition, and only a few have been given their years of discovery in Ionia.44 Space in the museum and catalogue was also allocated to pottery and terracottas, mostly from Asia Minor, but none was specified as coming from outside this area, including Cyprus.45 In addition to the relief with the Dioskouroi (Izmir History and Art Museum Inv. No. 000.708), another piece of Hellenistic sculpture,

37. See n. 46 below.

38. Rous et al. 2009, p. 20.

39. Shaw 2003, p. 169-171.

41. Aziz 1927.

42. Eldem 2009.Eldem 2009.

43. Aziz 1927, p. 3.Aziz 1927, p. 3.

44. Aziz 1927, p. 9, 21, 38.Aziz 1927, p. 9, 21, 38.9, 21, 38.

45. Aziz 1927, p. 39-41.Aziz 1927, p. 39-41.

130 CCEC 47, 2017

the back panel of a marble Hellenistic naiskos from a tomb relief with three headless standing figures, said to have come from Smyrna itself (Izmir History and Art Museum Inv. No. 000.884) was once in the Evangelical School and acquired in 1924 by the Izmir Archaeology Museum.46 Though said still to be in this Museum in 1993, it was recorded in the History and Art Museum in 1965 and 2009.47

It may be assumed that the White Slip II crater illustrated by Ohnefalsch-Richter perished or disappeared with many if not most of the rest of the Archaeological Museum’s antiquities in the Evangelical School in 1922. In response to an informal enquiry, the Izmir Archaeology Museum indicated no knowledge of the piece. It was certainly not on show when I visited this Museum and the Izmir History and Art Museum in January 2017 or included in Turhan Özgan’s 1999 catalogue of pottery in the Izmir Archaeology Museum.48 The only documentary account I have been able to find of what happened to the archaeological museum’s collection in the Evangelical School after its destruction is contained in an important paper delivered by Selvihan Kurt in May 2016 at a conference in Istanbul:

School of Smyrna was one of the prominent institutions of the Greek Orthodox world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries until it was destroyed in the Great Fire in 1922 [...]. Before [the] Turkish army took over the city, the Greek administration was planning to found a major Asia Minor Museum around this antique collection with the addition of the pieces that they pick[ed] up from excavation sites, public buildings (because some antique findings were used as building material), and some donations. In 1922 a collection for the future Asia Minor Museum was stored in the school museum and it had 15,000 coins and approximately 3,000 various objects. The Istanbul Museum, [and] the Inspectorship of Antiques were already aware of the presence of such a significant book and antiquities collection in the abandoned

the collection. On 28 June 1923 the Directorship of Antiqu[iti]es (with the signature

about the situation of the fire ruined collections in the school. After arrangement of

of the school. At the end 185 pieces of copper coins were found in the ruin. These objects were inventoried in five lists in addition to the lists of other antique findings.

46. Pfuhl and Möbius 1977, Pl. 98 No. 646, pp. 182 - 183 No. 646; Aybek et al. 2009, pp. 157 - 158 No. 139, p. 197 No. 139, p. 199; www.arachne.uni-koeln.de : Item 8006 (not Külturpark Inv. No. 519) - accessed on 10/01/2017.

48. Özgan 1999. Özgan 1999.


Even the less damaged coins cannot be read and they all had to be sieved to clean from the earth”.49

It is clear, however, that more of the Evangelical School’s archaeological collection survived than simply the coins. For example, the Hellenistic marble relief allegedly from Miletus showing two brothers as Dioskouroi with horses and servants in the Izmir History and Art Museum (Inv. No. 000.708) was bought in Smyrna and once housed in the Evangelical School.50 It is said to have been acquired by the Izmir Archaeological Museum in 1925 and is much damaged and discoloured but now shows no signs of burning. However it is most likely to be the “pierre funéraire ou bien un tableau votif et on y voit en relief deux Dioscures”, which was on show in the Smyrna Museum in 1927.51 Furthermore “ce marbre ayant été exposé à une incendie les dessins en sont fortement endommagés et il y a des parties qui lui manquent”.52 It has suffered only minor disfigurement since the picture in the Fototek of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul was taken.53 The relief was evidently once set in a stand of some kind as there are traces today of a horizontal ridge along the front of the base. The pieces that make up the ensemble on show have no other number visible on them than “708”. Furthermore, according to Guy Meyer, to whom I am endebted for this information, a large number of stone inscriptions from the Evangelical School’s museum were found buried in Konak, on the site of the present bus station at Sari Baba, in front of the Izmir Archaeological Museum, and today make up a significant proportion of the latter’s holdings. And mirabile dictu a number of small Classical objects were also recovered from the ruins of the School’s archaeological museum in 1922 and donated to the British Museum in 1955 by Geoffrey W. Russell, who was said to have been living at the time in London NW3 (GR 1955,0716.1-11).54 No less intriguing are the circumstances in which two late Classical East Greek funerary stelae were acquired by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, in 1938. They were gifted by

49. Kurt 2016, p. 5-7. According to Selvihan Kurt, the founding of the Izmir Archaeological Kurt 2016, p. 5-7. According to Selvihan Kurt, the founding of the Izmir Archaeological According to Selvihan Kurt, the founding of the Izmir Archaeological According to Selvihan Kurt, the founding of the Izmir Archaeological Museum in the 1920s through its every stage from the transportation of the items to arranging the museum building as an exhibition hall, and to collecting the various items from various sources,

Istanbul (Archive www.academia.edu – accessed 14/02/2017], p. 17).

50. Pfuhl and Möbius 1977 and 1979, pl. 212 no. 1461, p. 346 no. 1461; Aybek et al. 2009, p. 164 no. 145, p. 198 no. 145, 199; www.arachne.uni-koeln.de Item 47987 D-DAI-IST-5156 - accessed on 23/11/2016.

51. Aziz 1927, p. 20.

52. Aziz 1927 p. 20.

53. D-DAI-IST-5156; www.arachne.uni-koeln.de Item 47987 – accessed on 28/11/2016.

54. www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online - accessed 10/11/2016.

132 CCEC 47, 2017

Menander T. Constant and had been picked up on the “retreat” of the Greek population from Smyrna presumably in 1922.55

Cypriote Antiquities in 19th Century A.D. Smyrna

How did the White Slip II crater from Cyprus come to be in a school museum in Smyrna in the 19th century A.D.? In the first place it is highly unlikely that it was actually dug up in Anatolia, especially Smyrna. Despite much mythological and other circumstantial data for the existence of a pre-Hellenic settlement in Smyrna,56 no Middle Bronze and few Late Bronze Age remains have been found in the city area, and the association of the toponym Ti!murna mentioned in Old Assyrian texts of the early 2nd millennium B.C. with the name Smyrna having the ti- noun formative relies solely on philological similarity, not historical fact.57 Indeed this ancient place name is now accepted as a copper area as implied by the texts, and is considered the equivalent of later Hittite Zi!parna, Latin

58 Furthermore few Cypriote pottery exports of the Late Bronze Age have been found along the western coast of Anatolia. The closest to the vase in Smyrna in all respects are some 60 White Slip II milk-bowl sherds from Troy, to the north.59 Of course the White Slip II crater could have come from further afield in Anatolia as A.H. Sayce recounts in the following quotation from an article he published in 1890: “The Rev. Greville I. Chester has been fortunate enough to secure another addition to our stock of Hittite inscriptions. As the object on which the inscription is found was purchased at Smyrna, it may be inferred that it was discovered somewhere in Asia Minor. Unfortunately it is impossible to fix more definitely the exact spot from which it may have come. Smyrna is the centre of the trade in the coins and other antiquities which are found in the interior of Anatolia; I have myself bought there cylinders which were imported from Kappadokia, and it is therefore quite possible that the ‘Hittite’ relic obtained by Mr. Chester may have come from an equal distance”.60 There is, however, nothing remotely comparable to the Cypriote pot once in the Evangelical School with an established provenance from the rest of the country.61 Indeed finds of White Slip II craters in the Levant outside of Cyprus are very rare.62

This suggests that the specimen formerly in Smyrna was almost certainly acquired by the Evangelical School in modern times. It was not the only antiquity from Cyprus in the

55. Romano 2006, p. 33 no. 24, 1920s; p. 36 no. 26, 1921.

56. Cf. Cadoux 1938, p. 23-54.

57. Akurgal 1983, p. 12.

58. Nashef 1991, p. 121-122 with references. For this information I am endebted to Dr Selim Adali.

59. Åström 1972, p. 753; Åström 1980; Merrillees and Krpata 1997, p. 137; Todd 2001, p. 206-207; Kozal 2003, p. 69; Kozal 2016, p. 55.

60. Sayce 1890, p. 215.

61. Cf. Åström 1972, p. 752-754.

62. Bergoffen 2005, p. 51; Yasur-Landau et al. 2014.


“Smyrna Museum”. In their catalogue of the Cyprus Museum published in 1899 Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter cite the parallel in the Evangelical School’s archaeological museum “apparently from Cyprus... (922, Markopulos Coll.)” for a two-handled vase resembling a black glazed “native imitation of late Hellenic work” from Ohnefalsch-Richter’s excavations in 1886 at Polis tis Chrysochous, then in the Cyprus Museum.63 This Markopulos was most likely Denis Marcopoulos64, listed as a merchant in Smyrna in 1896 and described as “éphore hon. du Musée de Smyrne, délégué de l’Homéreion, école hellénique (Smyrne)” in the Comptes rendus du Congrès International d’Archéologie, 1ère session, Athènes 1905 (p. 28). In addition four copper/bronze objects in the Museum and Library were recorded as having come from Cyprus. In a catalogue of metal objects in the Evangelical School in Smyrna, published in 1879, Athanasios Papadopoulos Kerameus (1856-1912)65, curator of the museum and library at the Evangelical School from 1873 to 1879, lists a plain circular mirror of copper 66 and three bronze spear heads 67 with this provenance. Their registration numbering suggests that they were acquired as a batch, presumably in modern times. There were also coins 68 and may well have been other objects from Cyprus in the collection.

The journey of the White Slip II crater would be typical of thousands of antiquities that left the island in the 19th century A.D. Despite the relatively few items that ended up in Smyrna, this city was a magnet for the congregation and redistribution of ancient objets d’art. Murray’s Handbook for Travellers in Turkey in Asia describes Smyrna in 1878 as the most important city in Asia Minor and one of the principal commercial ports in the Ottoman Empire.69 It was in direct communication by ship with all the leading seaports in the Levant and from travellers’ accounts of the 19th century A.D. there was clearly a continuous movement of people and goods by sea between Cyprus and Smyrna, serviced for most of the period by the Austrian Lloyd Steamship Company, but also by

63. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 92 no. 2053.Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 92 no. 2053.

64. ! ! ! ! ! "! ! 1878-9 & 1879-80, p. 1.

65. Reinach 1913; Xanthopoulos 1914, p. 346-348. Papadopoulos Kerameus was a self-taught Reinach 1913; Xanthopoulos 1914, p. 346-348. Papadopoulos Kerameus was a self-taught Papadopoulos Kerameus was a self-taught

Constantinople, Jerusalem and Saint-Petersburg. In addition to his catalogue of the metal objects in the Evangelical School museum he brought out another catalogue of the ancient weights in the same museum, none of which is recorded as having come from Cyprus (Papadopoulos Kerameus 1880). It should be noted that all these items had their own museum catalogue or registration numbers. Papadopoulos Kerameus is also said to have supplemented his meagre income by selling antiquities. .

66. Papadopoulos Kerameus 1879, p. 118 no. 41 (70).

67. Papadopoulos Kerameus 1879, p. 119 nos. 59 (71), 60 (72), 61 (73).

68. E.g. Engel 1884, p. 21.E.g. Engel 1884, p. 21.

69. Murray 1878, p. 247.

134 CCEC 47, 2017

other shipping lines.70 Among these goods were antiquities. Smyrna was also described in the same source as “a numismatic capital.71 Here are gathered the coins from all Asia Minor and many of the islands [...]. Consequently Smyrna supplies the cabinets of Europe with Greek autonomous and imperial coins, with Persian, Roman, and some early mediaeval; and it has been the seat of some celebrated numismatists; among these were Cousinéry 72 and Borrell”.73 Murray’s Handbook goes on to say that the collectors in Smyrna were always exchanging and selling coins and that from time to time statues and inscriptions were found and brought to Smyrna, for which enormous sums were asked.74 The Evangelical School rates a mention but not its Museum and Library.75 However the Indicateur des Professions Commerciales et Industrielles de Smyrne, de l’Anatolie, des Côtes, des Iles, etc. published by Jacob de Andria in Smyrna in 1895 notes that “Le Musée et la Bibliothèque de l’Ecole Evangélique, fondés en 1874, forment un établissement, annexé à ladite Ecole, et dirigé depuis 1884 par Mr. Stilpon Pittakis. Le Musée possède un grand nombre d’antiquités grecques et romaines trouvées en Asie Mineure”, including sculpture, coins, engraved stones, vases, terracottas, etc. (p. 49). This establishment, he wrote, was open to the public.

While Smyrna was a major centre for the sale of Classical antiquities from the city and its surrounds during the whole of the 19th century A.D., it did not apparently play a prominent role in the history of the Cypriote antiquities trade. There are nevertheless individual cases of its involvement in the movement of objects, the earliest and best known of which is the sale of the bronze head from a larger than life-size statue of Apollo discovered accidentally in Tamassos, Cyprus, in 1836, of which the most up-to-date account has been given by Bouquillon, Descamps, Hermary and Mille (2006). Superb photographs of what has come to be known as the Chatsworth Head, named after the English residence in Derbyshire of William George Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790-1858), who purchased it in Smyrna from Henry Perigal Borrell in late March 1839, are to be found in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition of Ancient Greek

70. Jung 1997, p. 69-70; Patera 1997, p. 89-91; Christian 2000, p. 186, 225; cf. Bergia 1997, p. 126, 130, 131, 132, 172; Bonato and Emery 2010, p. 168-173; Kontente 2012, p. 395-396.

71. Cf. Caubet 1993, p. 25.

72. Esprit-Marie Cousinéry (1747-1833), a French diplomat, archaeologists and numismatist, Esprit-Marie Cousinéry (1747-1833), a French diplomat, archaeologists and numismatist, was French Vice-Consul in Smyrna from 1779 to 1783 and later a refugee there from 1793 to 1803, before being returned to duty and ending his career as French Consul in Salonica from 1815 to 1817 (cf. Kontente 2012, p. 263, 264, 272). He made substantial collections of ancient coins which ended up in Austria and Germany as well as France where he was elected a Correspondant of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1819 and a Free Academician in 1830 (Babelon 1901, cols. 204-205; Institut de France 1924, p. 197; Masson 1987b; Nicolet-Pierre 1987; Jestin 2013, passim).

73. Murray 1878, p. 251-252; Robert 1951, p. 52; cf. Allen 1999, p. 287-288 n. 156.

74. Murray 1878, p. 252.

75. Murray 1878, p. 261.


Art (London 1904), pls. II, VIII, IX, p. 11 no. 8.76 It is now in the British Museum (GR 1958,0418.1) on public show in the A.G. Leventis gallery of ancient Cyprus. A bronze replica of the head, made in the British Museum, was acquired by the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia in 1949 and is currently displayed in the entrance foyer.77 Ross, who gives an account of the statue’s discovery and the fate of its dismembered pieces, records only that the head came into the hands of a Herr Vondiziano in Larnaca who sold it for 1800 Piastres (= less than 20 English Pounds) to Herr Borrell in Smyrna.78 He published no further details about the original owner in Larnaca, when and how it left Larnaca for Smyrna, or about Borrell himself.79 We know, however, from another published source that the head was one of seven objects acquired from Borrell by the Duke on this occasion and said to come from Salamis, Cyprus, though Hill perceptively remarked that Borrell “may not have had first-hand information on this point”.80 And it was Gjerstad who first cleverly put together all the relevant facts in a largely overlooked article which established the link between the Chatsworth Head and Ross’ report on the bronze statue.81

Thanks to the archives held at Chatsworth and the documents kindly put at my disposal by Charles Noble, Curator (Collections Documentation), The Devonshire Collection, I am able reproduce the whole of Borrell’s handwritten receipt, as follows:

“Note of 7 objects of antiquity bought by His Grace the Duke of Devonshire at Smyrna. March. 1839.

No. 1. A large Bronze head of Apollo found among the ruins of Salamis in Cyprus. 2. Statue of Faun [? Faune], from Tralles in Lydia.3. Large marble uncertain head from Clazomene.4. Smaller marble head of Hercules fragment of an alto-releivo. Locality uncertain.5. Bronze foot with inscription, from the ruins of the ancient Alinda in Caria.6. Porch of an Egyptian temple (with Scarabaeus within) covered with Hieroglyphics –

from Egypt.7. Vase of Serpentine stone – from do [= ditto, i.e. Egypt]

Smyrna H.P. Borrell [signature]”.82

76. Hill 1949, p. 225 n. 3; Boschung et alby Bouquillon et alArchaeological Reports (1959-1960), p. 58-59; Vermeule 1976, p. 15-16 no. 1; Buchholz, Untiedt 1996, pls. 62a, 63a, p. 117; Bol 2008.

77. Megaw 1950, p. 6; Dikaios 1961, p. 101.

78. Ross 1852, p. 161-163; Cobham 1910, p. 72-74; Pohlsander 2006, p. 54-55; cf. Bonato, Dondin-Payre 2017, p. 179. For an account of Ross’ visit to Cyprus, see Mehl 2009. It makes no mention of the Chatsworth Head.

79. Ross 1852, p. 161-163.

80. Hill 1949, p. 225 n. 3; cf. Gjerstad 1948, p. 337-338; Lees-Milne 1991, p. 140. Lees-Milne has nothing to say about the Duke’s antiquities purchases in Smyrna.

81. Gjerstad 1945.

82. The 6The 6th Duke of Devonshire’s Sculpture Accounts (ms.) page (ref. DF4/1/14/1).

136 CCEC 47, 2017

It shows, if nothing else, the diversity of objets d’art, in addition to coins, which Borrell handled at this early time and their geographical sources. The Chatsworth Head was the only Cypriote object amongst these pieces, which included ones originating in Asia Minor and Egypt. The Duke’s diary entry for 28 March, the day of his departure from Smyrna, reveal that he was “enchanted with my bargain of 7 curiosities”, which he bought for 15 English Pounds! 83

Unfortunately Ross did not specify the given name of the Vondiziano concerned in Larnaca, and we cannot now work out for sure which one it was. The obvious candidate is Antonio (Antoine, Antony), who was born in Cephallonia in 1753 (not 1755) 84 and died in Larnaca on 17 December 1838 (not 1840).85 He was a merchant and freeman of the British Levant Company in Larnaca and British Vice-Consul from 1799 until the time of his death.86 Coudounaris states that he was also acting Chancellor of the Russian Consulate in Larnaca 87 and, according to Bonato, was appointed “agent consulaire” of the United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway in 1825, the year of the dissolution of the British Levant Company.88 He would certainly have had business and diplomat contacts with Smyrna but not much is known of any antiquarian interests he may have pursued.89 According to Kiely and Ulbrich, “Clarke for example describes receiving a number of coins from the British Consul, Antonio Vondiziano, including a late sixth or fifth century BC issue of Salamis [...]. Their ultimate destination and current whereabouts are unknown, though Vondiziano also passed on antiquities to the British ambassador to the Porte”.90 That Antonio was well acquainted with the remains of the past is illustrated by the guided tour he gave the American missionary, Lorenzo Warriner Pease, on 21 November 1838 around the garden of his house in Larnaca which occupied an ancient cemetery with sarcophagi burials, presumably from the Roman period.91 Two of the sarcophagi above ground had been opened and the grave goods removed, one of which, a tear bottle, Vondiziano presented to

83. 66th Duke of Devonshire’s ms. diary DF4/2/1/19 (former reference 767.463).

84. Coudounaris 1972, p. 13; Severis 2002, p. 911 – he was 75 in 1838, p. 917 n. 234: 1755 to 1840 [sic].

85. Hill 1952, p. 180 n. 3; Severis 2002, p. 952; Merrillees 2016, p. 366.

86. Luke 1969, p. 118, 276: 1799 to 1840; Coudounaris 1972, p. 13; Bergia 1997, p. 145 n. 4, 260: 1799 to 1840; Aymes 2005, p. 625: 1796 to 1840; Bonato 2006, p. 167 n. 103: 1799 to 1840; Aymes 2013, p. 76: 1796 to 1839; Özkul 2013, p. 254, 257: 1799 to 1840; Vlami 2015, p. 36, 65, 66, 113, 115, 241, 281: 1799 to 1825; Merrillees 2016, p. 366 n. 108, with bibliography; Demiryürek and Yazar 2017, p. 104, 108, 109: 1799 to 1838.

87. Coudounaris 1972, p. 13; Hill 1952, p. 194: described as Russian Vice-Consul.

88. Bonato 2006, p. 167 n. 103. Her reference to Coudounaris 1972, p. 21.4 has nothing to do Bonato 2006, p. 167 n. 103. Her reference to Coudounaris 1972, p. 21.4 has nothing to do with Antonio.

89. Cf. Bergia 1997, p. 239 n. 17.

90. Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 310.

91. Severis 2002, p. 924.


Pease. Antonio, who suffered from a hernia,92 died a month later. The fact he passed away before the Duke of Devonshire acquired the bronze head in Smyrna does not mean that it could not have been despatched and reached Smyrna before then.

The second possible Vondiziano was Andreas, Antonio’s younger brother, who was also born in Cephallonia and settled in Larnaca, The dates of his birth and death are unrecorded. He was Vice-Consul of Russia and of the United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway in Larnaca, to which he was appointed in 1852,93 but had a chequered diplomatic career, culminating in his arrest in August 1861 by, of all people, the British Vice-Consul, Horace P. White.94 The third possible Vondiziano was Petros Pavlos (Paul), son of Andreas, whose date of birth is unrecorded. He was sufficiently old and experienced to have been sent on a diplomatic mission to Greece in 1830,95 suggesting that he was born no later than 1800. He died in Larnaca in 1862.96 He was in his time Acting Vice-Consul of Britain from 1838 to 1843,97 Vice-Consul of Prussia from 1853 to 1857 98 and for a short time “Deputy” of Greece.99 Paul was no less conscious of the antiquity of Kition than his uncle and also showed Pease around the ruins of the ancient city on 23 November 1838.100 Any one of these three could have been the Vondiziano mentioned by Ross, but Antonio seems the more likely.

Henry Perigal Borrell (1795-1851) was an expatriate Englishman who spent most of his life working in Smyrna, where he died. He was both merchant and dealer in antiquities, as well as a numismatist, many of whose coins were acquired by the British Museum in London.101 He evidently arrived in Smyrna in 1818 but is not known to have ever visited

92. Severis 2002, p. 911.

93. Hill 1952, p. 194 n. 4, 230 n. 5; Hill has mistaken Antony for Andreas, described him as “Consular Agent” for Sweden and Norway, and incorrectly stated that before then there had been no agency for that nation in Cyprus; Coudounaris 1972, p. 21.

94. Cf. Hill 1952, p. 230-231 n. 5; Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 148-149; Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 317.

95. Hill 1952, p. 152.

96. Coudounaris 1972, p. 21.

97. Hill 1952, p. 180: 1838 to 1843: not the son-in-law of Antonio but the nephew (see Aymes 2010, p. 146 n. 78); Luke 1969, p. 276: 1840 to 1841; Coudounaris 1972, p. 21: 1838 to 1842; Bergia 1997, p. 145 n. 4, 260; Aymes 2005, p. 625: 1840 to 1841; Aymes 2009, p. 146 n. 78; Aymes 2013, p. 76; Özkul 2013, p. 257: 1840 to 1841.



100. Severis 2002, p. 924-925.

101. Reinach 1888a, p. 123-125; Reinach 1891, p. 235; Babelon 1901, col. 265; Robert 1951, p. 220; Masson 1991, p. 60, 64-65; Whitehead 1999; Rous et al. 2009, p. 17 (2); Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 310-311; Dowler 2017, p. 53; Wikipedia – accessed on 05/10/2016. Andrew Oliver Jr. has kindly informed me that his great-grandfather, who bore the same names, recorded in the diary of his visit to Smyrna in October 1849 that on 30 October he “procured an introduction to Mr. Borrell and English gentleman and the greatest coin fancier in the East”.

138 CCEC 47, 2017

Cyprus or maintained direct relations with any of the foreigners or Levantines resident in the island. He did however have published in Paris in 1836 a médailles grecques des rois de Chypre, which indicates, if not necessarily a personal link or links with Cyprus, at least some contact which enabled him to acquire and study coins from its Classical kingdoms. How he came into possession of the Chatsworth Head is unknown but there are two possible ways, both involving the Charnaud family in Smyrna. We know from the diary of the 6th Duke of Devonshire that on the day of his arrival in Smyrna on 25 March 1839 he met the British Vice-Consul, Mr Charnaud, who took him to Borrell “an antiquarian where I saw things I should like very much”. John Charnaud was appointed British Vice-Consul in April 1835 and remained in this position until at least 1856. He was presumably John Henry Charnaud (1809-1874), the son of John Charnaud (1770-1827) who was a merchant and member of the British Levant Company in Smyrna.102 John Henry, who was also a merchant, may well have had direct or indirect contact with the Vondiziano family in Larnaca and recommended Borrell as a dealer for the bronze head.

In addition, John Charnaud’s brother, Francis Charnaud, was another merchant and freeman in the British Levant Company in Salonica and British Consul there from 1791/1792 until apparently 15 April 1832, when he died. In 1825 one of his daughters, Sarah (b. ca. 1798),103 married Alphonse Bottu (b. ca. 1799), then Vice-Consul of France in Salonica, and later Consul of France in Larnaca from 16 November 1831 to 24 August 1833, when he died suddenly.104 Bottu and his wife, who looked after Alphonse Lamartine during his stopovers in Larnaca in late August/early September 1832 and April 1833,105 must have made the acquaintance of the Vondiziano family in Larnaca and could possibly have been the source of information about antiquities dealers in Smyrna, including Borrell. Nothing, however, has been published to indicate any possible interest by Bottu in antiquities, but a notable episode in the course of his official duties was recorded by

102. Vlami 2015, p. 45-46.

103. Not Sandra (Jestin 2013, p. 196).

104. Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes: Constantinople Série D Larnaca 166PO/D43 No. 25, folio 148 ; Hill 1952, p. 140 n. 2; Béraud 1990, p. 106, 125 n. 31; Bergia 1997, p. 248, 237; Aymes 2005, p. 623 ; Lapierre 2008, p. 210-215; Jestin 2013, p. 196-197. Though it has been suggested that he may have been poisoned (cf. Béraud 1973, p. 39 n. 2), he himself wrote to the French Ambassador in Constantinople on 5 August 1833 that he had been weakened by a fever which left him without the strength to hold a pen and scarcely enough to pull his thoughts together (Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes: Constantinople Série D Larnaca 166PO/D43 No. 26, folio 133), and on 28 August 1833

in a letter to the same destination that Bottu had been badly affected by fever before passing away (Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes: Constantinople Série D Larnaca 166PO/D43 No. 26, folio 158). Guillois pointed out that a large number of people in Cyprus had gone down with this fever, and though he was aware of the rumour that Bottu had been poisoned and could not rule it out, he was disinclined to lend it any credence (cf. Hill 1952, p. 140 n. 2).

105. Lamartine 1836a, p. 136-138; Lamartine 1836b, p. 165-167.Lamartine 1836a, p. 136-138; Lamartine 1836b, p. 165-167.


(Antonio) Vondiziano.106 At the same time, while the records from the French Consulate in Bottu’s time contain a few official documents and mentions of Antonio Vondiziano by name,107 there is at least one critical commentary in a despatch of 21 May 1833 from Bottu on Vondiziano’s purported misconduct, which seems to lessen the likelihood that they enjoyed particularly amicable relations.108 After Bottu’s death his widow returned with their two children to Salonica where they were lodged by the French Consul who sought French Government assistance for the impoverished family.109

It is perhaps significant that Smyrna does not feature much, if at all, in Luigi Palma di Cesnola’s plundering in Cyprus and peregrinations, no doubt because he had no need of a regional intermediary for the disposal of his collections and in any case sent some of his Cypriote antiquities to Beirut and Constantinople only to advance further afield his own mercantile interests in exploiting the island’s past.110 One possible link between Cesnola and Smyrna involves a Cypro-Archaic agate scarab seal with Cypro-Syllabic inscription, acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Inv. No. 74.51.4193) in 1874, assigned to Kourion but said to have been obtained, presumably by Cesnola, in Smyrna.111 Another potential connection is provided by two terracotta female heads of late Classical date from the Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Inv. Nos. 74.51.1495, 74.51.1513) attributed to Smyrna as a source though they could, of course, have been ancient imports to Cyprus.112 Could it also be that the Sassanian seals of Persian origin from the Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which are most unlikely to have been found or obtained in Cyprus, were also acquired by Cesnola in Smyrna? 113

Another of the numismatists active in Smyrna in the latter half of the 19th century A.D., who also had an interest in Cyprus, was Alfred John Lawson (1838-1921), a British employee of the Imperial Ottoman Bank.114 He became a member of the Royal Numismatic Society in England in 1871,115 sold Greek and Roman coins to the British

106. Hill 1952, p. 157-161, esp. p. 160 n. 3.

107. Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes: Constantinople Série D Larnaca 166PO/D43 No. 25, e.g. folios 206, 207, 272.

108. Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes: Constantinople Série D Larnaca 166PO/D43 No. 26, folios 79-80.

109. Jestin 2013, p. 197; cf. Lamartine 1836b, p. 166-167.

110. See article above.

111. Myres 1914, p. 419, 542-543 no. 4193; Mitford 1971, p. 386-387 no. 222; Masson 1983, p. 345 no. 354; Reyes 2001, p. 94 no. 163.

112. Karageorghis et al. 2016, p. 248-249 nos. 422, 423.

113. Myres 1914, p. 448-449 nos. 4409-4419, p. 557; Brunner 1978, p. 41 Inv. Nos. 74.51.4409-4420, 4425.

114. Eldem 1994, p. 345.

115. Oman 1921, p. 29.

140 CCEC 47, 2017

Museum in 1874, including two minted in Cyprus (C&M 1874,0716.94, 1874,0716.96), and bid successfully at the Cesnola and Cesnola-Lawrence auction sales of Cypriote antiquities at Sotheby’s in London between 1871 and 1892.116 The Louvre bought a number of Smyrna terracottas from Lawson in 1882,117 and a catalogue of some of the Greek coins in his collection was published in Paris in 1884 by the French archaeologist and numismatist, Arthur Engel (1885-1935).118 Later Lawson contributed a few Classical terracottas from Myrina to the exhibition of Greek ceramic art held by the Burlington Fine Arts Club in London in 1888.119 Samuel Brown, Government Engineer in Cyprus from 1878 to 1889, who dabbled in Cypriote archaeology, was married to Zoë Melita Joly, who was born in Smyrna in 1861 and died in Cyprus in 1889.120 She was the younger sister of Ernest Thomas Charles Joly (1859-1932), who was also employed by the Imperial Ottoman Bank, in Nicosia, and a collector of Cypriote antiquities.121 He too had been born in Smyrna and in 1890 went to Beirut where from 1891 to 1893 he ran a company with Rudolph Basil von Heidenstam122 called Heidenstam Joly & Co.123. Joly later took over a shipping firm, Henry Heald and Co., in Beirut, where he died. The whereabouts of Joly’s antiquities is currently unknown. Zoë’s and Ernest’s father was Stephen Joly (1832-1886), at one time British Vice-Consul in Smyrna, who married in 1856 Sophia Borrell (1834-1903), none other than the daughter of Henry Perigal Borrell.

Tantalisingly Frederic, Lord Leighton (1830-1896), well known British artist, sculptor and collector, who was President of the Royal Academy of Arts from 1878 until his death and one of the founding members of the Cyprus Exploration Fund in 1887, visited Smyrna on at least two occasions, once in 1867124 and again in 1882125 but left no written record of his passage or activities. He seems, however, to have made a number of drawings of the ancient ruins visible in Smyrna at the time of his visit(s), though there are no signatures or dates on those in the Leighton House Museum, London, and their inscriptions are in

116. www.web.prm.ox.ac.ik/rpr/index.php/ - accessed on 21/01/2017.

117. Rous et al. 2009, p. 231.

118. Engel 1884, p. 22-35.

119. Burlington Fine Arts Club. Catalogue of Objects of Greek Ceramic Art Exhibited in 1888, London, p. 97 nos. 252-254.

120. Kiely, Merrillees 2012, p. 248-249.

121. Merrillees 2012, p. 1-3.

122. Merrillees 1998.Merrillees 1998.

123. According to Hil Piering, to whom I am grateful for this information, the company failed whilst Ernest was getting married in England, due, it seems, to Heidenstam being away on an archaeological dig and not noticing an associate was embezzling the company’s funds. They parted company, business wise, but continued their archaeological interests.

124. Barrington 1906, p. 128.

125. Reinach 1883a.


German, which he knew fluently126. In September 1882 Salomon Reinach entrusted him in Smyrna with a small sample of glazed terracotta which Leighton undertook to have scientifically analysed by Mr A.H. (later Sir Arthur) Church (1834-1915), described as the Director of the Chemistry Laboratory of the Royal Academy, where he was Professor of Chemistry from 1879 to 1911. Coincidentally Church was also responsible for analysing in 1899 the composition of a cylinder seal from Cyprus in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum (GR 1899,1229.36 [?]) 127 and a copper ingot from Enkomi Ayios Iakovos in the same Department (GR 1897,0401.1535) 128. The results of the examination of the piece from Smyrna were published by Reinach (1883), and in 1903 Church published his own findings on the antiquities from Cyprus in the British Museum.129 Leighton is not known to have visited Cyprus or to have acquired any Cypriote objets d’art,130 but in 1867 he painted “Venus Disrobing for the Bath”, which owes little, however, to the Cypriote legend.131 There is no reference to anything from Cyprus in Barrington’s description of the contents of Leighton’s house in the late 1890s132, and when Leighton died in January 1896, almost all his own collections and possessions were sold at auction at Christie’s in London.133 These included a painting of “The Apotheosis of Marcantonio Bragadino, Governor of Cyprus”, attributed to the school of Tintoretto, which was acquired by Leighton between 1850 and 1860 and presented by Barrington to the Leighton House Museum in Kensington, London, in 1926.134. Ohnefalsch-Richter first made Leighton’s acquaintance in Capri in 1874 and persuaded him to help Sir Charles Newton from the British Museum fund excavations in Cyprus by Ohnefalsch-Richter himself between 1880 and 1883135. Little is known about the results of all this fieldwork and the fate of its discoveries136.

126. Ref. Nos. LH/D/0440, 0441, 0449; Fivel 1994, p. 25; Robbins 2011, p. 15, 29.

127. Joyner et al. 2006, p. 138, 145-146; The British Museum Research Collection online – accessed on 22/09/2017 – with bibliography.

128. Kassianidou 2009, p. 65 Enkomi no. 1, with bibliography; The British Museum Research Collection online – accessed on 22/09/2017, with bibliography.

129. Church 1903.

130. He was a substantial contributor to an exhibition of Persian and Arab art held by the Burlington Fine Arts Club in London in 1885. Amongst the items lent by him were pieces of Rhodian Ware obtained by him directly in Rhodes, mostly at Lindos (e.g. Burlington Fine Arts Club. Catalogue of Specimens Illustrative of Persian and Arab Art Exhibited in 1885, London, p. 47 no. 400, p. 50 nos. 434, 435, p. 51 nos. 440-442, p. 52 nos. 448, 452-454, p. 53 nos. 458-461, 463).

131. Barrington 1906, p. 123, 125, 368, 384.

132. Barrington 1906, p. 362-379.

133. Robbins 2011, p. 29-31.

134. Robbins 2011, p. 57-58 (Ref. No. LH/D/0044).

135. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891, p. v-vi, ix; Fivel 1994, p. 23-26; Kiely and Ulbrich 2012, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891, p. v-vi, ix; Fivel 1994, p. 23-26; Kiely and Ulbrich 2012, p. 332-333.

136. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 201 “Newton”; Kiely 2010, p. 244-245. Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 201 “Newton”; Kiely 2010, p. 244-245.

142 CCEC 47, 2017

In 1927 René Dussaud (1868-1958), eminent French Orientalist, who baptised the Late Bronze Age settlement at Enkomi Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus “Alashiya” without any contemporaneous epigraphical evidence from the site,137 presented a Hellenistic funerary stele from Smyrna to the Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities in the Louvre (Nos. MND 1458, Ma 3425).138 It is said to have been in the Dussaud family since 1868.139 The archaeological collection which once belonged to René Dussaud himself, now in the Musée cantonal d’archéologie et d’histoire in Lausanne, contains no further objects with a recorded Smyrna provenance, indeed no information can be traced on the way the objects were chosen or acquired.140 They include a number of Cypriote Bronze Age and Iron Age antiquities, none of which is likely to have been found in Anatolia, though six “Cypriote” limestone heads of the mid first millennium B.C. are reputed to have come from the ancient site of Amrith in Syria.141 It is, for example, highly improbable that the Black Slip III/V juglet of Proto Base-ring shape 142 belonging to Åström Black Slip V Type VC1a 143 and dating to Late Cypriote IA, c. 1650-1550 B.C.144 in his possession was discovered outside the island. It and the rest of the Cypriote objects without any provenance almost certainly came from the island in modern times. Though René Dussaud may have been briefly to Cyprus in the 1890s, there is no indication that he ever visited Smyrna, but his father, Joseph (1837-1886), and his uncles ran an engineering firm based in Marseille which was involved in building port facilities in Suez, Port Said and Smyrna in the 1860s and 1870s.145 We may assume that René inherited from his father the funerary stele from Smyrna now in the Louvre and he himself acquired from unknown sources the Cypriote artefacts in his own collection.

None of this much helps in our quest for more detailed information on the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the White Slip II crater in the museum of the Evangelical School in Smyrna, but it does serve to illustrate the connections that existed during the 19th century A.D. between Cyprus and Smyrna (including the traffic in antiquities). Little more is recorded of Ohnefalsch-Richter’s own association with Smyrna than this one particular instance. When and how often he visited the city is unclear but it is most likely, though not specified by Buchholz,146 that he went there on his return trip from Cyprus to Europe in 1884 – it must certainly have been before 1888 – and in correspondence

137. Merrillees 1987, p. 32-34; Lagarce 1993, p. 101; Karageorghis 2007, p. 55.

138. Réunion des musées nationaux 1989, p. 200; Rous et al. 2010, p. 74 no. 29, with bibliography.

139. Rous et al. 2010, p. 18-19, 74 no. 29.

140. Michel 2014, esp. p. 19.

141. Michel 2014, p. 66-73, 122-125 nos. 89-94.

143. Åström 1972, p. 81-82, 717.

144. Michel 2014, p. 82 – not 13th-11th centuries B.C.

145. Bartolotti 2012-2013. Bartolotti 2012-2013.

146. Buchholz 1989, p. 8-9.Buchholz 1989, p. 8-9.


sighted by Margit Krpata, to whom I am endebted for this information, he announced his intention in 1884 to return to Cyprus via Pesth, Constantinople and Smyrna. This destination may also have been included in his travels outside Cyprus between 1890 and 1894.147 The addition of photographs of Smyrna roadstead to the album he and his wife, Martha, presented to Prince Bernhard von Sachsen-Meiningen-Hildburghausen and his wife, Charlotte, in 1895 148 shows that he must have transited Smyrna before then. In the same year 1895 a statuette was purchased from Ohnefalsch-Richter by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and said to have come from Erythrai, Asia Minor.149 It was shipped from Germany and may have been acquired by Ohnefalsch-Richter in Smyrna. Cypriote antiquities which entered the Winkelmann-Institute of Humboldt–Universität in Berlin and the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum in Braunschweig in Germany between 1910 and 1913 were also bought in Smyrna.150

Given the fact that the Evangelical School was a Greek educational establishment, we may speculate that it was a Greek Cypriote visitor from Cyprus who sold or donated it to the Museum and Library, for reasons that are now difficult to determine, but there are other ways the White Slip II crater could have entered the school’s collection, and only further archival discoveries will help unravel the mystery. We cannot know how many Cypriote antiquities ever transited Smyrna, especially on their way to other destinations, but the passage of businessmen, diplomats, academics and explorers between Larnaca, as well as Limassol, Smyrna and Constantinople offered ample scope for the transportation of ancient objects from the island in the 19th and early 20th centuries A.D. For example, Demetrios Pierides (1811-1895), who worked for the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Larnaca and collected and exported antiquities from Cyprus,151 presumably went on occasion to Constantinople. And resident in Smyrna was a branch of the Lusignan family which claimed descent from the Mediaeval Frankish rulers of Cyprus.152 On the other hand the Museum and Library of the Evangelical School was definitely on European scholars’ visiting list, as attested by the articles devoted to its antiquities by archaeologists such as Salomon Reinach.153 It can be no coincidence that the interest shown by French and francophone academics in the collection was in part at least due to Aristote Fontrier (1835-1907), a Levantine merchant of French Huguenot origin, who was one of the founders

147. Buchholz 1989, p. 15-16; Krpata 1992, p. 337-338; Krpata 2003, p. 98.Buchholz 1989, p. 15-16; Krpata 1992, p. 337-338; Krpata 2003, p. 98.

148. Marangou, Malecos 1994, pls. 1a, b, 2a + b; cf. Masson 1995.

149. Romano 2006, p. 58 no. 34.

150. Recke 2012, p. 95-96, 107, 108; Recke 2013, p. 36-37.

Cyprus in Nicosia indicates that Pierides requested and was granted permission to export ancient Cypriote inscriptions, terracotta statuettes and pottery in 1885, 1886 and 1887.

152. Cf. Lusignan 2004; Wikipedia : Livio Missir Mamachi de Lusignan – accessed on 04/12/2017.

153. E.g. Bibliographie de S[alomon] R[einach] 1874-1914, Paris, 1914, p. 131 “Smyrne”.

144 CCEC 47, 2017

of the Archaeological Museum in 1873, ephor of the museum, and an antiquarian in his own right, who published numerous studies on ancient Smyrna and its surrounds154. Between 1881 and 1889 he corresponded with Salomon Reinach, and his letters, together with those from Papadopoulos-Kerameus between 1884 and 1887, are kept in the archives of the Bibliothèque Méjanes in Aix-en-Provence.155 Rather unexpectedly the list of Corresponding Members of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica for 1884 includes under Turkey A. Fontrier and Papadopulos Kerameus (Smirne) and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter (Famagusta [Cipro]).156

The swastika in ancient Cypriote art

Interestingly enough Ohnefalsch-Richter’s paper with the drawing of the White Slip II crater in the Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris of 1888 was read in Paris by the eminent French prehistorian, Adrien de Mortillet (1853-1931),157 to whom Ohnefalsch-Richter had sent a copy.158 It is also the only article Ohnefalsch-Richter ever had published in French,159 and its appearance may well have been due to his acquaintance with Salomon Reinach whom he first met in 1884 in Saint Germain-en-Laye, presumably at the Musée d’archéologie nationale.160 Is it more than a coincidence that Reinach should have drawn particular attention to the decoration of 12 “Svastikas” painted on the neck of a very low, white amphora found by Luigi Palma di Cesnola in Cyprus and then in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople? 161 Ohnefalsch-Richter saw the swastika in early Cyprus as a sign of influence from Hissarlik (ancient Troy), thanks to the discoveries of Heinrich Schliemann,162 but this has no basis in archaeological fact or likelihood. Indeed the White Slip II crater in Smyrna was decorated not with the swastika or for that matter the “cantoned cross” like those on the later Iron Age pots but with a motif resembling the latter with dots in the angles. Later J.L. Myres wrote in 1914 of “the swastika which first appears in Cypriote art in the Early Iron Age and rapidly becomes popular, but disappears again before the fifth century”.163 However Frankel and

154. Radet 1901, p. 268-269; Radet 1907; Duchêne 2002, p. 386 ; Smyrnelis 2005, p. 185-187.

155. Salomon Reinach Correspondance : boîte No. 64 (Fontrier), boîte No. 118 (Papadopoulos-Kerameus).

156. Bullettino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 1884, p. 12.

157. Gran-Aymerich 2001, p. 473-474.Gran-Aymerich 2001, p. 473-474.

158. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1889, p. 7 n. 12; cf. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 4.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1889, p. 7 n. 12; cf. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 4.

159. Krpata 1992.Krpata 1992.

160. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891, p. vi.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1891, p. vi.

161. Reinach 1882, p. 74; cf., for example, the White Painted amphoriskos of Cypro-Geometric date in the Semitic Museum at Harvard University (Inv. No. 1995.10.79) – www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/Cesnola – accessed on 31/01/2017.

162. Schliemann 1885, p. 517-529; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 669-670; Dyck 1990, p. 333 Schliemann 1885, p. 517-529; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 669-670; Dyck 1990, p. 333 n. 54.

163. Myres 1914, p. 73; Stewart 1948, p. 184.Myres 1914, p. 73; Stewart 1948, p. 184.


Webb have recorded what look like reversed swastikas and reversed E’s on Red Polished I vases and terracotta spindle whorls from Bellapais Vounous and Margi Alonia belonging to Early Cypriote I-II, that is, the late third millennium B.C.164 As for the meaning of these designs, Frankel and Webb go no further than to state that “while the significance of these elements is unclear, their complexity and careful incision suggest that they are more than merely decorative”.

At the time Ohenfalsch-Richter’s essay came out, swastikas were all the rage in European academic circles concerned with archaeology and anthropology, as attested by Thomas Wilson’s The Swastika, the Earliest Known Symbol, and its Migrations; with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in Prehistoric Times (Report of the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution), published in Washington in 1896 (p. 757-1011). And it was also in the late 19th century A.D., that the swastika, a symbol of Sanskrit origin for well-being, became associated with the concept of Aryan racialism and led to its subsequent adoption as an emblem by the Nazis in Germany before the Second World War.165 As a result of that conflict the swastika became exclusively and indelibly connected with evil, and no doubt as a result Ohnefalsch-Richter happens to be the last specialist on Cypriote archaeology to have expressed any substantive opinions on this issue, despite the frequent appearance of the swastika on Cypriote Iron Age pottery.166 In her exceptional dictionary on ancient Near Eastern ceramics Yon has nothing more to say about the “svastika” than that it is a “motif décoratif en forme de croix gammée”,167 and Morris, in an otherwise comprehensive and authoritative survey of the designs on Iron Age vases, studiously ignores the significance of the swastika motif.168 Vassos Karageorghis, who has published voluminously on Cypriote Iron Age pottery and iconography, has kindly informed me that he knows nothing about the symbolism of the swastika, but Jacqueline Karageorghis is one of the rare scholars to have published an interpretation, albeit enigmatic and not specifically related to Cyprus, when she writes that “le svastika aurait un sens indéterminé, celui de membre de la gens”.169

This is not to overlook the possibility, first adumbrated by Salomon Reinach, that the swastika was closely associated in antiquity with the depiction of a bird and may even have represented a bird.170 Loulloupis’ interpretation of the scene on a Bichrome III loop-leg jar of the Cypro-Geometric III period (Cyprus Museum 1935/B 1988) as persons engaged in bird catching lends weight to this hypothesis, as the “birds” have a distinctly

164. Frankel and Webb 2006, p. 163-164.Frankel and Webb 2006, p. 163-164.

165. Cf. Prince Loewenstein 1941, p. 54.

166. See below.

167. Yon 1981, p. 225.

168. Morris 1985, p. 249.

169. J. Karageorghis 1977, p. 40 n. 37.

170. Reinach 1906, p. 234-249.

146 CCEC 47, 2017

swastika look.171 One of them has been drawn with a full body and shaped head, giving it an even more bird-like appearance. At the same time it should be noted that whereas the latter have curvilinear strands, there are rectilinear swastikas, as well as “cantoned crosses” with dot filled interstices, in rows on the lower part of the body, which seem purely decorative and have nothing to do with the scenes above. In addition the one surviving loop of the double handle on one side of the shoulder is moulded like a curved snake with shaped head pointing downwards. Its back is decorated with a cross-hatched ladder pattern to resemble scales and on top of the head is painted a rectilinear swastika. Swastikas, both curvilinear and rectilinear, occur independently and together on many Cypriote vases from the first half of the first millennium B.C., in stylistic contexts that mostly look entirely ornamental or at least have no obvious functional associations, and deserve much more detailed study than they have been given to date.In this regard one of the other examples cited by Ohnefalsch-Richter to illustrate the occurrence of swastikas on ancient Cypriote pottery was a Bichrome IV “free field” jug of Cypro-Archaic date showing a male figure sniffing a lotus flower 172 (Fig. 2). It has the same kind of curvilinear swastikas in the field as the ones in the scene on the loop-leg jar described above, and, most significantly, Karageorghis has suggested that the stick with a bird attached to it, which the man holds in his right hand above his head, depicts a birdlime stick on which a bird has already been caught, making it possible that these swastikas were also intended to represent birds.173 Though Karageorghis and des Gagniers originally gave it no provenance, it is said to have come from Athienou,174 obviously a tomb though without context, and was once in the private collection of Evstathios Constantinides in Nicosia, who bought it from its finder,175 before entering Ohnefalsch-Richter’s own possession.176 It was subsequently acquired by the Museum für Völkerkunde in Leipzig 177 and ended up in the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (MVF.XI b 3713 [74/655]).178 It was first published by Salomon Reinach, who stated that it had been discovered in 1885, using for his drawing a photograph of the jug sent him by

171. Loulloupis 1989, p. 171-176; cf. J. Karageorghis 1977, pl. 27a, p. 170-172 with bibliography.

Karageorghis, des Gagniers 1974, p. 59-

174. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1886; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 672.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1886; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 672.

cf. Merrillees 2005, p. 202-207.

176. Marangou, Malecos 1994, pl. 11; Brehme Marangou, Malecos 1994, pl. 11; Brehme et al. 2001, p. 85-86 no. 68.

177. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 58; Karageorghis, des Gagniers 1974, p. 24, 119; Recke 2012, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 58; Karageorghis, des Gagniers 1974, p. 24, 119; Recke 2012, p. 111-112.

178. Brehme Brehme et al. 2001, p. 223 (Golgoi [Athienou]), p. 230 ; Recke 2012, p. 107.


Ohnefalsch-Richter,179 and shortly afterwards by Ohnefalsch-Richter himself. The latter wrote his article in Levkosia in February 1886 and it came out the same year180. This vase is a well documented and graphic illustration of the migration of antiquities and motifs, and a sombre reminder of the power of acquisitiveness and symbols over reason.

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the following for the assistance they have kindly given me with this

Philippe Ferrand, Marie-Henriette and Charles Gates, Bernhard Heeb, Antoine Hermary, Thomas Kiely, Harriet Joly, Ruth Keshishian, Thomas Kiely, Lea Kreuzburg, Margit Krpata, Didier Laroche, James Larsen, Jean-Luc Maeso, Antoinette Merrillees, Guy Meyer, Charles

Laurie Wagner. The research that went into this study has been kindly supported by the Centre d’Études Chypriotes, France.

APPENDIX I. White Slip II Craters

1. Ayios Iakovos Dhima Sanctuary No. 18 (Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm). White Slip II crater (Gjerstad et al. 1934, pls. LXVI, top row, middle, p. 357 No. 18 – not White Slip I; Daniel 1942, p. 287). Late Cypriote IIA (Åström 1972, p. 1)

2. Hala Sultan Tekke = Dhromolaxia Vyzakia Tomb 4 (1898) (British Museum GR 1898, 12-31.27). White Slip II crater (Popham 1972, p. 468 Crater Type 2 No. 4, with bibliography; Bailey 1976, pl. XXVI.c, XXVII.a, b, c, d, p. 23, with bibliography). Late Cypriote II (Bailey 1976, p. 24; cf. Merrillees 2008, p. 113).

3. Kalavasos Mavrovouni Tomb 1 (1950) No. 27. White Slip II crater (Popham 1972, p. 468 Crater Type 2 No. 2; Todd, Pearlman 1986, p. 196-197 Tomb 10). Late Cypriote IIA (Åström 1972, p. 830; Todd, Pearlman 1986, p. 197; Merrillees 2008, p. 111).

4. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 1 (1979) No. K-AD 85. White Slip II crater (South 1980, pl. IX.5, p. 44; Todd 1989, pl. XXI, fig. 43, p. 44, 45, 100; Eriksson 2007, p. 148 fig. 36.d, p. 147). Late Cypriote IIB-IIC (Todd 1989, p. 46-47; South and Steel 2001, p. 71).

5. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 4 (1979) No. K-AD 140. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXIII, fig. 48, p. 48, 50, 104; Eriksson 2007, p. 127 fig. 29.a, p. 128). Late Cypriote IB-IIA (Todd 1989, p. 51; South and Steel 2001, p. 70).

6. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 4 (1979) No. K-AD 377. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXIII, fig. 48, p. 49, 50, 119). Late Cypriote IB-IIA (Todd 1989, p. 51; South and Steel 2001, p. 70).

7. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 4 (1979) No. K-AD 514. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXIII, fig. 48, p. 49, 50, 126; South, Steel 2001, p. 68 fig. 3, back row, third from left). Late Cypriote IB-IIA (Todd 1989, p. 51; South, Steel 2001, p. 70).

179. Reinach 1885, p. 359-360; Reinach 1891, p. 194-195.Reinach 1885, p. 359-360; Reinach 1891, p. 194-195.

180. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1886, p. 82.Ohnefalsch-Richter 1886, p. 82.

148 CCEC 47, 2017

8. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 4 (1979) No. K-AD 515. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXIII, fig. 48, p. 49, 50, 126; Yasur-Landau et al. 2014, p. 4 fig. 4). Late Cypriote IB-IIA (Todd 1989, p. 51; South, Steel 2001, p. 70).

9. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 4 (1979) No. K-AD 516. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXIV, fig. 49, p. 49, 50, 126; South, Steel 2001, p. 68 fig. 3, back row, third from right). Late Cypriote IB-IIA (Todd 1989, p. 51; South and Steel 2001, p. 70).

10. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 5 (1980) No. K-AD 365. White Slip II crater (Todd 1989, fig. 57, p. 52, 53, 118). Late Cypriote IIA, B, C (?) (Todd 1989, p. 53; South, Steel 2001, p. 71).

11. Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios Tomb 5 (1980) No. K-AD 366. White Slip II crater (Todd 1989, pl. XXVIII, fig. 57, p. 52, 53, 118; Eriksson 2007, p. 146 fig. 34.a, b, p. 145). Late Cypriote IIA, B, C (?) (Todd 1989, p. 53; South, Steel 2001, p. 71).

12. No provenance. Cyprus Museum No. A 1371. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Popham 1972, fig. LXXXV.1, p. 451 fig. 55.6, p. 468 Crater Type 2 No. 1; Åström 2008, p. 185, with bibliography).

13. No provenance. Cyprus Museum No. A 1993. White Slip II crater (Buchholz, Karageorghis 1973, p. 433 no. 1614, p. 152 no. 1614).

14. No provenance. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Cesnola Collection. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Myres 1914, p. 33 no. 282, p. 34 no. 282).

15. No provenance. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Cesnola Collection. White Slip II crater (Myres 1914, p. 36 no. 306).


17. No provenance. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, No. 74.51.1057. Cesnola Collection. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Myres 1914, p. 36 no. 308; Karageorghis 2000, p. 38 no. 53).


19. Said to be from Alambra. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, No. 74.51.1055. Cesnola Collection. White Slip II crater (Myres 1914, p. 35 no. 310; Popham 1972, p. 468 Crater Type 2 No. 3 – No. 210 is a misprint; Karageorghis 2000, p. 38 no. 51).

20. No provenance. Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm, No. NM Ant 1598. Early White Slip II crater (Popham 1972, p. 448 fig. 52, top row, middle; Karageorghis 2003, p. 75 ill. right (74), p. 76 no. 74).

21. No provenance. A. P. di Cesnola Collection. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Cesnola 1881, pl. [10], bottom right).

22. No provenance. A. P. di Cesnola Collection. Transitional White Slip I-II crater (Cesnola 1881, pl. [25]. bottom row, third from left; Cesnola 1884, pl. XIX.1).


III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contributions of R.S. MERRILLEES (Cypriote Antiquities in the Ottoman Empire): – supra p. 43-120: “Luigi Palma di Cesnola, Cyprus and the Ottoman Connection”;– supra p. 121-148: “Cypriote Antiquities in the Greek Evangelical School Museum and their

Trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna (Modern Izmir)”.

ABOUT (E.), 1884, De Pontoise à Stamboul, Paris.

AKIMOVA (L.I.), KALINICHEV (D.A.), SAMAR (O.Y.), SMOLENKOVA (V.V.), 2014, The Art of Ancient Cyprus in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Vols. I-II, Moscow.

AKURGAL (E.) ed., 1978, Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical

, Ankara.

AKURGAL (E.), 1983, schichten und Athenatempel, Ankara.

ALLEN (S.H.), 1999, Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik, Berkeley.

ALLEN (S.H.), 2011, “Archaeological Diplomacy and the Archaeological Institute of America’s Acquisition of Symbolic Capital”, in R. Holod, R. Ousterhout, Osman Hamdi Bey &

Archaeology, Diplomacy, Art, Istanbul, p. 37-47.

ANESTIDES (S. Th.), 2004, “Education and Culture”, in Minor Greeks, Alimos, p. 137-160.

Annuaire 1934: “Collection Chypriote”, in Annuaire des Musées d’antiquités d’Istanbul No. 1, p. 53.

Antiquités chypriotes 1873: Antiquités chypriotes. Collection importante de verres antiques, bijoux, terres cuites Provenant des

aura lieu à l’Hôtel des Commissaires-

…, Paris.ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1965, “Collections of Cypriote

Glass”, Opuscula Atheniensia V, p. 123-158.ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1972a, The Swedish Cyprus

Expedition, Vol. IV. Part 1B. The Middle Lund.

ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1972b, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV. Parts 1C, 1D

, Lund.ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1980, “Cyprus and Troy”,

Opuscula Atheniensia XIII, p. 23-28.ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1995, “An unpublished manuscript

by Oscar Montelius on Cyprus”, in P. Åström (ed.), of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy

, Stockholm, p. 77-99.ÅSTRÖM (P.), 2008, “List of Sources of Vases

Illustrated in Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus (Gjerstad 1926 )”, in Åström, Nys 2008, p. 161-203.

ÅSTRÖM (P.), HÄGG (R.), WALBERG (G.) eds., 1992, Mycenaean Pottery III Plates by Arne Furumark, Stockholm.

ÅSTRÖM (P.), NYS (K.) eds., 2008, The Swedish

the Symposium in Honour of the Memory of Einar Gjerstad Held in the Royal Academy of

, Sävedalen.ATAKAN (N.), 2001, “The Bronze Age Human

Cypriot Statuettes in the Collections of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 17, p. 168-183.

AUPERT (P.), 1990, “Progrès de l’archéologie et de l’histoire de l’étéochypriote à Amathonte depuis Ohnefalsch-Richter”, Folia Orientalia XXVII, p. 81-92.

AUPERT (P.), 2000, Guide to Amathus, Nicosia.AUPERT (P.), HELLMANN (M.-C.), 1984,

Amathonte I. Auteurs anciens – Monnayage – Voyageurs – Fouilles – Origines – Géographie, Paris.

150 CCEC 47, 2017

AYBEK (S.), TUNA (M.), ATICI (M.), 2009,

kabartmalar, Ankara.AYMES (M.), 2005,

histoire des réformes ottomanes à Chypre au XIX

e siècle, unpublished doctoral dissertation.AYMES (M.), 2009, “The port-city in the fields:

investigating an improper urbanity in mid-nineteenth-century Cyprus”, Mediterranean Historical Review 24, p. 133-149.

AYMES (M.), 2010,

ottomanes à Chypre au XIXe siècle, Paris,

Louvain, Walpole (MA).AYMES (M.), 2013, A Provincial History of the

Ottoman Empire: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean in the Nineteenth Century, London.

AZIZ BEY (A.), 1927, Guide du Musée de Smyrne, Smyrna.

BABELON (E.), 1901, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines, Vol. I, Paris.

BAEDEKER (K.), 1905, Konstantinopel und

Reisende, Leipzig.BAEDEKER (K.), 1934,

, Leipzig.

BAHRANI (Z.), ÇELIK (Z.), ELDEM (E.) eds., 2011, A Story of Archaeology

, Istanbul.BAILEY (D.M.), 1976, “The British Museum

Excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke in 1897 and 1898. The Material in the British Museum”, in P. Åström, D.M. Bailey, V. Karageorghis,

, Göteborg, p. 1-32.

BARRINGTON (Mrs Russell), 1906, ,

Vol. II, New York.BARTH (H.), 1906, Constantinople, ParisBARTOLOTTI (F.), 2012-2013, De Marseille au

de travaux publics maritimes, Dussaud , Mémoire de Master II,

Université d’Aix-Marseille.

(N.), 2010, Istanbul Archaeology Museum from Imperial Times to the Present, Istanbul.

BEER (C.), 1994, ,

Jonsered.BENT (J.T.), 1888, “Hamdi”, The Contemporary

Review LIV, p. 724-733.BÉRAUD (S.), 1973, “Données historiques sur

la colonie européenne de Larnaca au XIXe siècle”, in Acts of the First International Cypriological Congress, Vol. 2, Nicosia, p. 37-43.

BÉRAUD (S.), 1990,

, Nicosia.BERGIA (M.), 1997, Chypre, la mandragore

britanniques à la fin de la période ottomane , École nationale des chartes,

Paris, unpublished doctoral dissertation.BERGOFFEN (C.J.), 2005,

, Vienna.

BLEGEN (C.W.), 1934, “Excavations at Troy 1933”, , cols. 61-69.

BOL (R.), 2008, “Apollon, ‘der griechischste der Götter’ auf Zypern: Zur Bronzestatue aus Tamassos”, in R. Bol, U. Höckmann, P. Schollmeyer (eds.), Apollon in Milet/Didyma, Histria, Myus,

, Rahden/Wesf., p. 219-229.

BOMBARDIERI (L.), 2015,

Cesnola alle luce dei documenti e delle , Rome.

BOMBARDIERI (L.), 2017, “Vanity affairs. Two collectors of Cypriot and Aegean antiquities examined”, Journal of the History of Collections DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhx007. Published: 11 April 2017.

BONATO (L.), 2000, “Chypre dans les archives de Melchior de Vogüé, IV. La correspondance de Dimitri Piérides”, CCEC 30, p. 99-118.

R.S. MERRILLEES, III. BIBLIOGRAPHY 151

BONATO (L.), 2006, “Le consulat de France à Larnaca à la fin de la Monarchie de Juillet. Correspondance de Dagobert Fourcade et Théodore Goepp (1840-1849), CCEC 36, p. 143-194.

BONATO (L.), 2012, “Chypre, Cyprus, Zypern, Cipro, Cypern, ..., Voyageurs euro-péens du XIXe siècle”, CCEC 42, p. 25-86.

BONATO (L.), DONDIN-PAYRE (M.), 2017, Méditerranée d’Edmond Duthoit archéo-logue et architecte, XIX

e

magnifique café du monde que t’écris, Paris.BONATO (L.), EMERY (M.), 2010,

, Mainz and Ruhpolding.BOSCHUNG (D.), VON HESBERG (H.), LINFERT (A.),

1997, Die antiken Skulpturen in Chatsworth,

Hall, Mainz am Rhein.BOSSERT (H. Th.), 1951,

Handwerk in Cypern, Syrien, Palästina, Transjordanien und Arabien von den

, Tübingen.BOUQUILLON (A.), DESCAMPS (S.), HERMARY (A.),

MILLE (B.), 2006, “Une nouvelle étude de l’Apollon Chatsworth”, RA, p. 227-261.

BRASSEY (A.), 1880, Sunshine and Storm in the East, or Cruises to Cyprus and Constantinople, London.

BREHME (S.), BRÖNNER (M.), KARAGEORGHIS (V.), PLATZ-HORSTER (G.), WEISSER (B.), 2001,

, Nicosia.BRIQUEL CHATONNET (F.), FAUVEAUD-BRASSAUD

(C.), 2008, “Le Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum dans les correspondances conservées à l’Institut de France”, in C. Bonnet, V. Krings (eds.),

des correspondances à l’histoire des travaux scientifiques, Paris, p. 215-228 (<hal-00334567>).

BRISCH (G.) ed., 2006,

Vol. I :

London.

BRÖNNER (M.), 2001, “The Ancient Cypriote Material in the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte”, in Brehme et al. 2001, p. 15-22.

BRÖNNER (M.), 2002, “Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, 1850-1917. Ein Rückblick im 85. Todesjahr”,

33, p. 469-474.BRUNNER (G.J.), 1978, Sasanian Stamp Seals in

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.BUCHHOLZ (H.G.), 1989, “Max Ohnefalsch-

Richter als Archäologe auf Zypern”, CCEC 11-12, p. 3-28.

BUCHHOLZ (H.-G.), KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1973, Archaeological Handbook, London.

BUCHHOLZ (H.-G.), UNTIEDT (K.), 1996, ,

Jonsered.BUDGE (E.A. Wallis), 1920, By Nile and

and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British ,

Vol. I, London.BURSA (P.), PITARAKIS (B.), 2005, “A Group of

Bronze Jugs in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums and the Issue of their Cypriot Origin”, Antiquité Tardive 13, p. 29-36.

CADOUX (C.J.), 1938, A History of the City from the Earliest Times to

., Oxford.CAILLARD (V.), 1900, “The Imperial Ottoman

Museum”, A Quarterly Miscellany VII, December, p. 132-150.

CANNAVÒ (A.), 2012, “Chypre dans les études historiques des XIXe et XXe siècles. Découverte de l’antique, construction du passé”, CCEC 42, p. 423-457.

CANPOLAT (F.) ed., 2001, Hittitology and the Discovery of

, Istanbul.CASSON (S.), 1937,

Archaeology, London.CAUBET (A.), 1973, Review of Ergüleç 1972 in

Syria 50, p. 464-465.CAUBET (A.), 1993, “Les antiquités chypriotes

au musée du Louvre”, in Yon 1993, p. 23-37.CAVENDISH (A.) ed., 1992,

, 2nd ed, Nicosia.

152 CCEC 47, 2017

ÇELIK (Z.), 2016, Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, Austin, Texas.

CESNOLA (A.P. di), 1881, Cyprus Antiquities Excavated by

, London.CESNOLA (A. P. di), 1884,

The History, Treasures, & Antiquities of Salamis in the Island of Cyprus, 2nd ed, London.

CESNOLA (L. P. di), 1878, Cyprus: Its Ancient

of Researches and Excavations during Ten , 2nd ed, New

York.CHANTRE (E.), 1898, Mission en Cappadoce,

, Paris.CHEVALIER (N.), 2002,

, , Paris.

CHRISTIAN (P.) ed., 2000, Records of the Ottoman Conquest of Cyprus and Cyprus Guide and Directory Being the First Book Printed and

Donne, Royal Sussex Regiment 2nd ed, Nicosia.

CHURCH (A.H.), 1903, “Notes on the material of certain Cypriote cylinder-seals”, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries

th th June , p. 131-133.

CHUVIN (P.), 2007, “Les Reinach et l’Empire ottoman”, CRAI, p. 1091-1103.

COBHAM (C.D.), 1908, Materials for a History of Cyprus, Cambridge.

COBHAM (C.D.), 1910, A Journey to Cyprus

, Nicosia.COLLON (D.), 1986,

Periods, London.COLONNA-CECCALDI (G.), 1882, Monuments

antiques de Chypre, de Syrie et d’Égypte, Paris.

CONDER (C.R.), 1882, “Notes from Constan-tinople”, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 14.3, p. 147-149.

COUDOUNARIS (A.L.), 1972, , Nicosia.

COUDOUNARIS (A. L.), 2010a, !"#$%"&'!"()*+,)-.

(Caridi)”, Epeterida tis Kypriakis Etaireias Istorikon Spoudon 9, p. 293-302.

COUNTS (D.B.), 2012, “Local Styles and Regional Trends in Cypriot Limestone Sculpture. The Athienou School”, in M.K. Toumazou, P.N. Kardulias, D.B. Counts (eds.), Crossroads and Boundaries: The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, Boston, p. 149-162.

COUNTS (D.B.), TOUMAZOU (M.K.), 2006, “New Light on the Iconography of Bes in Archaic Cyprus”, in C.C. Mattusch, A.A.Donohue, A. Brauer (eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical

Common Ground: Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities, Oxford, p. 598-602.

CURTIUS (E.), 1872, “Ein Ausflug nach Kleinasien und Griechenland”, Preussische Jahrbücher 29, p. 52-71.

Cyprus State Archives 2012: ,

Nicosia.DANIEL (J.F.), 1942, Review of E. Sjöqvist,

, AJA 46, p. 286-293.

DAVARAS (C.), SOLES (J.), 1995, “A New Oriental Cylinder Seal from Mochlos”, Archaiologike Ephemeris 134, p. 29-66.

DECAUDIN (A. J.), 1987, chypriotes dans les collections publiques

, Nicosia. (J.), 1993,

Museum, Istanbul.DEMIRYÜREK (M.), YAZAR

Belleten LXXXI, p. 89-135.

DESCHAMPS (G.), 1893, “En Turquie. Smyrne”, Revue des deux mondes 117, p. 281-320.

DETHIER (P. A.), 1874, “Statue chyprienne colossale, Hercule ou Silène-Kéraste”, in Turquie, Constantinople, p. 1-44.

DETHIER (P. A.), 1881a, Études archéologiques [Œuvre posthume], Constantinople.

DETHIER (P.A.), 1881b, “Annexe du Bulletin scientifique. Histoire du Musée central


ottoman de Stamboul et son programme”, in Dethier 1881a, p. 1-3 (after p. 164).

DEVAMBEZ (P.), 1937a, Musée de Stamboul, Paris.

DEVAMBEZ (P.), 1937b, , Istanbul.

DIAVAST (A.), 1899, “L’École Évangélique de Smyrne” Échos d’Orient 2/6, p. 297-301.

DIEHL (C.), 1901, d’histoire et d’art, Paris.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1957, “Early Connections of Cyprus with Anatolia”, in Z.V. Togan (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Congress of Orientalists Held in Istanbul, September

th nd Vol. II, Communications, Leiden, p. 9-13.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1961, A Guide to the Cyprus Museum, 3rd rev. ed, Nicosia.

DI PAOLO (S.), 2012, “From Italy to Cyprus and Back Again. Completed Research and Ongoing Projects”, CCEC 42, p. 377-398.

DJEMAL BEY (M.), 1928, Guide to The Museum of Antiquities Stamboul, Constantinople.

DOLUNAY (N.), 1973, , Istanbul.

DOWLER (A.), 2017, “Money from the Bank”, 88, p. 52-53.

DUCHÊNE (H.), 2002, “Aventure archéologique et amitié épistolaire : Edmond Pottier, Salomon Reinach et les fouilles de Myrina”, Journal des Savants, p. 379-440.

DU CREST (X.), 2002, “André Joubin à Constantinople : un chargé de mission au Musée Impérial Ottoman (1893-1894), Histoire de l’art 51, p. 127-134.

DÜMMLER (F.), 1886, “Mittheilungen von den griechischen Inseln IV. Aelteste Nekropolen auf Cypern”, Athenische Mitteilungen XI, p. 209-262.

DUMONT (A.), 1868, “Le musée Sainte-Irène à Constantinople. Antiquités grecques, gréco-romaines et byzantines”, RA XVIII, p. 237-263.

DUMONT (A.), 1884, Terres cuites orientales et

Chypre et Rhodes, Paris.DURAND (J.), GIOVANNONI (D.), 2012, Chypre

IVe-XVI

e siècle, Paris.

DUYURAN (R.), 1956, An Illustrated Guide

Architectural and Sculptural Collections in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, Istanbul.

DYCK (A.R.), 1990, “Schliemann on the Excavation of Troy. Three Unpublished Letters”, Studies 31, p. 323-337.

EBERSOLT (J.), 1911, “Rapport sommaire sur une mission à Constantinople (1910)”, in Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques

publié sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique et des beaux-arts Fasc. 3, p. 1-17.

EBERSOLT (J.), 1921, Mission archéologique de Constantinople, Paris.

EDHEM (H.), 2009, “Das osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel”, in

Studies in Assyriology and Archaeology Dedicated to

Anniversary of his Doctorate and his Fiftieth

and Admirers, Leipzig, p. 370-373.ELDEM (E.), 1994,

Inventaire commenté des archives, Istanbul.ELDEM (E.), 2004, “An Ottoman Archaeologist

Caught Between Two Worlds: Osman Hamdi Bey (1842-1910)”, in D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage in

, Vol. 1, Istanbul, p. 121-149.

ELDEM (E.), 2009, “Greece and the Greeks in Ottoman History and Turkish Historiography”, Revue Historique VI, p. 27-40.

ELDEM (E.), 2010a,

Arles.ELDEM (E.), 2010b,

, Istanbul.

ELDEM (E.), 2011, “From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities, 1799-1869”, in Bahrani et al. 2011, p. 281-329.

ELDEM (E.), 2012/2013, “The Archaeology of a Photograph. Philipp Anton Dethier and his ‘Group for the History of Greek Art’”, JdI 127/128, p. 499-530.

154 CCEC 47, 2017

ELDEM (E.), 2013, “Orientalism and Archaeology: The Orient Where Time Stands

Museum 2013, p. 32-43.ELDEM (E.), 2014,

the Imperial Museum, Istanbul.ELDEM (E.), forthcoming, “Philipp Anton

Dethier: The Antihero of Ottoman Archaeology”.

ENGEL (A.), 1884, “Monnaies grecques rares ou inédites du Musée de l’École Évangélique et de la collection de M. Lawson à Smyrne”, Revue numismatique, p. 13-35.

ERGIL (T.), 1983, Catalogue of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul.

ERGÜLEÇ (H.), 1972, Corpus of Cypriote

in the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul, Göteborg.

ERIKSSON (K.O.), 2007, The Creative

Account of the Archaeological Importance of , Vienna.

ERSOY

11-19.EYICE (S.), 1960, “Notes on Dr. Dethier One of

the Earlier Directors of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 9, p. 95-103.

FIVEL (L.) [= O. MASSON], 1994, “Lettre de Max Ohnefalsch-Richter à A.H. Smith, 1912”, CCEC 21, p. 23-28.

FOURRIER (S.), QUEYREL (A.), 1998, Musée

orientales. , Vols.

1-2, Paris.FRANKEL (D.), WEBB (J.M.), 2006, Marki

, Sävedalen.FREELY (J.), 1986, The Companion Guide to

Turkey, London.GATES (C.), 2014, Review of Bahrani et al. 2011

in Journal of American Studies of Turkey 39, p. 163-169.

(A.C.), 1990,

, London.

GEORGHALLIDES (G.S.), 1979, A Political and

British Rule, Nicosia.GIVEN (M.), 2001, “The fight for the past:

Watkins vs. Warren (1885–6) and the control of excavation”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 255-260.

GJERSTAD (E.), 1945, “The Story of the Chatsworth Head”, Suecana XLIII, p. 236-242.

GJERSTAD (E.), 1948, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV. Part 2. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods, Stockholm.

GJERSTAD (E.), 1980, Ages and Days in Cyprus, Göteborg.

GJERSTAD (E.), LINDROS (J.), SJÖQVIST (E.), WESTHOLM (A.), 1934, The Swedish Cyprus

, Vol. I, Stockholm.

GOETHERT (F.W.), 1934, “Archäologische Funde auf Cypern”, , cols. 70-123.

GOLE (S.), 1996,

, Nicosia.GOODWIN (J.C.), 1978, An Historical Toponymy

of Cyprus, 3rd ed, Nicosia.GOOLD (E.), 1871, Catalogue Explicatif,

Historique et Scientifique d’un certain nombre d’objets contenus dans le Musée

Pacha, Constantinople. GRAN-AYMERICH (È.), 2001, Dictionnaire

, Paris.

GREENE (E.S.), LEIDWANGER (J.), 2012, “Law, Ethics, and Deep-Water Archaeology: the wreck of Cesnola’s Napried”, in J. Henderson (ed.),

rd International th to

th , Bonn, p. 83-88.GROSS (M.), 2009,

History of the Moguls and the Money That Made the Metropolitan Museum, New York.

GROSVENOR (E.A.), 1895, Constantinople Vol. II, Boston.


GÜLTEKIN (H.), 1965, A Guide to the Museum in , Izmir.

HELLMANN (M.-C.), MASSON (O.), 1994, “Wilhelm Froehner numismate”, Revue numismatique 36, p. 308-329.

HELLMANN (M.-C.), TYTGAT (C.), 1984, “Historique des fouilles”, in Aupert, Hellmann 1984, p. 101-107.

HERMARY (A.), 1989,

Sculptures, Paris.HERMARY (A.), 2001, “Sculptures de la

collection Cesnola : le cas du ‘prêtre’ à la tête de taureau”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 153-159.

HERMARY (A.), 2007, “Amathonte classique et hellénistique : la question du Bès colossal de l’agora”, in P. Flourentzos (ed.), From Evagoras to the Ptolemies: The Transition from the Classical to the Hellenistic Period

Nicosia, p. 81-92.HERMARY (A.), 2010, “Musée de Laon VI. Les

sculptures en calcaire”, CCEC 40, p. 87-98.HERMARY (A.), MERTENS (J.R.), 2014, The

Sculpture, New York.HILL (G.), 1948, Vol. III.

, Cambridge.HILL (G.), 1949, Vol. I.

Cambridge.HILL (G.), 1952, Vol. IV.

, Cambridge.

HODDER (E.), 1882, Origin, Progress, and Present Aspect, Vol. I, London, Paris & New York.

HOGARTH (D.G.), 1889, of an Archaeological Journey in Cyprus in

, London.HOUSEPIAN (M.), 1972,

Destruction of a City, London.HOVING (T.), 1993, Inside the Metropolitan

, New York.

HUTCHINSON (J.T.), COBHAM (C.D.), 1907, A Handbook of Cyprus, 5th ed, London.

Institut de France 1924:

et Fondations – Publications, Paris. JEFFERY (G.) ed., 1929, [Claude Delaval

Bibliography of Cyprus…, new ed, Nicosia.JESTIN (M.), 2013, “Les identités consulaires

dans la Salonique ottomane, 1781-1912”, 2013/2 (N° 4), p. 189-209.

JOHNSTON (J.T.), 1878, “The Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York”, in Cesnola 1878, p. 451-456.

JOUBIN (A.), 1893, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines,

, Constantinople.JOUBIN (A.), 1898a,

, Constantinople.

JOUBIN (A.), 1898b, “Note sur le Musée Impérial de Constantinople”, CRAI, p. 466-469

JOUBIN (A.), 1899, “Quelques bronzes inédits du Musée de Constantinople”, RA XXXV, p. 203-209.

JOYNER (L.), MERRILLEES (R.S.), XENOPHONTOS (C.), 2006, “The Materials of the Cypriote Bronze Age Cylinder and Stamp Seals in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, the British Museum, London”, RDAC, p. 127-154.

JUNG (P.), 1997, “Die Fahrten der K.(u.)k. Kriegsmarine und der k.k. Handelsmarine zur Insel Zypern zwischen 1814 und 1918”, in Das Blatt im Meer – Zypern in

, Kitsee, p. 63-84.

KARAGEORGHIS (J.), 1977, Chypre et son culte à travers l’iconographie,

, Lyon.

KARAGEORGHIS (J.), 2005,

archaeological evidence, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1973, Cypriote Antiquities

, Athens.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1978, “The Relations between the Tomb Architecture of Anatolia

156 CCEC 47, 2017

and Cyprus in the Archaic Period”, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth Inter-national Congress of Classical Archaeo-

, Ankara, p. 361-368.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1991, The Coroplastic

Cypriote I, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1993, The Coroplastic Art

Geometric III, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1995, The Coroplastic Art

, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1998a, “Cypriote

Antiquities in Foreign Museums”, CCEC 28, p. 117-120.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1998b, Documenti inediti di Cipro antica, Canova.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2000, Ancient Art from

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2003, The Cyprus

Collections in the Medelhavsmuseet, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2004,

Foundation and the Collections of Cypriote Antiquities in Foreign Museums, Athens.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2007, The Memoirs of

Vassos Karageorghis, Stockholm.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2014a, “Jean Pouilloux à

Salamine de Chypre”, CCEC 44, p. 19-24.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2014b, “Cypriote Iron Age

Vases of the Pictorial Style in Berlin”, in Karageorghis, Poyiadji-Richter, Rogge 2014, p. 87-102.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 2015, “Aspects peu connus de la contribution de Jacqueline Karageorghis à l’archéologie chypriote”, CCEC 45, p. 25-28.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), BADRE (L.), 2009, Cypriote Antiquities in the Archaeological Museum of

, Nicosia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), BRENNAN (T.P.), 1999, Ayia

Pennsylvania Museum. Philadelphia.KARAGEORGHIS (V.), DES GAGNIERS (J.), 1974,

Texte, Rome.1974a

Illustrations et descriptions des vases. Rome.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), MERKER (G.S.), MERTENS (J.R.), 2016, The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Terracottas, New York.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), POYIADJI-RICHTER (E.), ROGGE (S.) eds., 2014, Cypriote Antiquities

Münster.KASSAB TEZGÖR (D.), SEZER (T.), 1995,

Catalogue des lampes en terre cuite du Musée archéologique d’Istanbul, Tome 1 Époques protohistorique, archaïque, classique et hellénistique, Paris.

KASSIANIDOU (V.), 2009, “Oxhide Ingots in Cyprus”, in F. Lo Schiavo, J.D. Muhly, R. Madden, A. Giumlia-Mair (eds.), Oxhide Ingots in the Central Mediterranean, Rome, p. 41-81.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1968, “Ancient Crete and the Use of the Cylinder Seal”, AJA 72, p. 321-336.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1969a, “A Cretan Cylinder Seal in the Istanbul Museum”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 15-16, p. 249-252.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1969b, “An Engraver’s Trial Piece from Samsun”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 15-16, p. 239-248.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1972, “Glyptic”, in Åström 1972b, p. 623-674.

KIELY (T.), 2010, “Charles Newton and the archaeology of Cyprus”, CCEC 40, p. 231-251.

KIELY (T.), 2017, “At the threshold of modern practice”, 88, p. 54-57.

KIELY (T.), MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2012, “The Archaeological Interests of Samuel Brown, Government Engineer, and his Circle of Acquaintances in Late 19th Century Cyprus”, CCEC 42, p. 245-272.

KIELY (T.), ULBRICH (A.), 2012, “Britain and the Archaeology of Cyprus. I. The Long 19th Century”, CCEC 42, p. 305-356.

KIZILTAN (Z.), 2013, “Les musées archéologiques d’Istanbul, d’hier à aujourd’hui”, in Poulain et al. 2013, p. 33-43.

KOÇAK (A.), 2011, The Ottoman Empire and

and the Formation of the Ottoman Museum, Istanbul.


KONTENTE (L.), 2012, Smyrne du XVII

e au XIXe siècle, Montigny-le-

Bretonneux.KOUDOUNARIS (A.), 1985 , “A Historical Outline

of the Pierides Family”, in V. Karageorghis, Ancient Cypriote Art in the Pierides

, Larnaca, p. 19-21.

KOUROU (N.), KARAGEORGHIS (V.), MANIATIS (Y.), POLIKRETI (K.), BASSIAKOS (Y.), XENOPHONTOS (C.), 2002, Type Found in the Aegean. Provenance Studies, Nicosia.

KOUROUPOU (M.), 1982, “ "" " " "

" " /01#2/3445!" 3, p. 149-183.

KOZAL (E.), 2003, “Analysis of the Distribution Patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, Mycenaean and Cypriot Pottery in Anatolia in the 15th-13th centuries B.C.”, in B. Fischer et al. (eds.), Identifying Changes:

, Istanbul), p. 65-77.

KOZAL (E.), 2015, “A Discussion of the Origin and the Distribution Patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware in Anatolia: Cultural Connections Across the Taurus and Amanus Mountains”, in D. Beyer, O. Henry, A. Tibet (eds.),

2012, Istanbul, p. 53-64.KOZAL (E.), 2016, “Cypro-Anatolian Connec-

tions in the 2nd Millennium BC, in L. Summerer, H. Kaba (eds.), The Northern

Archaeology and Art History, Istanbul, p. 51-63.

KRPATA (M.), 1992, “Max Hermann Ohenfalsch-Richter. Bibliography and Biographical Remarks”, RDAC, p. 337-341.

KRPATA (M.), 2003, “Die Spuren des Altertumsforschers Max Ohnefalsch-Richter in Wien. Ein Beiträg zu seiner Biographie”,

53, p. 95-116.KURT (S.), 2016, “Building Izmir’s Cultural

Memory: The Nationalization of the Cultural Properties in the Izmir Museum”, www.academia.edu - accessed on 10/02/2017.

LAGARCE (J.), 1993, “Enkomi. Fouilles françaises”, in Yon 1993, p. 91-106.

LAMARTINE (A. de), 1836a, Souvenirs, impressions, pensées et paysages, pendant un

voyageur, Vols. 1-2, Brussels.LAMARTINE (A. de), 1836b, Souvenirs,

impressions, pensées et paysages, pendant un

voyageur, Vols. 3-4, Brussels.LANG (R.H.), 1878, Cyprus: Its History, Its

Present Resources, and Future Prospects, London.

LANG (R.H.), 1905, “Reminiscences – Archaeo-logical Researches in Cyprus”, Blackwood’s

CLXXVII, p. 622-639.LAPIERRE (L.), 2008, “Georges Lapierre (1789-

1846). Seigneur de Chypre et proscrit, CCEC 38, p. 195-225.

LAZARIDES (S.G.) ed., 2006, Greek Customs and Mores in Cyprus with Comments on the Natural History and the Economy and Progress under British Rule by Magda

, Nicosia.LEES-MILNE (J.), 1991,

th Duke London.

LLEWELLYN SMITH (M.), 1998, , London.

LORRE (C.), 1998, “Henri de Morgan : l’inventeur d’El Adaïma (1854-1909)”, Archéo-Nil 8, p. 11-30.

LOULLOUPIS (M.C.), 1989, “Hunting scenes on Cypriot vases of the Geometric Period”, in E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus, Edinburgh, p. 171-179.

LUKE (H.), 1969,

of the English Consulate in Cyprus under the , London.

LUSIGNAN (G. de), 2004, Mes familles - nos

jours (Les Éditions Universelles. Levantine Heritage Foundation : leavantineheritage.com - accessed on 04/12/2107).

MCFADDEN (E.), 1971, spirited account of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s first Director, the audacious and high-

, New York.MARANGOU (A.G.), 2000,

, Nicosia.

158 CCEC 47, 2017

MARANGOU (A.G.), MALECOS (A.), 1994, Studies in Cyprus, Nicosia.

MARKIDES (D.), 2014, , Nicosia.

MASSON (E.), 2001, “Olivier Masson : ‘Luigi Palma di Cesnola. Ultimes considérations’ ”, in Tatton-Brown 2001, p. x-xiv.

MASSON (O.), 1957, “Cylindres et cachets chypriotes portant des caractères chypro-minoens”, BCH 81, p. 6-37.

MASSON (O.), 1971, “Inscriptions chypriotes retrouvées ou disparues”, Syria 48, p. 427-452.

MASSON (O.), 1983, , 2nd

ed, Paris.MASSON (O.), 1987a, “Sur le site d’Amathonte

en 1876 : J. Siegismund et J.P. Vondiziano”, CCEC 7, p. 11-15.

MASSON (O.), 1987b, “Les premiers ‘catalogues’ de Cousinéry, Revue numismatique 29, p. 216-219.

MASSON (O.), 1989, “Les Frères Palma di Cesnola et leur correspondance”, in V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus and the East

of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, April

, London, p. 84-89.MASSON (O.), 1991, “Notes de numismatique

chypriote, IX-X”, Revue numismatique 33, p. 60-70.

MASSON (O.), 1992, “Diplomates et amateurs d’antiquités à Chypre vers 1866-1878”, Journal des Savants, p. 123-154.

MASSON (O.), 1995, Review of photographies chypriotes de Max et Magda

, CCEC 23, p. 37-39.

MASSON (O.), 1996a, “La dispersion des antiquités chypriotes : les deux collections Cesnola”, CCEC 25, p. 3-27.

MASSON (O.), 1996b, “Les deux collections Cesnola : quelques compléments”, CCEC 26, p. 25-28.

MASSON (O.), 1997, “À propos des inscriptions syllabiques de Dhrymou (Paphos) et du site antique correspondant”, CCEC 27, p. 15-19.

MATTHÄUS (H.), 1985, Metallgefässe und

geometrischen und archaischen Periode

auf Cypern mit einem Anhang der ,

Munich.MATTHÄUS (H.), 2009, “Max Ohnefalsch-

Richter und die Anfänge wissenschaftlicher Archäologie auf der Insel Zypern“, in Rogge 2009, p. 115-151.

MATTHÄUS (H.), 2014, “Metal Finds from the ‘Royal Cemetery’ of Tamassos – Local Traditions, Phoenician and Greek Cultural Influences in Archaic Cyprus”, in Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 103-135.

MEGAW (A.H.S.), 1950, Annual Report

, Nicosia.MEHL (A.), 2009, “Der Archäologe Ludwig

Ross 1845 in Zypern auf den Spuren der Antike”, in Rogge 2009, p. 153-187.

MENDEL (G.), 1908, Musées impériaux

de terre cuite, Constantinople.MENDEL (G.), 1912,

Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines , Vol. 1, Constantinople.

MENDEL (G.), 1914, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines

, Vols. 2-3, Constantinople.MERRILLEES (R.S.), 1984, “Professor James

R. Stewart, Near Eastern Archaeologist”, in Resources for Teachers XIV, no. 1, p. 17-37.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 1987, Alashiya Revisited, Paris.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 1998, “The Levantine Branch of the von Heidenstam Family in the 19th Century A.D.”, in L.H. Lesko (ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies

, Providence, p. 189-201.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2000, “Max Ohnefalsch-Richter and the British”, in P. Åström, D. Sürenhagen (eds.),

, Jonsered, p. 107-117.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2001, “T.B. Sandwith and the beginnings of Cypriote archaeology”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 222-235.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2005, “Towards a Fuller History of the Cyprus Museum”, CCEC 35, p. 191-214.


MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2008, “The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: A Bibliographic Quarry, in Åström, Nys 2008, p. 106-118.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2009, “The Implications of Materials Analysis for the Levantine Origin of Cylinder Seals from Late Bronze Age Cyprus”, 29, p. 123*-135*.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2010, “Another Cesnola Puzzle: A Pair of Reproduction Bracelets from Kourion in the Musée-château d’Annecy, France”, CCEC 40, p. 101-123.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2012, The ‘Ochsenkrater-Grab’ from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi, Uppsala.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2013, “Veronica Seton-Williams: A proud Australian Archaeologist”,

Institute of Archaeology 49, p. 17-22.MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2013-2014, “John Basil

Hennessy AO 1925-2013”, in Australian Academy of the Humanities Annual Report

, Canberra, p. 31-34. MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2014, “An Exceptional Late

Cypriote Bronze Age Askos with Animal Protome in the Antikensammlung, Berlin”, in Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 29-51.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2016, “Studies on the Provenances of the Stele of Sargon II from Larnaca (Kition) and the Two So-called Dhali (Idalion) Silver Bowls in the Louvre” CCEC 46, p. 349-386.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), forthcoming, “An Unwonted Exchange: Egyptian Antiquities from Beni Hasan and Esna (?) in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia”.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), KRPATA (M.), 1997, “Schliemann and Ohnefalsch-Richter : The Cyprus Connection”, CCEC 27, p. 137-143.

MERTENS (J.R.), 2015, “Luigi Palma di Cesnola in Libby Prison (1863-1864)”, CCEC 45, p. 399-408.

METZGER (H.), 1988, “La correspondance passive d’Osman Hamdi Bey”, CRAI, p. 672-684.

METZGER (H.), 1990, d’Osman Hamdi Bey, Paris.

MICHEL (P.M.), 2014, Fragments du Proche-

Dussaud, Lausanne.MILTON (G.), 2009,

Tolerance, London.

MITFORD (T.B.), 1971, The Inscriptions of Kourion, Philadelphia.

MORGAN (T.), 2010, History of the British in Cyprus, London.

MORRIS (D.), 1985, The Art of Ancient Cyprus with a check-list of the author’s collection, Oxford.

MOULTON (W.J.), 1926-1927, “The American Palestine Exploration Society”, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 8, p. 55-78.

MURRAY (..), 1878 Handbook for Travellers in Turkey in Asia including Constantinople, the Bosphorus, Plain of Troy, Isles of Cyprus,

4th rev. ed., London.

Musées d’Istanbul 1935: Guide illustré des ,

Istanbul.MYRES (J.L.), 1914, The Metropolitan Museum

of Art. Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus, New York.

MYRES (J.L.), OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1899, A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum with a

the British Occupation and Introductory Notes on Cypriote Archaeology, Oxford.

NASHEF (K.), 1991, Répertoire géographique Vol. 4

Gewässernamen der altassyrischen Zeit, Wiesbaden.

NICOLE (G.), 1906, Catalogue des vases cypriotes du musée de Constantinople, Geneva.

NICOLET-PIERRE (H.), 1987, “Eckhel, Cousinéry et quelques autres”, Revue numismatique 29, p. 198-215.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1886, “Kyprische Vase aus Athienu” , JdI 1, p. 79-82.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1888, “La croix gammée et la croix cantonnée à Chypre”, Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 11, p. 669-681.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1889, “Ledrai-Lidir and the Copper-Bronze Age”, The Journal of Cyprian Studies I/1, April, p. 1-9.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1891, Ancient , Berlin.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1893, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, Berlin.

160 CCEC 47, 2017

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1899, “Neues über die auf Cypern mit Unterstützung seiner Majestät des Kaisers, der Berliner Museen und der Rudolf-Virchow-Stiftung angestellten Ausgrabungen”, in Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie,

, p. 29-78, 298-401.

OLIEN (C.), 2016, “The Cypriot fragment at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the late 19th century”, in G. Bourogiannis, C. Mühlenbock (eds.), Collections and New Research, Uppsala, p. 31-41.

OMAN (C.), 1921, “Proceedings of the Royal Numismatic Society”, The Numismatic Chronicle Fifth Series Vol. 1 No. 3/4, p. 1-46.

ORNAN (T.), ORTIZ (S.), WOLFF (S.), 2013, “A newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context”, Israel Exploration Journal 63.1, p. 6-25.

ÖZEL (S.), 2010, “Under the Turkish Blanket Legislation: The Recovery of Cultural Property Removed from Turkey”, Inter-

38.2, p. 177-184.

ÖZGAN (T.), 1999, , Izmir.

ÖZKUL (A.E.), 2013, “The Consuls and their Activities in Cyprus under the Ottoman Administration (1571–1878)”, in Turkish

or Turkic 8/2, Winter, p. 239-283.PAPADOPOULOS KERAMEUS (A.), 1879, “

" ”, Athenische Mitteilungen 4, p. 114-122.

PAPADOPOULOS KERAMEUS (A.), 1880, “Catalogue descriptif des poids antiques du Musée de l’École Évangélique”, in

, p. 55-86.

PARLASCA (K.), 2009, “Die kyprische Kolossal-statue eines ‘Bes’ in Istanbul”, in R. Bol, K. Kleibl, S. Rogge (eds.), Zypern – Insel im Schnittpunkt interkultureller Kontakte:

, Münster, p. 237-264.

PASINLI (A.), 1989, Museums, Istanbul.

PASINLI (A.), 1990-1991, “The Newly Inaugurated Sections and Annex of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul Which Celebrated its Centennial on June 13, 1991”,

4, p. 70-71.PASINLI (A.), 1996,

Museum, Istanbul.PASINLI (A.), 2001, “The last 10 Years at the

Istanbul Archaeological Museums”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 17, p. 10-42.

PASINLI (A.), 2003, , Istanbul.

PASINLI (A.), 2012, Museums, Istanbul.

PATERA (A.), 1997, “Die K.K. Post auf Zypern”, in

, Kitsee, p. 85-96.

PECORELLA (P.E.), 1977,

Irini ‘Paleokastro’, Rome. PERROT (G.), 1879, “L’île de Cypre. Son rôle

dans l’histoire. II. Fouilles et découvertes. Le général de Cesnola et le musée Métropolitain de New-York”, Revue des deux mondes 31, p. 564-605.

PERROT (G.), 1882, Review of Dethier 1881, RA XL, p. 254-255.

PERROT (G.), CHIPIEZ (C.), 1885, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, Tome III Phénicie – Cypre, Paris.

PERROT (G.), CHIPIEZ (C.), 1894, Histoire de Tome VI

Paris.PFLUG (H.), 1988, “Kyprische Helme”, in Antike

Bestände des Antikenmuseums Berlin, Mainz, p. 27-41.

PFUHL (E.), MÖBIUS (H.), 1977, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, Vol. I, Mainz am Rhein.

PFUHL (E.), MÖBIUS (H.), 1979, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, Vol. II (plates), Mainz am Rhein.

PILIDES (D.), 2008, “ ‘Welcome, Sir, to Cyprus’. The Local Reaction to American Archaeological Research”, Near Eastern Archaeology 71, No. 1/2, p. 6-15.


PILIDES (D.), 2009, George Jeffery: His Diaries and the Ancient Monuments of Cyprus, Vols. I-II, Nicosia.

PILIDES (D.), 2012, “The SIMA Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities: the way forward”, in J.M. Webb, D. Frankel (eds.), Studies in

, Uppsala, p. 7-24.

PINI (I.), 1979, “Cypro-Aegean Cylinder Seals. On the Definition and Origin of the Class”, in Acts of the International Archaeologica Symposium, ‘The Relations between Cyprus

, Nicosia, p. 121-127.PINI (I.), 1980, “Kypro-Ägäische Rollsiegel.

Ein Beitrag zur Definition und zum Ursprung der Gruppe”, JdI 95, p. 77-108.

POHLSANDER (H.A.), 2006, Sources for the

, Altamont, New York.

POLAT (G.), 2001, “White Painted Cypriot Jugs from the Middle Bronze Age”, Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 17, p. 184-211.

POPHAM (M.R.), 1972, “White Slip Ware”, in Åström 1972b, p. 431-471.

POULAIN (M.), QUEYREL (F.), PAQUOT (G.) eds., 2013,

Constantinople, Paris.POYIADJI-RICHTER (E.), 2013, “Funerary

Portraiture on Hellenistic Grave Reliefs from Cyprus”, in P. Scherrer, G. Koiner, A. Ulbrich (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference, Department of

, Graz, p. 77-90.POYIADJI-RICHTER (E.), 2014, “Aspects of

Funerary Art: The Sculptures in the Cyprus Collection in Berlin”, in Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 169-189.

PRÊTE (J.-P.), TASSIGNON (I.), 2001, “L’agora d’Amathonte”, CCEC 31, p. 59-67.

PRINCE LOEWENSTEIN (J.), 1941, “The Swastika: Its History and Meaning”, Man XLI, p. 49-55.

QUEYREL (F.), 2013, “L’apport du catalogue de Mendel à la connaissance de la sculpture grecque”, in Poulain et al. 2013, p. 70-84.

RADET (G.), 1901, , Paris.

RADET (G.), 1907, “Aristote Fontrier”, REA 9, p. 376-380.

RAPPAS (A.), 2013, Review of M. Aymes, A Provincial History of the Ottoman Empire: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean in the Nineteenth Century, CCEC 43, p. 566-570.

RAYET (O.), 1877, “Inscriptions du Musée de l’École Évangélique à Smyrne”, RA 33, p. 105-128.

RECKE (M.), 2012, “Deutschland und das antike Zypern. Beiträge zur Geschichte einer archäologischen Disziplin”, CCEC 42, p. 87-116.

RECKE (M.), 2013, “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sammelns zyprischer Antiken in Deutschland”, in B. Morstadt, A.V. Siebert, Von im Museum August Kestner, Hannover, p. 33-39.

REINACH (A.J.), 1911, “Au Musée de Constantinople”, REA XIII, p. 370-377.

REINACH (S.), 1882, Catalogue du Musée Impérial d’Antiquités, Constantinople.

REINACH (S.), 1883a, “La poterie jaune émaillée de Smyrne”, BCH 7, p. 78.

REINACH (S.), 1883b, “Le vandalisme moderne en Orient”, Revue des Deux Mondes 56/1, mars, p. 132-166.

REINACH (S.), 1884, “Deux têtes archaïques du Musée de Constantinople”, archéologique 9, p. 88-90.

REINACH (S.), 1885a, “Têtes chypriotes en calcaire du Musée de Constantinople”,

10, p. 11-12.REINACH (S.), 1885b, “Marble Statue of Artemis

in the Museum at Constantinople”, AJA 1, p. 319-323.

REINACH (S.), 1886, Conseils aux voyageurs archéologues en Grèce et dans l’Orient hellénique, Paris.

REINACH (S.), 1888a, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure sous la direction

), Paris.REINACH (S.), 1888b, Esquisses archéologiques,

Paris.REINACH (S.), 1891,

Documents sur les fouilles et découvertes ,

Paris.

162 CCEC 47, 2017

REINACH (S.), 1905a, “Luigi Palma di Cesnola”, RA, p. 301-304.

REINACH (S.), 1905b,

, 2nd ed, Paris.REINACH (S.), 1906 Cultes, mythes et religions,

Vol. 2, Paris.REINACH (S.), 1910a, “La collection Cesnola à

New-York”, RA, p. 292.REINACH (S.), 1910b, “Hamdi Bey”, RA,

p. 407-413.REINACH (T.), 1904, “Une inscription juive

de Chypre”, Revue des études juives 48, p. 191-196.

REINACH (S.), 1913, “A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus”, RA XXII, p. 278-279.

RESHID (M.), 1928, Tourist’s Practical Guide to Constantinople and Environs, Pera.

Réunion des musées nationaux 1989: , Paris.

Réunion des musées nationaux 2014:

d’Archéologie nationale-Domaine national

, Paris.REYES (A.T.), 2001, The Stamp-Seals of Ancient

Cyprus, Oxford.ROBBINS (D.), 2011,

Holland Park Road, Kensington, London.ROBERT (L.), 1951, Études de numismatique

grecque, Paris.ROGGE (S.) ed., 2009, Zypern und der Vordere

Symposium, Münster , Münster.

ROMANO (I.B.), 2006, Catalogue of the Cypriot, Greek and Roman Stone Sculpture in the

Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. ROSS (L.), 1852, Reisen nach Kos, Halikar-

nassos, Rhodos und der Insel Cypern, Halle.ROUS (I.H.), 2013, “Gustave Mendel et la

publication du catalogue des figurines en terre cuite des Musées impériaux ottomans d’Istanbul”, in Poulain et al. 2013, p. 97-110.

ROUS (I.H.), LAUGIER (L.), MARTINEZ (J.-L.), 2009, cité antique, Paris.

2013: entalism, Istanbul.

ST. LAURENT (B.), TASKÖMÜR (H.), 2013, The Imperial Museum of Antiquities in Jerusalem,

Bridgewater, Mass.SALJE (B.), 1990, Der ‘Common Style’ der

, Mainz am Rhein.

SAVINO (M.), 2015, “Aziz Ogan and the Development of Archaeological Museums in the Turkish Republic”, Museum History Journal 8:1, p. 88-101.

SAYCE (A.H.), 1879, “Letter from Constan-tinople”, The Academy 20, Sept., p. 213-214.

SAYCE (A.H.), 1890, “On a Hittite Seal Purchased at Smyrna by the Rev. Greville I. Chester”, The Archaeological Journal 47, p. 215-219.

SAYCE (A.H.), 1905, “The Constantinople Museum”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 37, p. 269-270.

SAYCE (A.H.), 1923, Reminiscences, London.SCHEDE (M.), 1928, Meisterwerke der türkischen

. Herausgegeben

, Berlin.

SCHEIL (V.), 1898, Musée Impérial Ottoman. ,

Constantinople.SCHLIEMANN (H.), 1885,

l’emplacement de Troie et des explorations , Paris.

SCHRÖDER (P.), 1878, “Meine zweite Reise auf Cypern im Frühjahr 1873”,

XXXIV, p. 183-186.SCHROEDER (P.), 1878, “On a Cypriote

Inscription, now in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople”, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology VI, p. 134-143.

SEVERIS (R.C.), 2000, Travelling Artists in , London.

SEVERIS (R.), 2002, , Aldershot, Hants.

SEVERIS (R.C.), BONATO (L.) eds., 1999, Along

Duthoit and Cyprus, Nicosia.


SHAW (W.M.K.), 2003, Possessors and

Empire, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.SHAW (W.M.K.), 2011, “From Mausoleum

to Museum: Resurrecting Antiquity for Ottoman Modernity”, in Bahrani et al. 2011, p. 423-441.

SJÖQVIST (E.), 1940, , Stockholm.

SMYRNELIS (M.-C.), 2005,

aux XVIIIe et XIX

e siècles, Paris.SOMMER (D.), 2015, Freemasonry in the

, London

SOPHOCLEOUS (A.C.), 2006, “The First Cypriot Newspapers and the British Administration”, Global Media Journal Mediterranean Edition 1 (1), p. 113-125.

SOPHOCLEOUS (S.), 1985, Atlas des Représentations Chypro-Archaïques des Divinités, Göteborg.

SORLIN-DORIGNY (A.), 1879, “Statue colossale découverte à Amathonte (Cypre)”, archéologique 5, p. 230-236.

SOUTH (A.K.), 1980, “Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1979: A Summary Report”, RDAC, p. 22-53.

SOUTH (A.K.), STEEL (L.), 2001, “The White Slip Sequence at Kalavasos, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus, Vienna, p. 65-74.

STANLEY-PRICE (N.), 2001, “The Ottoman Law on Antiquities (1874) and the founding of the Cyprus Museum”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 267-275.

STARK (K.B.), 1874, Nach dem griechischen , Heidelberg.

STAVRIDES (T.), 2009, “List of Governors, Prelates and Dragomans of Cyprus (1571-1878)”, in M.N. Michael, M. Kappler, E. Gavriel (eds.), of Studies on History and Culture, Wiesbaden, p. 357-366.

STEVE (M.), 2014, Théodore Reinach, Nice.STEWART (E.), ÅSTRÖM (P.) eds., 1988, Corpus

, Göteborg.

STEWART (E.), ÅSTRÖM (P.) eds., 1992, Corpus

, Jonsered.STEWART (J.R.), 1948, “Cyprus”, in Handbook

to the Nicholson Museum, 2nd ed, Sydney, p. 115-199.

STEWART (J.R.), 1962, “The Early Cypriote Bronze Age”, in P. Dikaios, J.R. Stewart, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV. Part 1A.

Cyprus, Lund, p. 205-401.STILLMAN (W.J.), 1885,

on the Cesnola Collection, New York.STRAUSS (J.), 1999, “Le livre français d’Istanbul

(1730-1908), Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 87-88 (on line), accessed 15 December 2016.

TASSIGNON (I.), 2005, “Réflexions sur les fragments statuaires du ‘maître des lions’ d’Amathonte (Chypre), REG 118, p. 367-381.

TASSIGNON (I.), 2009, “Le Baal d’Amathonte et le Bès égyptien”, in D. Michaelides, V. Kassianidou, R.S. Merrillees (eds.), Egypt

Proceedings of the International Conference on “Egypt and

, Oxford, p. 118-124.TASSIGNON (I.), 2013,

d’histoire des religions des statues trouvées sur l’agora, Athens.

TATTON-BROWN (V.), 1998, “The British Museum Discovers Cyprus”, CCEC 28, p. 113-115.

TATTON-BROWN (V.) ed., 2001a, Cyprus in the

nd British Museum Classical , Oxford.

TATTON-BROWN (V.), 2001b, “Excavations in ancient Cyprus: original manuscripts and correspondence in the British Museum”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 168-183.

TAYLOR (L.), 2001, “Lady Brassey, 1870-1886: traveller, writer, collector, educator, woman of means and the fate of her Cypriot artefacts”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 239-247.

Testimony of the Defendant 1884: Gaston

. Printed for the Plaintiff from the Stenographer’s Minutes, New York.

164 CCEC 47, 2017

TODD (I.A.), 1989, Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios II. Ceramics, Objects, Tombs, Specialist Studies, Göteborg.

TODD (I.A.), 2001, “Early Connections of Cyprus with Anatolia”, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus, Vienna, p. 203-213.

TODD (I.A.), PEARLMAN (D.), 1986, “List of Kalavasos Village Tombs”, in I.A. Todd (ed.),

Cemetery in Kalavasos Village, Göteborg, p. 188-226.

TOMKINS (C.), 1970, Merchants and

Museum of Art, London. (E.), 1986, “Three Hittite Cylinder

Seals in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum”, in J.V. Canby, E. Porada, B.S. Ridgway, T. Stech (eds.), Ancient

Mellink, Madison, p. 77-83.VANDENABEELE (F.), 1998, Figurines on Cypriote

Jugs Holding an Oinochoé, Jonsered.VERMEULE (C.), 1976, Greek and Roman

Antique Times, Boston.VERMEULE (E.), KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1982,

Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, Cambridge, Mass.

VESSBERG (O.), WESTHOM (A.), 1956, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV. Part 3The Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Cyprus, Stockholm.

VLAMI (D.), 2015, ,

London.WARNER (C.D.), 1893,

with Photogravures, Vol. II, Boston and New York.

WATERFIELD (G.), 1963, , London.

WEBB (J.M.), FRANKEL (D.) eds., 2012, Corpus

Part 4 by James R. Stewart, Uppsala.WESTERBERG (K.), 1983, Cypriote Ships from

., Gothenburg.WESTHOLM (A.), 1939, “The Colossus from

Amathus”, in K. Hanell, E.J. Knudtzon, N. Valmin (eds.), Nilsson

, Lund, p. 514-528.WHITEHEAD (D.), 1999, “From Smyrna to

Stewartstown: A Numismatist’s Epigraphic Notebook”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 99C, p. 73-113.

WILSON (V.), 1975, “The Iconography of Bes with Particular Reference to the Cypriot Evidence”, 7, p. 77-103.

WRIGHT (G.R.H.), 2001, “Archaeology and Islamic Law in Ottoman Cyprus”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 261-266.

XANTHOPOULOS (Th.), 1914, “Deux savants grecs. Constantinos Sathas. Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus. Notes biographi-ques”, Échos d’Orient 17, No. 107, p. 345-348.

YASUR-LANDAU (A.), GROSS (B.), GADOT (Y.), OEMING (M.), LIPSCHITS (O.), 2014, “A Rare Cypriot Krater of the White Slip II Style from Azekah”, Israel Exploration Journal 64:1, p. 1-8.

YON (M.), 1981, Dictionnaire illustré multi-lingue de la céramique du Proche Orient ancien, Lyon.

YON (M.), 1993 (ed.),

, Lyon. (R.), (H.), ERER (E.R.),

1951, Tourist’s Guide to Istanbul, Istanbul.


THE ANCIENT STONES OF CYPRUS

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUEZ CANAL1

Elizabeth HOAK-DOERING

Résumé. L’absence de blocs architecturaux dans les monuments chypriotes antiques a fait naître la légende selon laquelle les Britanniques auraient enlevé ces pierres pour les utiliser dans le canal de Suez, une histoire diffusée sur les sites web, dans la littérature touristique, dans les notes d’études académiques et dans des archives. Cet article fait ressortir les fondements de cette légende à partir de différentes approches : des recherches d’archives à Chypre et en France, des visites de sites à Chypre et en Égypte, des entretiens personnels et des investigations dans la bibliographie archéologique chypriote et celle de l’histoire de l’art. Autant qu’on le sache, il n’y a aucune preuve directe de la présence de pierres chypriotes dans le canal de Suez ou dans les structures qui lui sont associées, malgré les nombreux témoignages qui s’y rapportent. Le pillage des pierres et leur exportation depuis Chypre, aussi honteux qu’il soit, est curieusement mis en évidence dans les traditions chypriotes, ce qui aide à mieux faire comprendre le phénomène du remploi des pierres. Prenant en compte la chronologie et les besoins matériels du projet du canal de Suez en regard de la rareté des ressources locales en pierres, cette étude montre l’ampleur des exportations de pierres, en général dirigées vers Port-Saïd, à la fin de l’époque ottomane et durant la période coloniale britannique, et examine la nature de ces transferts depuis Chypre, ainsi que leurs agents, les raisons qui les sous-tendent, et les efforts pour stopper et réguler ce commerce. La rivalité entre ceux qui cherchent à protéger les monuments chypriotes et ceux qui les utilisent comme carrières met en évidence différents points de vue sur la valeur des pierres, sur la notion d’héritage et d’identité, et sur la manière dont elle a changé avec le temps.

Introduction to a legend

The legend that cut stones taken from Cypriot sites of architectural heritage were used

in the Suez Canal or in Port Saïd comes through academic footnote, local lore and the tourist

industry. The legend can also serve political, post-colonial or conspiratorial agendas: for

example when a Greek Cypriot tour guide who leads walking tours of Famagusta tells her

customers that the British took and sold the city’s ancient architectural stones.2 Her story

1. !"#$%#$%&%'()#$(*%)('$#+,%+-%%./0+,($%+-%0"(%/1(2%3&,&45%6%7#$8+1'$(%#,%69$(,8(%&,*%:+;('%#,%3<='1$%&,*%>?<=0@%#,%0"(%!"#$%&'(")(*&'+&%(&%,(-.&$(/&01.$%(21#,3.0%ABCDBE%9<%0"(%$&F(%&10"+'G

2.

legend in Famagusta, which is not currently under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.

166 CCEC 47, 2017

emphasises the vulnerability of the Cypriot people and landscape to colonial aims in the

late nineteenth century, and blames the occupiers for the state of Cypriot monuments.

Jeffery describes Famagusta with a similar story, “Since the year 1400 the city has passed

through the vicissitudes of being a strong fortress of the Venetians, a penal settlement of

the Turks, and lastly a quarry of old building materials whence much of the stone used in

constructing the Suez Canal has been drawn”.3 Of the many instances and contexts of this

lurid detail, nothing is said about who took the stones and to what local benefit. Little, to

nothing is said about where, how, or if permission was granted to take stones, and nothing

about precisely where, and in what capacity Cypriot limestone was used in the Suez Canal

or Port Saïd. This paper looks for substance in the story, using archival research, personal

interview and site visits.

If stone came from Cyprus for construction of the Suez Canal itself, it would have

been a transaction between canal contractors and Ottoman subjects. Ferdinand de Lesseps

began work in 1859, the canal opened in 1869, and only in 1878 did the Ottoman Empire

cede Cyprus to British protection. That is, by the time the British acquired Cyprus the

canal had already been hosting crossings for a decade. According to records in the Cyprus

State Archives, export of cut stone from Cyprus was an activity undertaken by Cypriots of

both modern communities all through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This

analysis is organized along the different perceptions of stone’s value: in cultural heritage,

industry and political strategy. It presents a cautious position on the legend, pointing out

instances where on-island reuse and misinterpretation of local history could account for

stone allegedly exported. Such caution is meant to separate facts from lore. Cypriot stones

probably contributed to the development of the Suez Canal and Port Saïd – but there is

no hard proof – none yet that satisfies this author, who would prefer to see geological

identification of stones, or transaction receipts. Nevertheless, this paper presents plenty

of evidence that stones from Cyprus, among other Mediterranean sources, served the

voracious Suez Canal project. For sure, if stone trade evoked a reaction from a sultan

whose empire was collapsing, that trade must have been impressive.

Cultural Heritage: at Least a Claim to Fame

Cyprus lay in ruins at the close of Ottoman rule, where neglect was the most recent

chapter of destruction in more than two thousand years of violent earthquakes, conquest,

ruthless taxation, and misfortune.4 The earthquake damage visible in the archaeological

record is only less terrifying than eyewitness accounts given by survivors. In the

3. George Jeffery, architect and Curator of Ancient Monuments of Cyprus (1903-1935): Jeffery

1918, p. 102.

4. “[The Cypriots’] misery is sometimes increased by a sort of locust, which at intervals

over-spreads the island, and destroys entirely every species of vegetation. As their taxes are not

diminished when this calamity occurs, in these disastrous years they are forced to sell their small

stock of furniture, and frequently every disposable thing they possess, to satisfy the rapacity of their

unfeeling tyrants.” From Turner’s diary of his travels in Cyprus between 1812 and 1816: W. Turner,

Journal of a Tour in the Levant, London, 1820, in Cobham 1908, p. 448.

E. HOAK-DOERING, THE ANCIENT STONES OF CYPRUS 167

earthquake in December of 1735 for example, one that particularly affected Famagusta,

“… part of the cathedral of Santa Sophia which was converted into a mosque, fell and

buried under its ruins over 200 people. Also the church of Saint George together with a

great part of the town was thrown down …”5. Enough remained of the latter church in

the early 20th century that Jeffery remarked about its unusual combination of East and

West architecture, “in plan and detail... the result, as far as can be judged by the ruins,

was imposing and not unsatisfactory.”6 What remains of the church of Saint George is a

good barometer of both ruthless conquest, and of how much stone is missing: the east

side facing the harbour is still lodged with rusting cannonballs from the Ottoman naval

attack of 1571. It is a building that Enlart noted among Cypriot churches built in the style

of Champagne,7 and yet so little is left of the vaults, structural columns or walls that he

complained: “A voussoir from this hood-mould can be seen at the foot of the door where

it fell when the facing of the west end of St. George’s and much other material was

removed and shipped off to be used in the buildings of Port Said; this barbarous trade is

still continuing (see Athenaeum, 9th July 1895).”8

It is interesting to note that Enlart writes about the building being pulled apart, instead

of the politer notion that people were scavenging rubble that had fallen in earthquake; in

other words, by the late 19th c., the whole building was perceived as rubble, not just the

debris around it. On what remain of the church’s walls and columns there are maritime

graffiti9 in very high places, uniquely indicating how the Suez Canal affected local

ports of call. Scores of sailing ships are incised in the exposed underlayment and ruined

fresco: most of it out of hand’s reach. The odd height of these pictures suggests that

fallen stones may have been in piles against the walls, and drawings made from atop

of the heaps ever since the building fell (1571 and 1735). How the age of the sailing

vessel, and the disappearance of sailors dovetail with the opening of the Suez Canal will

be described later, but here the effect is clear. There is little or no maritime graffiti at or

5. Ambraseys 1965, p. 10. The testimony refers to the church of St. George of the Greeks.

6. Jeffery 1918, p. 149. Jeffery assessed earthquakes both informally – by the regular disturbance

of picture-frames – and formally at archaeological sites: “There is not a solitary column standing

erect to mark the sites of Salamina, Paphos or Poli. Nothing can be expected to survive the earlier

Kitium, Amathus or Curium. The fragments which stand on their bases at Salamina were so placed

by myself in 1909”: Pilides 2009, p. 470 n. 947.

7. Enlart 1987, p. 36 and p. 256.

8. Enlart 1987, p. 257, n. 19. Here, as per usual, the stone export story appears without attribution

in a footnote. The Athenaeum article to which he refers reads in part, “The beautiful old city which

afforded Shakespeare the legend on which to ground one of his most important dramas seems to

have been preserved for more than three hundred years intact for the countrymen of Shakespeare to

level with the ground or rather with the sea.” Article available at: Cyprus State Archives SA1-5547-

1899. Material from the Cyprus State Archives hereafter noted “SA”.

9. Enlart (1987, p. 257) notices Greek inscriptions. Also observed in the British Administration

records, SA1 -2030 -1901 and Jeffery 1918, p. 104.

168 CCEC 47, 2017

below eye-level, in areas of the wall that might have been covered with rubble.10 Once

that rubble was removed, and the Suez Canal opened, sailors no longer frequented the

port of Famagusta.11 Today, where a few blocks remain and one can reach high on the

walls, contemporary carvings of rockets and first names are carved over the old drawings

of square, and lateen-rigged boats.

Cyprus was notorious among travellers for its landscape of rubble.12 Turner, in 1815

says “… I rode through the streets of levelled palaces, choked up with ruins and rubbish

to the house of the Agha, of which one half was choked up by the fallen stones of the

other...”13 Lewis, visiting Cyprus in 1893 remarks, “We looked down… riding over what

remained of the walls as if they were paths. Thus, three series of Architecture, Greek,

Roman… and later Latin, having alike and together… crumbled into one common

decay.”14 This great history in ruins did not impress Baker who, after a disappointing

walk in Paphos wrote, “[t]he past had been great, and the present was nothing.”15 His

mild curiosity about ancient Cyprus went unsatisfied, “…anything worth having has been

appropriated many ages since by those who understood its value, and beyond a few fallen

columns and blocks of squared stone there is literally nothing to attract attention.”16

Having apparently no ruins to attract attention makes historical research and

reconstruction difficult and it also affects the way the cultural identity of the Cypriot

Republic is coalescing.17 Mediaeval architecture was famously scavenged in the 19th c.,

but so was the Classical architecture that preceded, and in some cases contributed to it.18

This can make the popular Greek historical (and sometimes national) narrative harder

as religious belief.

understanding of rigging; or navigational equipment and its location on a ship; or construction

of the keel and hull in different ship designs. The precision hints at a professional knowledge of

sailing. See !!!"#$%&'($)*+,-".$/ for images.

12. For a fuller description see Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 199-228 (p. 203-204).For a fuller description see Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 199-228 (p. 203-204).

13. Cited in Cobham 1908, p. 434.Cited in Cobham 1908, p. 434.

14. Lewis 1894, p. 139-140. Lewis 1894, p. 139-140.

15. Baker 1879, p. 239.Baker 1879, p. 239.

16. Ibid.

17. It might be the popularity of ‘Game of Thrones’ that has recently ignited popular interest in It might be the popularity of ‘Game of Thrones’ that has recently ignited popular interest in

the Mediaeval period. Cyprus now has just opened a Mediaeval theme park called “Cyprus Land”.

and in architecture. Either way, see http://cyprusland.com.cy/ (Last access: 4th March 2018).

18. The Classical city of Salamis was a quarry for buildings in and around Famagusta. “All the The Classical city of Salamis was a quarry for buildings in and around Famagusta. “All the

Latin buildings of Cyprus are in stone… White or grey marble was often used and is an excellent

material for sculpture; these marbles were all imported and most of them were taken from ancient

buildings, especially from Salamis. Roman column-bases were reworked in this way for thirteenth-

century capitals at Famagusta, their ancient outlines still to be made out beneath the Gothic

carving.” (Enlart 1987, p. 45).


to see and understand in the context of Cyprus because – unlike at the Parthenon – there

is little with which to reconstruct a Classical architectural identity. The poaching and

export19 of Classical architecture from Cyprus was happening at least by20 the 15th century

and was witnessed at Paphos in 1480 by a pilgrim traveller from Milan, St. Brasca, Head

of the Ducal Chancellery of Galeazzo Sforza. The story as related by Karageorghis is

as follows: “Here [at Paphos] Brasca witnessed some strange antique dealings, by then

a customary practice among galley captains. On the trip from Venice to the ports of the

Middle East the galleys carried fairly heavy cargoes…stowed in the hold to the point

of overflowing. Indeed some pilgrims complained they often had to struggle with the

cargo to find a place to sleep. Upon arrival in the Middle East, the merchandise was

traded, mainly for spices, which were considerably lighter than the previous cargo…

Obviously this was a handicap on the return journey… realising there was a shortage of

building stone in Venice, the captains began to load blocks of marble… to be sold at the

city’s building sites…. [where] the most sought after stones were columns and capitals

and general architectural elements from ancient Greek-Roman constructions…used to

embellish the churches and palaces of Venice. Brasca saw one of these cargoes of stone

taken directly from the ancient temple of Aphrodite at Paphos.”21

The Classical city of Soloi was so denuded in the 19th and 20th centuries that it was

necessary to mention export to the Suez Canal on the brief tourist information placard now

on site. Its amphitheatre was fully rebuilt in modern times because its seats had provided

a terrific quarry for stone slabs.22 From the re-made amphitheatre the contemporary

visitor looks out to the seascape, where a modern rail-operated loading dock projects

from the shore directly below the site: the likely apparatus of a thorough emptying of

especially p. 112).

20. In 1792 Luigi Mayer painted what looks like an 18th c. image of stone export at the shores of In 1792 Luigi Mayer painted what looks like an 18th c. image of stone export at the shores of

the ancient kingdom of Amathus. His Roadstead on the Island of Cyprus, showing the ramparts of Amathunta and the town of Limassol is included in Severis 2000, p. 64. Pierre Aupert (1990, p. 6),

former director of the French excavation at Amathus, acknowledges the verisimilitude of the image,

“[...] La corniche et le fragment de tambour de colonne gisant au premier plan proviennent sans

juché plus haut sur les premières pentes de l’acropole [...] on n’ose imaginer qu’il s’agit du même

[bloc de corniche], bien entendu, mais la coïncidence, jointe à l’exactitude de la représentation du .”. However realistic, it seems that

Aupert himself does not see the painting as an illustration of early exploitation at that site.%21. Karageorghis 1988, p. 53. “[…] The chronicler from Milan simply recorded this fact without Karageorghis 1988, p. 53. “[…] The chronicler from Milan simply recorded this fact without

any further comment, which suggests it was common practice at the time.” (ibid. p. 54).

22. Soloi is not currently under control of the Republic of Cyprus. The amphitheatre and Soloi is not currently under control of the Republic of Cyprus. The amphitheatre and

archaeological site are modestly maintained for tourists, although before the war in 1974 the rebuilt

amphitheatre was used for performances.

170 CCEC 47, 2017

the site in the 20th century.23 Westholm, upon his arrival in 1936, describes an already

ransacked place and a culture of insouciance: “[…] when the modern road was laid out,

in 1912[, t]he foundations for the road were entirely taken from walls in these fields,

and one of the foremen during this work told me that the labourers, once having found

a wall with suitable stones, carried on destroying it until none of them was left. For a

length of more than 100 m. they were allowed to despoil entirely an ancient street paved

with large limestone slabs. Marble columns were also found and cut into pieces. On the

same occasion the present bridge over the river west of the city area was built entirely

of stones taken away from the theatre. But this destruction of the ruins, preserved until

comparatively recent times, had started long before. Cesnola tells us that stones already

before his time were loaded on ships and exported to Asia Minor and Egypt, especially

when the Suez Canal was built.” 24

The ancient kingdom of Amathus in Limassol, along with its necropolis and temple

of Aphrodite were poached25 and the hill upon which the temple stood was rapaciously

quarried. A submerged footprint is all that remains of the ancient walled harbour. There,

the maritime archaeologist J. -Y. Empereur notes, “The top layer of cut stones were taken

for the construction of the Suez Canal”, giving dimensions for the missing stones: “[…]

sometimes exceeding 3 m. length of 0.70 m on one side, with a weight often approaching

3 tons. They were cut in the nearby quarries, which were found close to the beach... The

number of these blocks is considerable, in the range of several thousands: in some places

up to 7 layers remain, while one is sure that the upper layer has disappeared and maybe

others with it.”26

Empereur’s “nearby quarry” for the ancient harbour stones also served the purposes

of the nineteenth century exporters. Cesnola, as though he had nothing to do with local

damage, reflects on this quarrying: “Even the hill [of Amathus] itself is fast losing its

form, while the rock of which it is composed is being cut away to be shipped to Port

Saïd, bringing to the merchants of Limassol a profitable return…”27 Quarrying caused the

contour of the hill to change so drastically that before it, the French expedition of 1862-

23. At Soloi, Jeffery notices stone exploitation by Cypriots for British purposes. He saw stone At Soloi, Jeffery notices stone exploitation by Cypriots for British purposes. He saw stone

slabs removed, and large parts of a Roman monument broken into small pieces. In a letter written

8-12-1929, from Pilides 2009, p. 527.

24. Westholm 1936, p. 14.Westholm 1936, p. 14.

25. Jeffery describes Amathus this way: “...everything of any value was removed, including all Jeffery describes Amathus this way: “...everything of any value was removed, including all

available building stone, much of which is said to have been carried over to Alexandria and Port

early 19th c. Amathus was ‘erased’ by the builders of Alex[andria] and P[or]t Said seeking second

hand stone....” (ibid. p. 667).

26. The harbour existed until the late 19The harbour existed until the late 19th century: Empereur 1995, p. 132, n. 3.

27. Cesnola 1877, p. 252.Cesnola 1877, p. 252.


1865 could remove a colossal stone jar from the top of the site;28 but 21st c. contractors

hired to install a reproduction of the same jar struggled to find a way up the hill – despite

using tractors and working with a considerably lighter reconstruction of the jar. The

fabricator explained that his trouble was caused by 19th c. quarrying for stone used in the

Suez Canal.29

These partial absences are spectacles of what is missing, but some types of structures

like aqueducts disappeared completely. Travelling in Cyprus in 1806, Ali Bey was

impressed by them: “…judging by the remains of aqueducts which are found everywhere,

even in the driest parts, I suspect that in ancient times there existed a general system of

irrigation…”30 A few indications of such a general system remain, notably the bridge

fragments in Larnaca district, Nicosia and Lefka. However, of the eight-mile-long

a fountainhead and hamam are left. Many people noted its importance in supplying

Famagusta: Pococke saw it in the 18th century, it is on the Kitchener survey map and

Inglis, who saw it in 1878, wrote “[Famagusta’s] water is supplied by a covered aqueduct

from the hills near Cape Greco, seven or eight miles away. The aqueduct runs through

Varosha…”31 Since this aqueduct was finished in 1584 just after the Ottoman bombardment

of Famagusta,32 rubble from the city ruins might have been used in it. There is no way

to know, however, because the aqueduct was gone by the mid 20th century: last noted in

a 1959 Department of Water Development Report.33 An eight-mile long aqueduct might

account for quite a bit of Famagusta’s missing stone.

Another angle of the legend involves misplaced significance, where popular stories

wrongly assign international or historical value to a local feature. Yon’s work on the

scavenged site of Bamboula in Larnaca is a good example of this. She shows that its

28. The jar was a popular subject of drawing. As part of the French expedition, Duthoit sketched The jar was a popular subject of drawing. As part of the French expedition, Duthoit sketched

it in situ jar, were removed to the Louvre. Before that Luigi Mayer painted the colossal stone jar in 1792,

see A colossal vase near Limasso in Cyprus in Severis 2000, p. 62. See a query about Mayer’s

“vase” painting in Jeffery’s correspondence with W. Williams in Minute Paper File J.8, Pilides

2009, p. 515-516. Among others, it was also sketched by Ali Bey who wrote, “[...] another singular

monument, two vases carved or formed out of the rock, still uprights and of a colossal size”, in

Cobham 1908, p. 409.

29. Personal conversation with Robert Camassa in 2012. See Personal conversation with Robert Camassa in 2012. See http://www.camassatouch.

com/#!specialized-work/cck2, last accessed 4th March 2018. French Symbolist poet Arthur

Rimbaud had a stint as a translator and manager at a quarry in Potamia (Larnaca) Cyprus in 1878:

see Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 204.

30. Ali Bey (Don Domingo Badia-y-Leyblich), Ali Bey (Don Domingo Badia-y-Leyblich), The Travels of Ali Bey, 1816, cited in Cobham

1908, p. 410.

33. Ibid.

172 CCEC 47, 2017

plundered ‘acropolis’, which modern tour guides and other experts declaim, is not what

it seems to be. The designation of ‘acropolis’ comes late; the site was scavenged both by

customary practice and by colonial interests.34 A similar phenomenon is found in lore

mistakenly assigning popular cultural importance to buildings in Cyprus, including the

legend that the castle of St. Hilarion inspired Walt Disney’s Snow White Castle;35 and

that Famagusta’s Citadel inspired Shakespeare for Othello.36 These popular legends are

not about missing buildings, but they fit in with a logic of invented significance such

as happens with the Suez Canal. Repeating this kind of lore invokes external validation

for Cypriot architectural heritage instead of acknowledging its capacity for historical

significance in its own right. No one recognized this ignorance of local significance

better than Jeffery, who criticised both Cypriots and British colonial administrators:

“The natives of Cyprus as a rule do not appreciate the value attaching to their ancient

monuments, few of them realize the historical importance and character of memorials

which display the art and history of the Middle Ages – an art and history that can never

be replaced.”37 Popular Cypriot claims of stone export to the Suez Canal are assertions of

injustice – but a complicated injustice – because along with the island’s occupiers it was

also the Cypriots, and their elite who plundered. Parties attempting to protect buildings

of historical significance, at least by way of protest in writing, were mostly foreigners not

Cypriots.38 The lore functions as a veil for the tangled interests in cut stone, while giving

substance to an aspect of Cypriot cultural history that is missing.

Contemporary speculation about missing stones should not be limited to reuse,

export, or misguided demolition. Machines expedited wrecking and clearing, greatly

34. Yon 2002. For diplomatic gaffes surrounding stone use on the site of Bamboula, see SA1-Yon 2002. For diplomatic gaffes surrounding stone use on the site of Bamboula, see SA1-

1494-4/03/1882; for British archival records of Bamboula, see SA1-14193-3/3/1881, and S. Brown,

Government Engineer, 23/2/1881 in SA1-14193-1881.

35. Unfortunately, even Luke fell for this legend – see Luke 1957, p. 100. Unfortunately, even Luke fell for this legend – see Luke 1957, p. 100.

36. Debunked as a story that arrived with the British occupation, by Jeffery 1918, in the footnote, Debunked as a story that arrived with the British occupation, by Jeffery 1918, in the footnote,

p. 105.

37. He comments on the contemporary renovations that ruin the value of the original, on St. He comments on the contemporary renovations that ruin the value of the original, on St.

George Exorinos in Famagusta (the Nestorian Church). The Orthodox community made renovations,

ibid. footnote, p. 144.

38. With exceptions: A footnote in Jeffery’s diary quotes a newspaper clipping that relates part With exceptions: A footnote in Jeffery’s diary quotes a newspaper clipping that relates part

of an address of the Legislative Council of Cyprus to the High Commissioner: “With respect

to Cyprus antiquities of universal fame, the Council desires to remark that the Cypriotes be

for ever irreconcilable to the despoliation thereof which has been carried on from the time of

responsible.” Quoted in a published letter, “Cyprus and its Antiquities” by George Chakalli, member

of the Legislative Council, in Pilides 2009), p. 592, n. 983. The Legislative Council’s dissent was

launched against Chamberlain’s comments during a Committee of Supply meeting that took place

on 26 May, 1902. With reference to a rumour circulating about stone export from Famagusta to

Alexandria, “[h]e wished that the inhabitants of Cyprus showed as much interest in their antiquities

as some Members of Parliament did.” Paraphrased by Hill, in Hill, Luke 1972, p. 610.


affecting how landscapes became the way they are now. Although cranes and “tipper”

cars and railroads are gone, photographs of their presence in cultural heritage sites help

explain what happened to rubble. They explain how piles of sand and stone could be

quickly collected, organized and dumped elsewhere. Temporary tracks and rail cars, on

loan from mining companies, were set up throughout the early twentieth century inside

the walls of Famagusta when the British used rails to build the harbour (Fig. 1).39 Rails

were at archaeological sites across the island, making large-scale excavations feasible

in wide-ranging areas with buried amphitheatres: Kourion, for example, where rail cars

could tip “spoil” out toward the sea.40 At Salamis, Megaw used rails to systematize the

disposal of several thousand tons of sand in the sea. Sand was the primary concern but

“spoil” rock was also removed. Temporary rails were shifted along with the progress of

the excavation and women passed buckets along the site, one after another through the

train, filling the cars from front to back. Megaw finally resorted to a locomotive engine.41

Those excavations had to remove awesome quantities of surface material before reaching

desirable features, and the missing material is appreciable now. Contemporary popular

understandings of on-site stone deficits, especially among generations who did not see

the mechanization of large-scale excavations first hand, can benefit from considering

how rapidly a rail system, for example, could effect change at essentially small locations.

The Cypriot stone legend is a special case in art history discourse where ‘spolia’ or

‘spoliation’ refers to “… objects and materials that are obtained by despoliation, that is

by robbing them from another object or site.”42 Stone reuse is a diachronic, universally

common practice that is usually architectural, and by definition limited to cut stones,

particularly ashlars. Reused stone is often convenient, cheaper than quarried stone, and

in demand where access to stone is limited. Although Cypriot stone was a sea’s journey

away from building sites in Egypt, it could be floated and it was a bargain: “[t]he price

(80 c.p. per 100 stones) [is] about half that paid from the quarries.” 43 The term ‘spolia’

is avoided in this work because the kind of re-use described here is unique. Where most

of the time stone reuse, or upcycling,44 results in newer local or regional structures,

many stones missing from Cypriot cultural heritage sites do not reappear in the island’s

39. >H8(44(,0%="+0+$%+-%'&<$%&0%(H8&)&0#+,$%&'(%#,%I&*-+'*%BCCJ5%=G%BKL%&,*%=G%BKMG%NF&?($%;#0"%O1&''#(*%$0+,(%&'(%8'(*#0(*%0+%3++*(%&,*%:&'0,('$%3+,0'&80+'$5%0"(%F&#,%8+,0'&80+'$%-+'%0"(%P&F&?1$0&%"&'9+1'%='+Q(80G%R,%=G%BLJ%&%="+0+%&00'#910(*% 0+%S&,?+#&,%T'+$G% $"+;$% 0"(% '&#4% 4#,(%-1,80#+,#,?%#,$#*(%P&F&?1$0&%=&$$#,?%/0G%U(+'?(%+-%0"(%V&0#,$G

40. In 1957 the Amiantos Asbestos Mining Corporation loaned temporary rails to the University In 1957 the Amiantos Asbestos Mining Corporation loaned temporary rails to the University

of Pennsylvania excavations under Hill, McFadden and Megaw, Cyprus Director of Antiquities

1953-1979: Radford 2003, p. 361.

41. Ibid.

42. Kinney 2006, p. 234.Kinney 2006, p. 234.

43. Enumeration of stone exports to Port Saïd in the report by the Commissioner of Famagusta Enumeration of stone exports to Port Saïd in the report by the Commissioner of Famagusta

SA1-2337-1898. Also see Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 9.

44. Rous 2015.Rous 2015.

174 CCEC 47, 2017

Figure 1. Railway piercing Famagusta city wall,

with a view of St. George of the Latins (c. 1930-1945).

Reproduced with permission from the Haig Mangoian Archives, Nicosia.

Figure 2. ‘The Isthmus of Suez Maritime Canal: Breakwater at Port Said, and Mediterranean Entrance to the Canal’, London Times Illustrated, 13 March 1869, p. 261.


architectural landscape. Furthermore, it will be explained later how exports from Cyprus

including both cut and quarried stone were probably delivered to companies that used

them in limekilns, or as crushed components of concrete. Neither outcome is part of the

traditional understanding of spoliation.

Industry: Building the Suez Canal and Port Saïd

The Suez Canal divided Asia from Africa, joined two seas, and fundamentally changed

historical trade routes. What is less known, and less visible is that the project happened

in a place with terrible access to raw materials. In a speech at the 1878 World’s Fair in

Paris, de Lesseps reviews the exploratory expedition of 1854 and he remembers standing

in the path of what would be the Suez Canal. He says he saw a mirage. It was on a January

morning, and looking out at the dry plane of the Bitter Lakes, he recalls seeing the land

full of the morning’s first rays of light, reflecting everything on the horizon: “La plaine

des lacs Amers, alors entièrement desséchés, était saturée par les premiers rayons du

soleil et reproduisait tous les objets placés à l’horizon. Nous avions devant nous le même

spectacle que nous avons retrouvé 25 ans après, le 19 Novembre 1869, lorsqu’une flotte

de 80 navires traversait le basin des lacs Amers, où nous avions introduit depuis six mois

deux milliards de mètres cubes d’eau.”45

The mirage was a vision of water coursing through the desert, and yet the company’s

first priority was just the opposite: landforms would jut into water. At Port Saïd a jetty had

to be built and, more urgently, a breakwater was needed to keep the mouth of the canal

clear of drifting silt from the Nile Delta. This breakwater would extend 5.6 kilometres

into the Mediterranean Sea from the mud flat of Lake Manzala. If the canal is at least

13.72 meters deep, and the breakwater is at least 3 meters wide, such a breakwater might

require a minimum of 230 cubic kilometres of material. Yet there was so little stone in

the area that workers built their shanties in the traditional way, with sun-baked bricks

formed from mud wrung out against their chests.46 Today the Port Saïd end of the canal

cuts through the mud of salt farms.

Although the legend focuses on the Suez Canal and Port Saïd, the breakwater and the

jetty demanded an extraordinary quantity of building material (Fig. 2), which seemed

accessible to the original research commission for the canal: “The materials necessary

for the construction of the port… were easily procurable from the quarries on the Syrian

coast, from the Isles of Cyprus and Rhodes…”47 The Dussaud Brothers who won the

commission for these structures were known for novel adaptations of concrete and

credited with successful maritime works in Izmir, Algiers, Cherbourg and elsewhere.

45. Lesseps 1878, p. 3.Lesseps 1878, p. 3.

46. Elvin 1940, p. 307.Elvin 1940, p. 307.

47. Notes on the report of the International Commission for the Suez Canal, 1855, from Stanley Notes on the report of the International Commission for the Suez Canal, 1855, from Stanley

2011, p. 21.

176 CCEC 47, 2017

Their estimate for the project came to exactly 250,000 cubic metres of solid material.48

In 1863 they began work at Port Saïd, casting massive concrete forms that were thrown

into the sea, piling up to form the breakwater and the jetty. The project took only five

years to finish. Since the forms were made of artificial blocks, one might imagine that

the stones of Cyprus could be looked for someplace else. But pulverised stone is a

component of concrete, along with cement, which is made from lime (incinerated or

calcinated limestone), ash and chalk.49 Officially, these materials came through the Valette

Enterprises, which had an exclusive contract with the Suez Canal Company to supply

stone to all parts of the project, including the cement works.50 Although they had express

access to the Mex Quarries in Alexandria, the fourth article in the Dussaud Brothers’

contract states that in the breakwater natural stone can also be used: not only that which

is already on the sea floor, but also that which is deposited there as footing.51 This clause

seems to have been employed because the Valette Enterprises approved small deliveries

of stones from lighters,52 and they hired Savon and Sons Enterprise Company to receive

and pay independent ship captains – ‘wholesalers’ – for ‘floating deliveries’. Although

only ledger numbers, not receipts of manifest, exist from the Savon Enterprise’s many

cargo purchases and dispatches, there were stipulations about depositing stone rubble.

That is, stones were either submerged immediately at specified maritime dumping sites,

or delivered for cement production.53 This would be an inglorious end to some Cypriot

monuments, but dates of these micro-transactions match with the reports of small ships

meeting stone vendors at Cypriot shores. The dates of construction for the breakwater

and jetty (1863-1868) make it very possible that some of this submerged or incinerated

material came from Cyprus as part of an existing trade that the British noticed upon their

arrival. 54

At its inauguration in 1869 the canal was relatively unprotected, with only 33,000

cubic metres of rubble footing the embankments,55 so the version of the legend saying

48. Article #11 guarantees exactly 250,000 cubic metres of material total for the jetties. Yearly Article #11 guarantees exactly 250,000 cubic metres of material total for the jetties. Yearly

blocks: Dussaud 1863.

49. Agents of the Suez Canal Company also mined at the Greek Island Santorini for ash, used Agents of the Suez Canal Company also mined at the Greek Island Santorini for ash, used

in some of the cement and mortars. The mining revealed the Bronze Age site, Akrotiri (personal

conversation with Robert Merrillees in 2013, and published in Arndt 1973).

50. Valette 1864.

51. Dussaud 1863.Dussaud 1863.

in this literature than “barge”.

53. Valette 1864.Valette 1864.

54. One example, quoted later, “Spectator” 1899, quoted in full in One example, quoted later, “Spectator” 1899, quoted in full in Pilides 2009, p. 586-587.

55. “A l’inauguration du Canal en 1869, sa largeur était de 22 m au plafond et sa profondeur de 8 m. Les croisements des navires s’effectuaient dans le Lac Timsah, le Grand Lac Amer et dans 8 Gares de 27 m de largeur de plafond, espacées d’environ 10 km. Dans cet état embryonnaire,


that stones from Cyprus are lining the canal merits further exploration here. As could be

expected for water cutting through mud and sand, the first erosion issues were caused

naturally and by 1863 Linant Bey, one of two chief engineers was already addressing

this. The more serious, chronic erosion that came later was unanticipated. Because

the canal shortened the route between Europe and Asia, it gave an advantage to the

steamship over sailing vessels: the ratio of manpower to cargo and fuel consumption

favoured steamships. As a result, the existence of the canal contributed to the decline

of commercial sailing ships and effectively changed the kinds of vessels that used it.56

Turbulence from the passage of steamers and towboats caused serious erosion though, and

this, along with natural erosion, quickly made the canal shallower. By 1884 a consultative

commission on erosion recommended stone reinforcements on the length of the canal.

The process took several decades, with the history of reinforcement on various sections of

the canal happening in five periods: 1885-1908, 1908-1924, 1925-1940 and 1940-1952.

Stone rubble riprap was preferred mostly in the period from 1885-1908; in subsequent

renovations the general inclination was to protect the embankments with reinforced

concrete. Early period riprap reinforcements may have used Cypriot rubble although

there are no receipts for stone destined for this particular use. Engineers wrestled with

types of embankments throughout the twentieth century,57with variations on the design

and slope of embankments, positioning of pilings, and fabrication materials. Six phases

of such efforts are well documented through 1952.58

The 1884 commission for the protection of the embankments indicates that gravel and

stone for the riprap should come from Attaka quarries near the Red Sea, accessed through

the canal itself, but what appears now is not typical for quarrying from single source.

The reinforcements are several courses of stone extending below the water line to at least

two metres above it, in nearly all areas of the canal including bypasses. Although their

conditions, silhouettes and compositions vary, the embankments almost always expose

aucune protection des berges, qui eût été inutilement dispendieuse, ne fut envisagée; les dimensions ”: Universal Company

of the Suez Maritime Canal 1952b, p. 2.

caused important alterations in the trade to China and to the East; the steamers entirely superseding

the sailing-ships.”: R. J. Cornewall, “The British Mercantile Marine”, in

, London, 1902, p. 408.

57. By 1935, reinforced concrete, and concrete spray guns were used to repair the embankments, By 1935, reinforced concrete, and concrete spray guns were used to repair the embankments,

replacing and covering stone and mortar: Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal 1952b, p.

17. Another approach to containing the canal used wood facing; this, and some of Port Saïd’s dock

pilings were made from the marine resistant giant Red Satinay tree (Syncarpa hillii), cut from virgin

forests in an area now called Pile Valley on Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia: Smith 2010, p. 71;

Williams 2002, p. 118. Author’s on-site research is in preparation.

58. For a thorough, illustrated documentation of the embankments refer to: Universal Company For a thorough, illustrated documentation of the embankments refer to: Universal Company

of the Suez Maritime Canal 1952a.

178 CCEC 47, 2017

stone: the dark yellow, pinkish, white or grey shades of limestone that are ubiquitous

in the Eastern Mediterranean. The stones are also irregular in shape, but not so irregular

as to betray a particular previous use: there are no circles that could have been pillars,

for example. Use of mortar, and coverage with concrete varies dramatically along the

way, reflecting various stages of improvement and attempts at repair.59 Beginning in

1967, the Arab-Israeli War complicated the picture of how the embankment protections

are composed because they were lined with 686,000 mines and 13,500 other explosive

devices. When the canal was cleared for re-opening 1975, some mines had to be detonated

on site.60 The manner of, and sources for any modern repairs are unclear. Nevertheless,

the first period of reinforcement with stone (1885-1908) certainly coincides with heavy

stone export from Cyprus, as do the subsequent periods where concrete was preferred.

It is impossible to distinguish exact types and origins of stone from a distance or from

photograph,61 and the canal’s edges are relatively inaccessible because of enforced

military zones. With limestone samples, however, the organic components of limestone

could be traced back to a quarry. This kind of proof is necessary before it can be said for

certain that Cypriot stone was used in the Suez Canal.62

The development of Port Saïd peaked between 1879 and 1889, just when the British

occupation began in Cyprus. Prior to their arrival, a loose network of business connections

had grown up between Ottoman subjects and French contractors. The network functioned

into the 20th century in spite of laws that will be discussed later. Along with law

enforcement, the British Administration introduced a level of documentation that had not

previously happened: where possible, they measured, weighed, and counted the stones

destined for export. One 1898 report comes with a comment about the demand at Port

Saïd: “Replying to his Excellency’s queries I have the honour to state: I The average

size of the stones is about 1’.0” ! 1’.0” ! 9” – a few run up to about 2’.6” ! 1’.6” ! 1’.0”

however. II The price [80 c.p per 100 stones] about half that paid from the quarries. III

The number of stones exported from Famagusta this year is as follows: January: nil;

February: nil; March: nil; April: 7,200; May: 6,900; June: 10,500; July 15,600; August

1–15th: 3,100. Total - 43,300. It appears there is now a brisk demand for stones at Port

Said, as all the stones exported were for that place.”63

Notes in the Cyprus State Archive also contain casual comments from within the

British Administration such as this, “…the rumour has always been that Port Said is

59. Seen in 2007 from the container ship Seen in 2007 from the container ship COSCO Vancouver, crossing the canal. Personal

research, in Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 217.

60. Arndt 1975, p. 10. Arndt 1975, p. 10.

61. Personal conversation with geologist Costas Xenophontos, 15/9/2011. Personal conversation with geologist Costas Xenophontos, 15/9/2011.

62. One such geological study: Kourou One such geological study: Kourou et al. 2002.

63. Enumeration of stone exports to Port Saïd in the report by the Commissioner of Famagusta in Enumeration of stone exports to Port Saïd in the report by the Commissioner of Famagusta in

SA1 - 2337 – 1898. Also see Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 9.


practically built with stones exported from Famagusta…”64 It is hard to tell if the mild

jocularity is intended to downplay the number and kind of transactions taking place along

the shores.

Port Saïd and its sister city Port Fuad were planned cities. Intended to accommodate

the shipping industry and related ventures, the designs included offices and homes, with

a variety of options for architecture and interior decoration. The cities were developed

almost all at once in a decade.65 Now, most of the remaining original French colonial

buildings are under repair, and their foundations are laid bare to see: they are made of

a wild assortment of alternative building materials, not just limestone.66 The “old town”

is a fraction of what it was before the Suez Crisis, the Tripartite War of 1956, but in

2010 there were still enough of the original buildings to see multiple shades and textures

of limestone, varieties of brick and concrete block. Although the underlying mixed

materials and sizes seem haphazard – different kinds of brick and stone, with wood in the

same wall for example – they are covered over with plaster and veneer in order to deliver

an overall stylistic uniformity. They feature classic French Colonial scrollwork, turned

wood, full-length and wrap-around balconies on four- to five-storey colourful apartment

buildings. The assorted composition of building foundations may illustrate how quickly

the towns were being built in an area where stone was scarce, and where alternatives were

sought out and used. Like in the breakwater, novel uses of concrete played a role here,

too: the original lighthouse at Port Saïd is one of the world’s first buildings made entirely

of poured concrete.67 Consumption of Cypriot stone in the region was watched not only

by the British Administration but also by members of the British public concerned

with cultural heritage. One particularly ardent editorial from the London Times reads:

“Famagusta is fast disappearing thanks to the enterprise of a few natives who still inhabit

its ruins. Port Saïd may be said to be built of its stones carried across to Egypt in little

two-masted lighters at a very profitable rate…the priceless old carvings of angels, saints,

lions, and what not are roughly knocked off to render the stones square, and perhaps to

avoid alarming the good people of Port Saïd. The Turk who keeps the general shop of

the place speaks a little French and he acts as agent. The more complete destruction of

this city now contemplated is another matter. It is proposed to build a small harbour for

64. British Administration Records, 17 August 1898: Remark by Young, A., Available at: SA British Administration Records, 17 August 1898: Remark by Young, A., Available at: SA

1-2337-98.

65. Architects plans, town plans in: Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal 1879.Architects plans, town plans in: Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal 1879.

66. Observations and photographs from 2010, published in Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 218-219.Observations and photographs from 2010, published in Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 218-219.

67. Playfair 1890, p. 54. The lighthouse construction is noted by Jeffery (17-9-1931) in relation Playfair 1890, p. 54. The lighthouse construction is noted by Jeffery (17-9-1931) in relation

to a petition to replace, in concrete, a minaret in Famagusta: Pilides 2009, p. 570.

180 CCEC 47, 2017

coasting steam liners within the shallow rocky port of ancient times… The Tower of

London might as well be demolished to make way for a new Thames-side dock!”68

Government officials tried to control the export of stone by enforcing existing Ottoman

stones laws of 1869 and 1874, and later by augmenting these laws with the Famagusta

Stones Law of 1891 and its Amendment of 1901;69 but they had stiff competition from

developers in Egypt and the willing local suppliers. The laws and the motivation to

enforce them will be explored next, but this letter of 1888 to the chief Secretary of the

British Administration attests to the mood and haste, both of the British and the Cypriots:

“Chief Secretary, 25 July 1888: I have the honour to report that Messrs. Hadji Pavlos, of

Limassol, export stone from time to time from this district under a contract70 dated [1291,

AH Y77]71 which they are allowed to export 10,000 tons of stone; of which quantity

they have not yet exported 4000 tons. Unfortunately there is no limit of time. The last

shipment... during the present month the Vessel ‘Kypros’, a small brig, built at Limassol,

which has a carrying capacity of 250 tons. This was the Vessel seen by the Receiver

General... When stone is shipped by Messrs. H. Pavlos from Limassol wharf dues... [are]

paid. When from Amathis [sic] or elsewhere a customs guard is placed on board the

Vessel and he remains on board during the whole period of shipment, to see that nothing

but stone is taken on board... On the occasion referred to about 230 tons of stone were

shipped at Amathus, after which the Vessel took, at Limassol, about 30 tons of stone (from

Agia Phyla quarries)... I went out to Amathus to see what had been done, & found, as the

Receiver General reports, that several tombs had been recently opened, or reopened; and

that large slabs of stone were lying about near the tomb. I found also the opening of a

grain store... on the hill, site of the old town, which had evidently been recently opened,

but contained only stone & rubbish. On going to Agios Tychonas, I saw on the ground

several votive columns and half a... limestone sarcophagus in the house yard of one of the

villagers, who had been opening the tombs referred to in land claimed as his own. I have

68. “Spectator” 1899. Jeffery waged a personal campaign for the protection of Mediterranean “Spectator” 1899. Jeffery waged a personal campaign for the protection of Mediterranean

monuments, which by 1900 had generated public attention such that newspaper editorials like

this one criticised British colonial disrespect for Gothic and Mediaeval architecture: Pilides 2009,

p. 586-587.

69. See Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 207.See Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 207.

70. The British Government differed with the contractual aspects of Mr Hadji Pavlou’s (sic) The British Government differed with the contractual aspects of Mr Hadji Pavlou’s (sic)

business: mainly, that he was using a monopoly that was transferred to him, set up under the

Ottoman government with a man who had since died, Mr Thrasyvoulos Georgiou. The latter’s

right was to quarry around Amathus, with no provisions for pre-cut stone. Hadji Pavlos made use

of Georgiou’s monopoly and apparently extended it to cut stone and antiquities for export to Port

Saïd. There was a question about customs being rendered. See SA1-1985-1888.

71. Probably 1877: the apparent Hijiri date (1874) is complicated by the addendum “Y 77”. Probably 1877: the apparent Hijiri date (1874) is complicated by the addendum “Y 77”.

, EVKAF Nicosia. 9/2/2018.]


sent to take possession of the objects referred to ... with a view to preventing Villagers

and probably others.”72

Although the pillaging of tombs and sarcophagi dismayed these British agents, Hadji

Pavlos73 insisted on business as usual. He argues that since his contract was set up under

the Ottoman government, he had good reason to doubt British attempts to stop his trade.

There is also an essential urgency that would coincide with the pace in Port Saïd: “The

arrangement of the said contract is so plainly affording us the right of free shipment of

stones and consequently, it is not at all possible that the correspondence with the Chief

Secretary should concern us. The delay which is indefinitely made for the permission

which we have asked, seriously damages our interests and renders us responsible for

compensation to the Captain of the Vessel ‘Kypros’.”74

Eyewitnesses of loaded ships destined for Port Saïd, in a decade of mighty development

there, points inevitably to a scenario where Cyprus was plundered, for money, by Cypriots

themselves, including ones from wealthy and politically influential families.75 That the

Captain of the vessel is mentioned here fits in with the way Savon and Sons Enterprises

worked with independent ship captains, who were paid directly for their cargo. This,

and other testimonials attest to trade in stone from Cyprus to Egypt that was already

established when the British arrived.76 Eventually, both locals and occupiers exploited

Cypriot cut stone: “The works of demolition [for the harbour] at Famagusta have not

yet commenced – but I am informed by one of the officials who takes an interest in the

historical past of the island that the wholesale export of stone to Port Saïd still continues.

Certainly I saw several houses in Larnaca which had been recently built (within a few

months) with Famagusta stones”77 Yet even with such clear testimony like the previous

from Jeffery, the author of this paper could find no receipts for the micro-transactions

72. Letter to the Commissioner of Limassol dated 6 September 1888, in SA1-1985-1888.Letter to the Commissioner of Limassol dated 6 September 1888, in SA1-1985-1888.

73. The exporter here is Demosthenis Hadjipavlou (1845-1915), who was the mayor of Limassol The exporter here is Demosthenis Hadjipavlou (1845-1915), who was the mayor of Limassol

when the affair with ransacked tombs and stone export took place (mayor from 1887-1896). He

is a noted “ ” – a pillar of society, as it were. As a young man he settled in

Egypt, set up a trading business from there. Later, in Cyprus, he imported a still from France and

sea-front road approaching the old port of Limassol is named after Christodoulos Hadjipavlou,

, Nicosia, 2010, p. 658.

74. Letter to the Commissioner of Limassol dated 6 September 1888, op. cit. SA1-1985-1888.Letter to the Commissioner of Limassol dated 6 September 1888, op. cit. SA1-1985-1888.

75. For more about Cypriot complicity in stone export – the protean local expert I. Vondiziano For more about Cypriot complicity in stone export – the protean local expert I. Vondiziano

(also written Bondiziano); and the antiquities dealers of the Tano family – see Merrillees 2003 and

Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 214-215.

76. For another connection between wine export and trade in antiquities from Cyprus and Egypt For another connection between wine export and trade in antiquities from Cyprus and Egypt

including France, see Merrillees 2003, p. 11 in particular.

77. Pilides 2009, p. 592.Pilides 2009, p. 592.

182 CCEC 47, 2017

of stones in the archives of the Universal Suez Maritime Canal Company: nothing that

directly links Cyprus to Egypt.

Geopolitics: Debt, Tax and Stones

Stone export from Cyprus took place during the transition from Ottoman to European

hegemony in the Middle East in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Great

Britain acquired Cyprus as “the outpost of the Suez Canal”78 although there were

prescient detractors who foresaw its underdevelopment as a liability.79 The island came

with a financial reminder that it was still part of the Ottoman Empire – the Cyprus Tribute

– a sum theoretically rendered to the sultan. Originally calculated as the remainder of

money left after governing costs were subtracted from annual revenue, the nature of the

Tribute changed over time and became a major point of contention during the movement

toward Cypriot self-determination. Britain expected Cyprus to produce the revenue for

the Tribute, and the cost of it was felt locally: in taxes that were added to the pre-existing

Ottoman tax structure. Luke calls the Tribute “paradoxical”80 because the Tribute did not

go from Cypriots via the British Administration into Turkish coffers; it went to British

and French bondholders in repayment of historical Ottoman debt. When the Ottoman

Empire and the Khedive of Egypt went bankrupt in 1875, Disraeli and Rothschild bought

the Egyptian shares in the Suez Canal Company. Many things could be said about the

ambition encapsulated in Disraeli’s telegram to Queen Victoria, but it was a threshold

for Cyprus: “…You have it, Madame… from now on, the globe’s lifeline is yours”81

At that moment, Cyprus became less essential to imperial strategy regarding access to

‘the globe’s lifeline’. Nevertheless the British occupied Cyprus three years later, and the

Ottoman Empire’s debts to European lenders began repayment through Cypriot labours.

In the period of heavy stone export – late 1900’s and early 20th century – Cypriots

were individually overtaxed, and their collective productivity was not rewarded in ways

they could appreciate because of the Tribute. Greek Cypriots in particular were articulate

about this inequity, claiming, “in the first ten years of the occupation, which was a period

of falling cereal prices, £50,000 worth of annual revenue was encashed in excess of

what the Turks had been collecting (on average £182,000 as against £132,000 yearly).

The increased tax revenue absorbed, according to their estimates, from one-fifth (1889)

78. Fyler 1889, p. i.Fyler 1889, p. i.

79. “During the last few days I have had repeated conversations with [Smith] and Stanley. “During the last few days I have had repeated conversations with [Smith] and Stanley.

They, in common with the Cabinet, feel that Cyprus does not answer the purpose for which it was

acquired, namely, to be a spot where a considerable force could rendez-vous and be organized for

employment either in Asia Minor or in Egypt. I told them that I believed it was as good for that

purpose as any other neighbouring locality, and that, in event of war, most certainly a large quantity

of transport animals could be purchased there. Stanley said that they had been very much misled

by the Intelligence Department regarding Cyprus and its condition.”: Wolseley, Cavendish 1991,

p. 126.

80. Luke 1957, p. 90.Luke 1957, p. 90.

81. Karbell 2003, p. 262-264, and Verra 2011.Karbell 2003, p. 262-264, and Verra 2011.


to one-quarter (1895) of the value of the island’s output.” 82 The British perspective

on what they provided to the island is quite different.83 “The ‘Tribute’, writes Luke,

“constituted a grievance in the minds of Cypriotes considerably greater than the actual

sums involved. It rankled to the extent of inducing forgetfulness of conditions before

1878 and of the changes that took place thereafter, which were not unimpressive.”84 After

this, he describes modern progress in Cyprus since British occupation: changes in the

legal system, communication and roads, the spread of education and the overall increase

in the population.85 Between the two perspectives on the Tribute lie the stones, and Luke’s

list of benefits stops short at the protection of medieval monuments. Local government

clamoured for the financial means to develop the infrastructure necessary for the island to

earn its keep, but their requests were not heard in London. The British therefore wanted

used stone, while Cypriots, in a situation of over-taxation and underdevelopment, found

that collecting for export, and exporting stones was a good – if not clandestine – way to

make a little money. British methods regarding controls on exports and local use of stone

reveal their strategic interests, and their police reports expose local (Cypriot) sentiment.

Seen in this light, the Cyprus Tribute can be understood as a trigger, and a nexus where

stone rubble became valuable for both occupiers and locals.86

At a time when the Sublime Porte was under intense financial and military pressure,

it seems strange that the sultan would consider stone export a problem. Yet in 1869, as

his empire slid into bankruptcy, he issued a law constraining it. Before then, foreign

excavators only needed him to issue permission, a firman, to excavate. The 1869 law,

Règlement sur les objets antiques, confined antiquity exports to within the Ottoman

82. Georghallides 1979, p. 31.Georghallides 1979, p. 31.

83. In 1879 Baker records an imperious, yet telling assessment of Famagusta’s potential: “The In 1879 Baker records an imperious, yet telling assessment of Famagusta’s potential: “The

vast heaps of stones, all of which are an extremely porous nature, have absorbed the accumulated

exhalations. During rainy season the surface water, carrying with it every impurity, furnishes a fresh

supply of poison to be stored beneath these health-destroying masses, which cannot possibly be

cleansed otherwise than by their complete obliteration… Should the harbour works be commenced,

all this now useless and dangerous material will be available for construction the blocks of concrete

required for constructing the sea-wall, and the surface of the town will be entirely freed from the

present nuisance without additional expense. The few modern buildings should be compulsorily

purchased by the Government, and entirely swept away, so that the area inclosed [sic] by the

new town could be erected, upon a special plan suitable to the locality, and in harmony with the

84. Luke 1957, p. 90. Luke 1957, p. 90.

85. Ibid. p. 90-93.

86. Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 206-209.Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 206-209.

184 CCEC 47, 2017

Empire and, among other things, forbids defacement of public buildings (Article 5).87

It specifies that all archaeological permissions are for things underground, and above

ground damage made to antique monuments of any sort is prohibited. In the context of

archaeology, the date of the first law, 1869, could be read as an eventuality resulting from

some larger-than-life archaeological expeditions. Cesnola’s apparent liberty in Cyprus,

and the ways he disposed of his collections reflect the various iterations of these laws,

especially corresponding with the earlier period of relative freedom, through the Laws of

1869 and the one that came later in 1874. However 1869 also coincides with the opening

of the Suez Canal. Perhaps the recent amount of stone sold from the shores of Cyprus

and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire alerted a very preoccupied sultan.88 Here, we may

remember the Dussaud Brothers building the breakwater in five years (1863-1868), and

the 250 cubic kilometres of material that construction required.

Shortly thereafter the sultan issued yet another law, The Ottoman Law of 1874

Règlement sur les antiquités, which enlarges and refines the 1869 law. In it, Article One

specifies that “all kinds of objects dating from ancient times is an antiquity” and Article

Two specifies two kinds of protected objects: coins, and any other antiquity whether

mobile or not.89 In general, Islamic law did not recognize antiquities that pre-dated the

Koran (7th c. CE), but the new Ottoman laws seem to keep the definition of “antiquity”

open to interpretation. The application of Islamic Law under the Ottoman Empire varied

depending on where it was administered, subsuming pre-existing Islamic legal systems in

Muslim places that came under Ottoman rule, and in non-Muslim places subsuming some

pre-existing secular customs and laws.90 Since both Egypt and Cyprus were provinces of

the Ottoman Empire during the construction of the canal, there should have been a similar

– if not identical – understanding of the two antiquities laws. In his work about Islamic

law in Ottoman Cyprus, Wright mentions the problematic stone export around the time

the Suez Canal was built and he too claims that stone from Famagusta, Soloi and Amathus

was exported to build “the quays and hotels of Port Saïd.” Regarding the legality of it he

quips, “legal provisions are one thing and their administration is another.”91

Under the British Administration, Ottoman Law was initially enforced with only a few

additions, many having to do with limiting the despoliation of the natural environment

and its goods. One regulation, which Stanley-Price calls “conspicuous by its absence,

given the thriving market for them in Cyprus,” was an amendment to protect antiquities.92

87. This paper refers to the versions of the 1869 and 1874 Ottoman Stones Laws in use by the This paper refers to the versions of the 1869 and 1874 Ottoman Stones Laws in use by the

British Administration, which were French translations from Arabic, reprinted on p. 273-275 in

Stanley-Price 2001.

88. Syria and Rhodes, for example, as referred to by Stanley 2011, p. 21.Syria and Rhodes, for example, as referred to by Stanley 2011, p. 21.

89. Author’s translation from Stanley-Price 2001, p. 274.Author’s translation from Stanley-Price 2001, p. 274.

90. Wright 2001. Wright 2001.

91. Ibid., p. 266.

92. Stanley-Price 2001, p. 267.Stanley-Price 2001, p. 267.


Indeed, the British Administration waited thirteen years before amending the Ottoman

regulations on antiquities with the Famagusta Stones Law of 1891. As Hill puts it, this

“quaintly entitled” law “found its way to the Statute Book” to “stop the destruction of the

ancient buildings of the town, which were serving as a quarry for new constructions.”93

The Famagusta Law of 1891 provided footing for those with a mentality to protect local

antiquities,94 and the intervening Law no. 12 of 1898 dealt with rehabilitating, repairing

the town.95 Part of the 1891 Law reads quite clearly: “...it shall be unlawful to export

from the town of Famagusta any dressed or cut stone, ashlar or rubble-stone.”96 Despite

the written intentions of the Famagusta Stones Law of 1891 and its supplements and

amendments, they came late and seemed hard to enforce.97

A less generous perspective on the Famagusta Stones Laws is that the British

Administration needed the loose stone. This is visible in a communication to the Public

Works Department on 23rd July1898 which reads, “I have brought this [export] to your

notice as I am of opinion that if the harbour works at Famagusta are undertaken, all the

available stone in the Town, whether private property or otherwise, will be required for

their construction.”98 Establishing a deep-water harbour at Famagusta was the centrepiece

of British aims in Cyprus: “with it, Cyprus is the key of a great position; without it, the

affair is a dead-lock.”99 The harbour attracted international attention to the destruction

it would cause on the sea side of the Venetian walls, and a lot of public outcry was

stimulated by that project alone; not just stone export to Port Saïd. Gunnis calls the

British administration “Victorian Vandals” who “would have torn down the whole Sea

Wall if they had been allowed.”100 In fact, all the British aims for development needed

93. “The builders of Port Said being in need of materials had been tearing down churches and “The builders of Port Said being in need of materials had been tearing down churches and

transporting their stones to Egypt for building quays and hotels [...]” Hill writes, quoting Gunnis. It

is worth noting that he does not specify who the actors are, in this scenario: Hill, Luke 1972, p. 609.

94. Hoock (2007, p. 49-72) argues that British Museum acquisitions relied not just on private Hoock (2007, p. 49-72) argues that British Museum acquisitions relied not just on private

donation and private interest, but also on public projects such as the Famagusta harbour works that

could hide and assist private collecting activities. Stanley-Price (2001, p. 275) also comments that

the Cyprus Museum could have, but did not amass a collection of antiquities using the legal system

of spoils sharing.

95. Hill, Luke 1972, p. 609.Hill, Luke 1972, p. 609.

96. Amendments to the Famagusta Stones Law of 1891, SA1 - 846 - 1900 p. 3.Amendments to the Famagusta Stones Law of 1891, SA1 - 846 - 1900 p. 3.

97. Emerick (2014, p. 124-127) assesses further the enforcement of new laws pertaining to Emerick (2014, p. 124-127) assesses further the enforcement of new laws pertaining to

stone removal in the period immediately after occupation. Ownership disputes are particularly

problematic where the understanding is transferred from Ottoman law. Disputes related to the

right to demolish immovable property were common, one instance has already been cited here:

local infractions and disputes with British regulations.

98. British Administration Records (23 July 1898).British Administration Records (23 July 1898).

99. Baker 1879, p. 159-160.Baker 1879, p. 159-160.

100. Gunnis 1947, p. 90.Gunnis 1947, p. 90.

186 CCEC 47, 2017

stone – strategic, infrastructural and administrative – and this made the demolition

of (or strategic desuetude of) Cypriot monuments worse. “It may also be mentioned,

Hill asides, “that the authorities, if they sought to prevent wilful destruction, were not

always unwilling to accept the boons that accident provided, if the story is true that

one High Commissioner, who shall be nameless, welcomed the news of the fall of the

dormitory roof at Bellapais with the remark that as road metal it would be very useful.”101

Jeffery, who repeatedly petitioned the High Commission claimed, “during the past 25

years [of British administration] the destruction of most singular examples of Gothic

architecture, ecclesiastical and domestic of all kinds has been very great and every year

the number of remaining fragments gets smaller. In Turkish days the destruction was

less rapid.”102 Jeffery’s judgment must have come from frustration: what was removed

during the “Turkish days” (i.e., 500 years of rule culminating with the canal construction)

was impossible for him to measure in retrospect. Nevertheless, the order of destruction

he witnessed, even if its duration was much shorter, was intensified by Industrial Age

equipment and ambition.

While implementing Ottoman Law, the government had to supply itself with cut stone,

and simultaneously curtail the pre-existing local market for trade and export. Government

officials tried to manage stone by sending prisoners to collect it and to guard the piles; the

stone was then counted, and stashed under guard in the Famagusta police yard. Despite

all the legal constraints, lighters with double masts sailed often from Famagusta, filled

with stones.103 Little in the Cyprus State Archives describes what might have been a well-

coordinated, and longstanding trade, with merchants, brokers, and apparatuses, both

human and machine, loading and preparing these lighters. One exception is the hint of

the French – Ottoman cooperation from the previously quoted 1899 “Spectator” clipping

wherein “[t]he Turk who keeps the general shop of the place speaks a little French”.104

Another is an 1898 report to the Cyprus Public Works Department reading, “… upon my

recent visit to Famagusta, I noticed that large quantities of building stone removed from

the ruins of the Town were being exported to the Syrian Coast… in the case of shipment of

such material from Larnaca an export duty of some description is imposed and I consider

it would be advisable to adopt a similar course in the case of Famagusta…”105 In addition

to mentioning another site of export, the official also lodges another uncertainty about the

stones’ destination.

Perhaps if the government educational system that the British installed had included

history lessons related to local monuments, some sympathy for preservation might have

been aroused. The Cypriots’ consistent pragmatism pained Jeffery, but to his chagrin he

101. Hill, Luke 1972, p. 609 n. 1. Another version in Luke 1957, p. 94 (cited in full later).Hill, Luke 1972, p. 609 n. 1. Another version in Luke 1957, p. 94 (cited in full later).

102. Jeffery, letter to Sec. S.P.A.B., 25-01-06 in Pilides 2009, p. 600.Jeffery, letter to Sec. S.P.A.B., 25-01-06 in Pilides 2009, p. 600.

103. British Administration Records (1893) and British Administration Records (23 July 1898).British Administration Records (1893) and British Administration Records (23 July 1898).

104. “Spectator” 1899.“Spectator” 1899.

105. British Administration Records (23 July 1898). British Administration Records (23 July 1898).


recognized equally pragmatic and brutal treatment of Cypriot monuments among his

own, better-educated countrymen. Luke, too, after listing the benefits brought to Cyprus

by the British occupation, unreservedly criticizes the government’s approach to cultural

heritage: “…here I cannot refrain from recalling [the government’s] failure adequately to

protect the island’s magnificent mediaeval remains, which in the first thirty years or so of

the Occupation could have been restored and preserved at a very moderate cost. The tower

of the palace of the Lusignan Kings in Nicosia, which had survived the vicissitudes of five

centuries, was actually demolished when it could well have been saved, and featureless

offices were erected in its site.”106 Understanding the value of material culture was so

foreign to some of the Cypriots whom Jeffery meets that, in an uncomfortable moment

of truth he writes, “[h]istorical continuity can hardly be expected amongst people who

appear to have little or no conception of a patronymic.”107 By contemporary standards this

statement is difficult, but it opens up an interesting area of thought. Regional and historical

knowledge can be quite deep without use of a foreign system of nomenclature, but Jeffery

exposes the similar ground between kin recognition and recognition of culture, or perhaps

cultural identity. Knowing about and valuing locations that have transmitted significance,

and naming kin both contribute to forming social bonds and framing individual and group

identities. The gap in that breadth of knowledge, between family structure and a sense of

social history comes from education and exposure to external (extra-local) knowledge.

Jeffery thought that Cypriots, who lacked a relational understanding of their history,

could be assisted by Europeans who ostensibly had this refinement: “[t]he natives of

Cyprus are of course too uneducated and too prejudiced to offer the smallest assistance

in the matter. The only possible chance of doing anything towards the rescue of these

most interesting medieval monuments from further spoliation is by obtaining funds from

Europe.”108 (Now that anodyne, EU-sponsored renovations have become commonplace

in Cyprus, Jeffery’s expostulations sound even more futile than they did in the first half

of the 20th century.)

Considering that the church was a source of education, and last names, for many Greek

Cypriots there is another problem of transmitted significance. When medieval Christian

buildings undergo renovations109 in order to bring them up to modern Orthodox tastes,

the transmitted significance of the building’s Christian history is less important than the

design exigencies of its Orthodox appropriators. The case of Agios Georgios Exorinos,

the Nestorian church, is one example where Jeffery lamented the destruction of its 14th

106. Luke 1957, p. 94.Luke 1957, p. 94.

107. Pilides 2009, p. 151.


109. The subject of this discussion is limited to 19The subject of this discussion is limited to 19th and 20th century Christian renovations of

Christian monuments. This is different from, and far less egregious than the changes made to the

same period buildings after the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus or what has happened since the war

in 1974.

188 CCEC 47, 2017

century Christian details in this way. Jeffery’s reaction to Orthodox renovation110 is parallel

to what “filled [Sir Harry Luke] with impotent fury” against the British administration’s

buildings. He deplored the “apathy that had allowed priceless remains of mediaeval

Cyprus to go to rack and ruin; at the misguided energy which had raised necessary new

buildings… in the shoddiest Public Workesque.”111 It wasn’t just the Greek Cypriots and

employees of the British government that were pulling buildings apart, however: all the

communities on Cyprus were doing it, regardless of their level of education.112 Perhaps

the saddest anecdote of all is the vision that Luke gives us of Jeffery’s “voice crying in

the wilderness.” Jeffery “represented [to the government] that the famous two-storeyed

fourteenth-century monastic dormitory in the Abbey of Bellapais would collapse unless

immediate and quite inexpensive steps were taken to reinforce it, [and] the only answer

he received was that it would come in handy for road-metal. It did not even do that; the

weathered sandstone proved far too soft”.113


111. Luke 1957, p. 94.Luke 1957, p. 94.

112. A Turkish Cypriot wants to build a garage on his property where “the Chapter House of A Turkish Cypriot wants to build a garage on his property where “the Chapter House of

an important Cathedral – [was] still in evidence [...] It is also possible that this Chapter House in

Nicosia may have been built as the archives of the Lusignan kingdom [...] a monument of the XIII

century stands the chance of being converted to a motor garage.” [Memorandum from Jeffery to

the Hon. Col. Secretary Nicosia 4th August 1928, in Pilides 2009, p. 58-59.] In Jeffery’s diary from

May 15, 1919: “Visited Salamis and discovered a large amount of damage done by Armenians

during past 5 years.” (Ibid. p. 169). Also see the Cyprus State Archive record of police interactions

with Mehmed Mahmoud about the stones on his property, explained in Hoak-Doering 2012, p. 207.

113. Luke 1957, p. 94-95.Luke 1957, p. 94-95.

Figure 3. Suez Canal stone embankment at the El Ballah Bypass. Photo Credit: Elizabeth Hoak-Doering 2007.


Final Comments (Fig. 3)

A recent remark by Gaber encapsulates an intriguing aspect of missing Cypriot stones:

i.e., although absent, they retain their importance. She recalled that excavating robber

trenches at Idalion showed, through the volume and form of backfill, the original size of

poached architectures.114 Because Idalion is inland, the fate of those foundation stones

may be unrelated to the Suez Canal but it illustrates the way that material absence of

stone does not diminish its theoretical value.115 In general this notion could be applied at

monuments around the world where people rob stones: Hadrian’s Wall, the Great Wall of

China, Mayan pyramids, among countless others.116 Cypriot stones, by contrast, became

famous through their reuse at a spectacular foreign destination. They leave a deficit that

was supplanted – not by backfill – but by this legend of the Suez Canal. Sometimes,

when old stones are reused, legends of their previous history bring added significance to a

new location. Kinney (2006) cites art historians Gunther Bandmann and Wolfgang Götz,

who suggest that Classical materials used in mediaeval architecture are intrinsic bearers

of meaning; that a new site could be invested with the “authority” of the older one.117

Maybe the Cypriot stones create an Industrial-era footnote to this art-historical notion:

one where the essence of stone – as sand, gravel or lime – contributes meaning to a new

(concrete) structure, enhancing the value of that structure with a pulp of history.

Eyewitnesses most frequently quoted here – Jeffery, Enlart, and some from the

archives of the British Administration – see the island as it was in the years after the Suez

Canal was open. Before the British occupation of Cyprus visits to Famagusta in particular

were rare if permitted, and export in general was not quantified. Still, it should be clear

by now that the stone trade was happening; even flourishing. As Port Saïd added to the

social aspect of the canal’s presence and became a transport hub with cultural life, the

stone quay and hotels provided visual stakes in a narrative that visitors could imagine.

And even though the canal was open in 1869, later reports of stone destined for Port Saïd

do not exclude continued use of imported stones for upkeep.

The many accounts of stone poaching say something about a pragmatic side of human

nature. Education could have instilled local interest in regional history and the importance

of Cypriot monuments. However, building local pride – like building bonds between

Cypriots of all communities – would not have been a very good colonizing strategy. The

desirability of cut stone caused tension between the government and locals in the late 19th

century but later inter-communal differences may also have contributed to demolition and

repurposing of supposedly missing architecture. Aqueducts are a good example of this.

114. P. Gaber, personal conversation with the author, Nicosia 2015, in reference to Stager, Walker P. Gaber, personal conversation with the author, Nicosia 2015, in reference to Stager, Walker

1989.

115. Article 5 of the 1869 Ottoman Law would have permitted taking material from underground.Article 5 of the 1869 Ottoman Law would have permitted taking material from underground.

116. Associated Press in Belize City (15th May 2013) Mayan pyramid bulldozed by road Associated Press in Belize City (15th May 2013) Mayan pyramid bulldozed by road

The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/14/

mayan-pyramid-bulldozed-road-construction (Last accessed 4th March 2018).

117. Kinney 2006, p. 241..

190 CCEC 47, 2017

Since the ones surviving into modernity were mainly Ottoman constructions, and thus

perceived as a Turkish – not Classical – aspect of Cypriot cultural heritage, aqueducts

might selectively have been left in disrepair, demolished and repurposed: disappearing in

spite of antiquities laws that could have protected them.

Stone used in the Suez Canal and Port Saïd is a special instance of stone reuse. It

cannot be compared to reuse like the Classical fragments found in Byzantine churches

on Cyprus, or in Venice, or in Famagusta; it cannot be compared to Famagusta’s stones

used in Larnaca, or Nicosia’s mediaeval stones used in later shops and houses. In those

instances of reuse, the old stones are identifiable or at least tangible. By contrast, the

stones exported to Port Saïd and the Suez Canal more or less vanished. The reuse is not

local, and there is little trace of them. The legend of the stones that were used in the Suez

Canal speaks to a history and a society that dissolved during a brutal shift to modernity,

and the agents of the stone trade who sold their historical substance did so with a different

understanding of time, heritage and art. Those things were not in shortage then, as they

are now.

Professor of Fine ArtCyprus University of Technology

Acknowledgements. Ruth Keshishian,

the COSCO Vancouver,

anonymous peers who reviewed, and very much enhanced my original 2012 article.

REFERENCESArchives

British Administration Records (1893) Minutes.

Available at: Cyprus State Archives (SA1-

2724-1893).

British Administration Records (17 August

1898), Remark by Young, A. Available at:

Cyprus State Archives (SA 1-2337-98).

British Administration Records (17 August

1898), Draft explanations of the amendments

of the Famagusta Stones Law of 1898.

Available at: Cyprus State Archives (SA1-

846-1900).

British Administration Records (23 July 1898),

Communication between Chief Secretary

and Public Works Department. Available at:

Cyprus State Archives (SA1-2237-1898).

British Administration Records (1899)

Commissioner’s inspection report (SA1-13-

2-1899).

DUSSAUD (L.), 1863, “Contrat pour l’exécution

des jetées de Port-Saïd” [archived original],

Archives Nationales du Monde du Travail

(ANMT 1995 060 4661).

“Spectator”, 1899, “Ruined Cities in Cyprus”

The London Times, 16 December 1898,

Cyprus State Archives (SA1-2337-1898).

Universal Company of the Suez Maritime

Canal, 1879, “Article 388. Constructions

Nouvelles”. Available at: Archives Nationales

du Monde du Travail (ANMT 1995 060

1991).


Canal, 1952a, “Compagnie Universelle du

Canal Maritime de Suez – Types de pierres”.

Imp. C.C.S. Available at: Archives Nationales

du Monde du Travail (ANMT 1995 060

1991).


Bibliography and other references

AMBRASEYS (N.N.), 1965,

of Cyprus, London.

ARNDT (R.), 1973, “Santorini”, Available

at: https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/

issue/197304/santorini.htm. (Accessed 2

May 2016).

ARNDT (R.), 1975, “Suez: The Reopening”, in

Saudi Aramco World. Available at: https://

www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197505/

suez-the.reopening.htm (Accessed 4th March

2018).

AUPERT (P.), 1990, “Le peintre Luigi Mayer à

Amathonte, vers 1780-1790”, CCEC 13, p.

5-9, fig. 1-4.

(T.), 2009, Ottoman, Islamic and , Nicosia.

BAKER (S.), 1879, Cyprus as I Saw It in 1879,

London.

CESNOLA (L.P. di), 1877, Cyprus, its Ancient Cities, Tombs and Temples, London.

COBHAM (C.D.), 1908, Excerpta Cypria, , Cambridge.

ELVIN (R.), 1940, “The Story of the Suez Canal

‘Jugular Artery’ of the British Empire”, The vol. X, 11/1939 –

4/1940, p. 302-313.

EMERICK (K.), 2014,

and Inclusion, Woodbridge.

EMPEREUR (J.-Y.), 1995, “Le Port hellénistique

d’Amathonte”, in V. Karageorghis, D.

Michaelides (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium “Cyprus and the Sea”, Nicosia, p. 131-137.

ENLART (C.), 1987, Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus, London (translated

from the French edition, 1899).

FYLER (A.E.), 1889, The Development of Cyprus, London.

GEORGHALLIDES (G.S.), 1979, A Political and

with a Survey of the Foundations of British Rule, Texts and Studies of the History of

Cyprus, no. 6, Cyprus Research Centre.

GUNNIS (R.), 1947,

,

London.

HILL (G.), LUKE (H.) ed., 1972,

Cyprus, vol. IV, Cambridge.

HOAK-DOERING (E.), 2012, “The Stones of the

Suez Canal: A Discourse of Absence and

Power in Cyprus and Egypt”, Journal of 14 (2), p.

199-228.

HOOCK (H.), 2007, “The British State and the

Anglo-French wars over antiquities, 1798 –

1858”, 50, p. 49-72.

JEFFERY (G., F.S.A.), 1918, A Description of the , Nicosia.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), 1988, Documenti inediti di Cipro Antica.Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue,

Venice.

KARBELL (Z.), 2003, Parting the Desert, the Creation of the Suez Canal, New York.

KINNEY (D.), 2006, “The Concept of Spolia”, in

C. Rudolph (ed.),

Europe, Oxford.


Canal, 1952b, “Notice Historique sur les

pierres du Canal de Suez”. Imp. C.C.S.

Available at: Archives Nationales du Monde

du Travail (ANMT 1995 060 1983).

VALETTE (J.), 1864, “Article #2, Compagnie

Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez,

Direction Générale des Travaux, Service des

Travaux, Exploitation de la Carrière du Mex,

Soumission de Marchandage’. Available at:

Archives Nationales du Monde du Travail

(ANMT 1995 060 4664).

192 CCEC 47, 2017

KOUROU (N.) ET AL., 2002, Limestone Statuettes of the Cypriote Type Found in the Aegean. Provenance Studies, Nicosia.

LESSEPS (F. de), 1878, Exposition Universelle

Lesseps sur le Canal de Suez, au palais de l’exposition, 6 juillet 1878, Paris.

LEWIS (E. A. M.), 1894, A Lady’s Impressions of Cyprus in 1893, London.

LUKE (H.), 1957, A Portrait and an Appreciation of Cyprus, London.

MERRILLEES (R.), 2003, The Tano Family and , Nicosia.

PAPACOSTAS (T.), 2007, “The History and

Architecture of the Monastery of Saint John

Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis, Cyprus”, in

T. Papacostas et al. (eds.), Dumbarton Oaks

Papers Vol. 61, Dumbarton Oaks, p. 25-156.

PILIDES (D.), 2009,

,

Nicosia.

PLAYFAIR (R. L.), 1890,

Islands, London.

RADFORD (M.), 2003, Railways of Cyprus,

Nicosia.

ROUS (S.), 2015, Conference paper, “The

Materiality of the Trace: Upcycled Marble

and the Memorial Functions of Athenian

Fortification Walls”, given at Cultures of

Stone: Interdisciplinary Research on the

Materiality of Stone, University College

Dublin, September 2015.

SEVERIS (R.), 2000, Traveling Artists in Cyprus 1700 – 1960, London.

SMITH (R.), 2010, “Sands of Time”,

. Available at: http://

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/09/

fraser-island/smith-text (Last Access: 4th

March 2018).

STAGER (L.), WALKER (A.), 1989, Idalion 2. American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus 1973-1980, Chicago.

STANLEY (H.M.), 2011,

Adventures in Amerian and Asia, vol. II, New

York.

STANLEY-PRICE (N.), 2001, “The Ottoman Law

on Antiquities (1874) and the founding of the

Cyprus Museum”, in Tatton-Brown 2001,

p. 267-275.

TATTON-BROWN (V.) ed., 2001, Cyprus in the 19th century AD: Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd

Colloquium, December 1998, Oxford.

VERRA (R.), 2011, The Suez Canal. Available at:

http://www.davidfeldman.com/2011/04/the-

suez-canal/ (Accessed 4th March 2018).

WILLIAMS (F.R.), 2002, Princess K’Gari’s Fraser Island, Brisbane.

WESTHOLM (A.), 1936, The Temples of Soli.

Roman Periods, Stockholm.

WOLSELEY (G.), CAVENDISH (A.) eds., 1991,

Cyprus 1878 The Journal of Sir Garnet Wolseley, Nicosia.

WRIGHT (G.R.H.), 2001, “Archaeology and

Islamic Law in Ottoman Cyprus”, in Tatton-

Brown 2001, p. 262-266.

YILDIZ (N.), 1996, “Aqueducts in Cyprus”,

Journal for Cypriot Studies, 2:2, p. 89-111.

YILDIZ (N.), 2009, “The Vakf Institution in

Cyprus”, in M. Michael et al., Ottoman

and Culture, Wiesbaden, p. 117-159.

YON (M.), 2002, “The Acropolis that never was.

A myth to be destroyed”, RDAC, p. 127-138.


TIBURCE COLONNA CECCALDI À CHYPRE (1866-1869)

I. LES ACTIVITÉS CONSULAIRES

Lucie BONATOAbstract. Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi (1832-1892) was the Consul of France in Larnaca from 1866 to 1869. The study of his correspondence shows that he was very active, not only reporting on the state of trade and navigation which was the essential task of the Consuls, but also protecting the French colony (people and business) as well as the Catholic Christians. Cyprus was rather calm during his stay, one of the main events being the promulgation of a very important law which allowed foreigners to become land owners in the Ottoman Empire (June 1867). He also denounced the Ottoman Governors and insisted on another point: France was losing its influence in favour of England.

IntroductionUne carrière diplomatique exemplaire

Tiburce, de son vrai nom Dominique Albert Edouard Colonna Ceccaldi (Blois 18 juillet 1832-Paris 8 décembre 1892) appartient à une famille corse originaire de Vescovato (au sud de Bastia) 1, qui s’est installée pour partie à Évisa (à mi-distance entre Ajaccio et Calvi) et pour partie à Calvi.

Licencié en droit, il entre dans la carrière 2 en juin 1854 en tant qu’attaché à la Direction des consulats et affaires commerciales. Devenu élève consul le 12 janvier 1859, il est attaché au consulat général d’Alexandrie (septembre 1859). Par la suite, il occupe diff!"#$%&'()&%#&'*'+,"-#.)$#'/0,$12#" 1860), Smyrne (octobre 1861), Beyrouth (janvier 1862), Djeddah (novembre 1864, où il devient consul de seconde classe) 3. En juin 1865, il obtient un congé de quatre mois, puis est affecté à Tauris (aujourd’hui Tabriz en Iran) – poste qu’il n’a pas occup!'4 –, avant d’3%"#'$)44!'5'6,"$,-,'.#'78'&#(%#49"#':8;<=

1. >et de Cécile Charlotte Virginie Brousse, épousée en 1831.

2. Carrière reconstituée à partir de son dossier personnel aux Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères.

3. Il ne semble pas avoir occupé le poste, car de janvier à mars 1865 il est chargé de l’intérim du Consulat général de Beyrouth.

4. La nomination le trouve dans un établissement de bains, il demande alors une prolongation de son congé et une autre affectation pour raisons de santé.

194 CCEC 47, 2017

Il arrive à Chypre le 22 janvier 1866 et prend son service le lendemain 5. Comme il est de coutume, il se rend avec la nation française 6 à l’!?.2&#'(,")2&&2,.#'()@"' .#'Te Deum d’usage, reçoit la visite des autorités locales et des collègues, les félicitations du gouverneur, Taib Pacha, et les compliments de bienvenue de l’archevêque de Nicosie,

cause de maladie de l’estomac et des reins, ainsi que pour ses affaires de famille 7. Il obtient un congé de trois mois. Il quitte Larnaca le 1er'0@2..#%A'.,'?!",$-#'!%,$%'"#42&#',@'B")?4,$C-D,$-#.2#"'E@&%,1#'6,FF)$ 8, et la chancellerie à Désiré Michel 9. N’!%,$%'(,&'"#42&A'2.'B#4,$B#'@$#'(").)$?,%2)$'B#'&)$'-)$?!'B#'%")2&'4)2&, qui lui est accordée. Il reprend son service le 1er mars 1869, mais seulement pour quelques mois, et il quitte définitivement Larnaca fin décembre 1869.

Après son départ de Larnaca, Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi est détaché à l’ambassade de

combattre lors de la guerre franco-allemande (juillet 1870-janvier 1871). Par la suite, il

décrets de nomination s’enchaînent : d!.!?@!

5. CCC L22, 23 janvier 1866, n° 1, f. 264.

6. Voir infra.

7. Cette période semble coïncider avec les démarches qu’il entreprit pour récupérer un titre de

affectueuse de Cecco, diminutif de nombre de familles portaient le patronyme Ceccaldi. Aux XV

e-XVIe siècles, époque où la famille

Colonna était une des plus importantes d’Italie, un certain nombre de familles corses ont proclamé que, sous Charlemagne, un certain Ugo Colonna était venu en Corse et qu’elles descendaient de lui. Elles ont donc ajouté Colonna à leur nom (Colonna Ceccaldi, mais aussi Colonna d’Istria, Colonna d’Ornano, Colonna de Giovellina, etc.). Le titre nobiliaire accordé en 1772 par Louis XV à une autre

en déshérence. Toutefois Tiburce, comme son frère Georges, ne portaient à leur naissance que le patronyme Ceccaldi. Il a donc réuni nombre de documents prouvant que le patronyme Colonna était souvent omis en Corse et devait être ajouté. Son acte de naissance fut corrigé par un acte du

Tiburce, le prénom qu’il s’était choisi, ce qui lui a été refusé). Son frère Georges a fait de même : un acte du greffe de la Seine du 27 janvier 1869 ordonne de corriger l’acte de naissance de Georges Alphonse du 29 janvier 1840, en ajoutant Colonna à son patronyme. Le titre de comte lui fut restitué en 1871. Je tiens ici à remercier mon ami Michel Colonna Ceccaldi pour les informations qu’il m’a fournies sur sa famille.

8. Nicosie), remplaça Colonna Ceccaldi, puis lui succéda en 1869. Pour une biographie : Milliex 1973.

9. G!&2"!'H@?I$#'J2-D#.' /:8:7C:88:KA'#$%"!'#$'F)$-%2)$' .#'L:'4,"&':8<:A'!%,2%'-)442&'B#' .,'-D,$-#..#"2#='>.',1,2%'#M#"-!'(.@&2#@"&'F)2&'.#&'F)$-%2)$&'B#'-D,$-#.2#"'&@9&%2%@!'#$':8;7'/NNN'67:A'.#%%"#'BOPB)@,"B'G@'Q)@"A':R'S9"#':8;:A'F='LTRCLT:'U'+)$,%)A'H4#"V'7R:RA'(='8<K='

L. BONATO, T. COLONNA CECCALDI À CHYPRE, I 195

(1879-1880) de la Commission européenne chargée de la délimitation du Monténégro 10, ministre plénipotentiaire de seconde classe (janvier 1880), membre du Comité du Contentieux au ministère des Affaires étrangères (avril 1880), conseiller d’P%,%'#$ service ordinaire (mai 1880), membre de la Commission de la Juridiction consulaire (novembre 1880). Enfin, par décret du 1er novembre 1886, il est nommé ministre plénipotentiaire hors cadres,'B!.!?@!'B@'G!(,"%#4#$%'B#&'WFF,2"#&'!%",$?I"#&'5' .,'N)442&&2)$'F",$-)C#&(,?$).#'B’!%@B#&'B#&'(")0#%&'B#'1)2#&'F#""!#&'5'%",1#"&'.#&'XV"!$!#&='6e 20 juillet 1887 il est nommé ministre plénipotentiaire de première classe hors cadres, avant de faire valoir sa retraite le 1er'$)1#49"#':88Y=

Mais un penchant pour la carrière militaire

Tout au moins était-ce son objectif avant d’entrer aux Affaires étrangères, et il avouait

qui s’y rattachent'Z 11. Nous ignorons pourquoi il en abandonna l’idée. Il était officier supérieur de l’armée territoriale 12 et, pendant la guerre de 1870-1871, par décret du 26 septembre 1870, il fut nommé major général des Gardes nationales de la Seine mobilisées pendant le siège de Paris, et promu par décret du 3 novembre suivant lieutenant-colonel, sous-chef d’P%,%C4,0)"'?!$!",.'B#&'434#&=

S’il ne suivit pas son penchant pour les armes, il est cependant l’auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur le sujet :

- « Quelques considérations sur la campagne active d’Orient (avril-septembre 1854) », Le Spectateur militaire (1866) – signé T.C.C. 13'U

10. sous la protection des grandes puissances occidentales et un système permanent de gestion multilatérale avait été instauré. Lors des crises les plus graves, des congrès diplomatiques étaient convoqués, prolongés par des commissions internationales regroupant les délégués de chacune des six grandes puissances et, éventuellement, des représentants des parties intéressées. Après la crise d’Orient de 1875 (rébellion de provinces slaves ayant dégénéré en guerre russo-turque en 1877-1878), un congrès des grandes puissances européennes décida d’une recomposition de la « Turquie d’Europe », qui vit émerger des petits États non viables et va-t-en-guerre. La commission européenne chargée de la délimitation du Monténégro est l’une des grandes phases de négociations internationales du XIX

e siècle.

11. CCC L22, Larnaca, 12 juin 1866 (non numéroté), f. 279.

12. assez entraînés pour rejoindre les régiments de première ligne.

13. Une copie non foliotée est conservée dans les archives. Dans la lettre d’accompagnement (cf. supra note 11), il demande l’autorisation de signer l’article de son nom (seules ses initiales T.C.C. sont mentionnées), mais le Département ne l’y autorise pas : « dans l’éventualité d’une controverse sur des faits pour l’appréciation desquels votre compétence pourrait être contestée » (CCC L22, Paris, 9 juillet 1866 n° 62, f. 281).

196 CCEC 47, 2017

- Lettres militaires du Siège : avec un appendice contenant le tableau des régiments et bataillons de guerre de la Garde nationale parisienne et le dispositif de la bataille de Buzenval (Paris, 1872), d’abord publiées dans le Temps pendant le siège ;

- Lettres diplomatiques : coup d’œil sur l’Europe au lendemain de la guerre (Paris, 1872).

Et la prise de Chypre…[.#' B,$&'

.#' -,&' \' B’!1#$%@,.2%!&' $)$' 2""!,.2&,9.#&' Z'14. Sans surprise, il note et décrit de façon

Nicosie. Il souligne que l’armement est constitué de vieilles pièces de la République '*'\'N’est plutôt un musée qu’un

armement'Z'15

remarquables, pourrait être prise très facilement : \'2.'&@FF2",2%'B’y pénétrer avec un aviso et de briser à coups d’obus la grande porte qui, du port, donne accès dans la ville, pour se

Surtout, après quelques travaux de désensablement et de creusement du port et la construction d’une jetée, la cité pourrait accueillir les navires de guerre'16. Et il va même jusqu’5'proposer un plan plus général pour la prise de Chypre (!)

\']^_'H$1)V#"'5'.’improviste un vaisseau de ligne devant Larnaca, déposer à la nuit sur la plage, à quelque distance de la ville, 400 matelots (1) des compagnies de débarquement qui, dirigées de suite sur Nicosie, en surprendraient aisément les portes au joint du jour. Il n’y a que 8 heures de la mer à la capitale (chemin de plaine aisé). Dans la même matinée, à Larnaca, quelques chaloupes armées en guerre, se rendraient maîtres du petit fort. Le même jour, un aviso pénétrant

l’Ile serait conquise et, probablement sans tirer un coup de fusil. Limassol et Cérinia n’ont

Quant aux sentimens avec lesquels une occupation de ce genre serait accueillie, voici ce que je puis dire : La population, et j’entends les Turcs comme les Grecs (2), saluera avec bonheur tout changement qui lui donnera un gouvernement honnête, une administration régulière et l’emploi dans le pays des impôts prélevés sur le pays, ou du moins de leur plus grande partie. ____________

(1) Je mets 400 hommes, non pour avoir raison de la résistance, mais pour maintenir l’ordre, la ville une fois occupée.

(2) Les Turcs nullement belliqueux sont au nombre de 30 à 40 000 ; les Grecs parfaitement pacifiques, »

L’Angleterre n’eut pas 5'en arriver à de telles extrémités pour obtenir l’administration de Chypre quelque dix ans plus tard, en 1878...

14. CPC TL2, 10 mai 1867, annexe à la dépêche n° 10, f. 125-130.

15. Signalons que l’architecte Edmond Duthoit avait été chargé en 1865 par le Grand Maître de l’Artillerie (Halil Pacha) d’un rapport sur les anciennes pièces de Chypre susceptibles d’être

16.


La correspondance consulaire de Tiburce Colonna CeccaldiLa correspondance consulaire de Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi est conservée dans les

archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères à La Courneuve pour les lettres adressées au ministère à Paris'17 (elle comporte en outre les brouillons des lettres entre Paris et Larnaca) et à Nantes'18 pour celles envoyées à l’ambassade de Constantinople (ainsi que les brouillons de réponse). Cette correspondance comprend les habituelles missives relatives aux missions dévolues aux consuls'19'*d’informations, protection des nationaux et des chrétiens.

La Représentation du gouvernement français et les questions d’!"#$%&""&'(Le consul représentant son gouvernement auprès des autorités locales se doit de faire

respecter les règlements et usages de bienséance. Colonna Ceccaldi eut à rapporter trois incidents pour lesquels il demanda réparation.

Refus de salut du pavillon français'20

En 1866, le commandant en chef de la Division du Levant, le contre-amiral Simon, souhaitant célébrer la fête de l’Empereur à Larnaca, Colonna Ceccaldi avise le Gouverneur

d’usage soit rendu. Mais une demi-heure avant midi, on lui fait savoir que des ordres venus de Nicosie lui interdisent de tirer les vingt-et-un coups de canon, si bien qu’aucun salut ne fut rendu à celui de la frégate… Le gouverneur, sollicité, ne fit qu’une réponse

rendu que s’il s’!%,2%'%")@1!'&@"'",B#'@$'$,12"#'B#'?@#""#')%%)4,$'Z='N).)$$,'N#--,ldi demanda une punition sévère. Nous ne savons pas s’il l’obtint, la réponse de l’Ambassade n’!%,$%'pas conservée dans les archives.

La première visite officielle des consuls'21

Un différend s’est élevé entre Colonna Ceccaldi et le nouveau caïmakam de Larnaca, Muntaz (ou Mumtaz) Effendi, chacun prétendant recevoir de l’autre la première visite. Mécontent de l’attitude de ce fonctionnaire subalterne, le consul demande l’intervention

17. Pour Paris, elles sont réparties entre la Correspondance Commerciale et Consulaire, Larnaca 22 (abrégée ici CCC L22) folios 264-441 et la Correspondance Politique du Consul, Turquie, Larnaca 2 (abrégée ici CPC TL2), folios 74-199.

18.

et est datée du 23 janvier 1866, la dernière le numéro 61 et est datée du 9 juin 1869.

19. Les dépêches et rapports se répartissent comme suit : CCC L22 : 1866 : 1 à 12 ; 1867 : 14 à 27 ; 1868 : 28 à 46 [43 à 46 : Laffon] ; 1869 : 47 à 53 [47 et 48 : Laffon]). CPC TL2 : 1866 : 1 à

38 à 53 [43b à 53 : Laffon] ; 1869 : 54 à 61 [54 et 55 : Laffon]). Elles se trouvent souvent en deux, voire trois exemplaires, à la fois à Paris (CCC et CPC) et à Nantes.

20.

21.

198 CCEC 47, 2017

de l’ambassade auprès de la Porte, pour que « toutes choses soient remises en place ». Il est conforté dans sa réclamation par la réponse qu’il obtient à laquelle est jointe la copie d’une lettre vizirielle adressée au gouverneur général des Îles de la Méditerranée 22()(\']^_'.#'caïmakam de Larnaca étant un agent secondaire, placé sous les ordres du Gouverneur

général, il doit, le premier faire la visite qui, d’ailleurs, lui sera rendue aussitôt et en personne, par le consul. Toutefois aux fêtes nationales, telles que celles de la naissance et de l’avènement du Sultan, le consul se rendra naturellement en premier chez le caïmacam pour faire ses félicitations officielles. Cette visite lui sera rendue, de même, en personne, par le caïmacam. Aux fêtes des souverains étrangers, le caïmacam, au contraire, fera le premier la visite qui sera rendue ensuite par le consul. »

Cet incident, qui entraîna l’intervention de l’ambassade auprès de la Porte et l’!42&&2)$'B’une lettre vizirielle, prouve combien les questions d’!%2`@#%%#')$%'@$#'?",$B#'24()"%,$%#'#$'a"2#$%=Le portrait de l’Empereur piétiné 23

Le consul rapporte un incident qui eut de nombreux témoins et fut consigné dans un mazbata transmis par l’agent consulaire de Limassol : le directeur de la Douane de Limassol, visitant une maison, s’avisa qu’un portrait de Napoléon III était accroché au mur d’une chambre. Il « l’avait arraché, jeté à terre et brisé, en proférant d’injurieuses paroles ». Colonna Ceccaldi porte plainte auprès du Gouverneur, mais celui-ci répugne 5'(@$2"'&)$ subordonné et essaye de faire appel à ses bons sentiments : c’est \'@$'(,@1"#'B2,9.#A s’il venait à perdre son emploi, sa nombreuse famille serait réduite à la misère'Z. Il tient bon, ne voulant pas se contenter d’excuses et insiste pour une destitution, ce qu’il obtient finalement. Magnanime, il ajoute'*'\'b#'4#'"!&#"1#A',@'9)@%'B#'`@#.`@#'%#4&'#%'&2'.#'F)$-%2)$$,2"#'B#&%2%@!'12#$%'#$'(#"&)$$#'&)..2-2%#"'&)$'(,"B)$A'4,2&'&#@.#4#$%',.)"&A'B#'.#'"#-)44,$B#"',@M'&#$%24#$&'B’humanité dont Saïd Pacha faisait étalage dans notre discussion ».

La transmission d’informationsLes consulats ayant été rattachés à la Marine jusqu’5' .,'c!1).ution, l’un des rôles

grande partie de leurs attributions consiste à transmettre les états annuels du commerce et de la navigation. Notons que le Ministère ne semblait pas être satisfait des informations relevées par Colonna Ceccaldi : en 1867, il lui est demandé de leur donner davantage de consistance à l’avenir 24. Par la suite, il rédigea un rapport sur la situation de Chypre,

22.

23.

24. \']===_'0#'$O,2'(@'`@#'-)$&%,%#"',1#-'"#?"#%'.#'(#@'BO,-%212%!'Z'/NNN'Q677A'X,"2&A'77',)d%':8;YA'$e';fA'F='LLRK= Par la suite, il lui sera demandé de relier ses « renseignements à l’étude des questions politiques qui, à Chypre comme dans les autres parties de l’Empire, ont un lien étroit avec les ques-tions commerciales et économiques comme la composition de la population, les revenus et impôts, le fonctionnement de l’administration » (CCC TL22, Paris, 20 février 1868, n° 71, f. 364).


comme l’ont fait certains de ses prédécesseurs 25. Il transmit également deux autres rapports circonstanciés, l’un sur les nouvelles lois relatives à la propriété foncière dans l’Empire ottoman, l’autre sur l’!tat de l’agriculture de l’[.#, plus précisément sur les céréales et le coton 26. Les consuls transmettent également nombre d’informations relatives à leur résidence : prise de service 27, colonie française 28 et personnel du consulat et des agences consulaires, représentation des nations européennes 29, accusés de réception des arrêtés rendus par la cour impériale d’Aix qui sont affichés dans la Chancellerie, arrivée des gouverneurs, des autres fonctionnaires de l’administration ottomane, de personnages importants 30, des navires français 31 et étrangers 32.

La colonie et la nation françaises La colonie comprend tous les ressortissants français, qui sont les plus nombreux dans

l’[.#='Hn juillet 1863, le prédécesseur de Colonna Ceccaldi, Louis Dumesnil de Maricourt, en donnait la composition': 27 hommes (16 célibataires, 9 mariés, 2 veufs), 28 femmes (12 célibataires, 11 mariées, 5 veuves), 8 enfants de sexe masculin et 15 de sexe féminin, soit 55 adultes et 23 enfants 33. Quant à la nation, c’est une assemblée regroupant les citoyens

25. consul à Chypre de 1840 à 1845 (voir Bonato 2000b).

26. 1-29 et 6 février 1868, f. 350-363.

27. CCC L22, 23 janvier 1866, n° 1, f. 264.

28. Voir infra.

29. Il signale que l’Italie vient de transformer son vice-consulat en consulat. Il n’en voit pas l’utilité si ce n’est l’instauration d’un tribunal consulaire à Larnaca puisque la colonie italienne est en « grande décadence [...] On ne trouverait pas aujourd’hui dans son sein un seul individu né dans la Péninsule. Quant aux maisons de commerce italiennes, il n’y en a pas deux sérieuses dans l’Ile » (CCC L22, 26 avril 1868, n° 39, f. 377).

30. Ainsi, l’arrivée de Mgr Valerga, Patriarche latin de Jérusalem, le 29 octobre 1866 sur le Prométhée mis à disposition par le contre-amiral Simon (CPC TL2, 10 novembre 1866, n° 9, f.

1867, n° 15bis, f. 152). Également : arrivée par le Lloyds d’une dizaine de personnages politiques compromis dans des complots ; ils seront internés à Nicosie pour 10 ans. Les plus importants : « Nourri-bey, second introducteur des Ambassadeurs ; Uzmi bey, ancien haut fonctionnaire en

31. Ainsi l’arrivée du commandant de Verneuil sur le Roland le 6 décembre (CPC TL2,

commandant en chef de la station navale du Levant, sur la Thémis le 30 juillet 1868 (CCC L22,

32. Ainsi l’arrivée d’une corvette cuirassée anglaise, Enterprise, d’une corvette turque à hélice, le Liban

33. Louis Dumesnil de Maricourt fut consul de 1862 à 1865, voir : Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 86 (CCC L22, 20 juillet 1863, n° 25, f. 133-134).

200 CCEC 47, 2017

!-D#..#A'essentiellement les marchands, chirurgiens et médecins, commis, artisans ainsi que ceux engagés dans la mise en valeur des terres. C’est une assemblée chargée, entre autres, d’!%@B2#"' .#&'4)V#$&'B#'"#$Bre le commerce national le plus avantageux possible. La composition de la colonie et de la nation ne figure pas dans les archives de Colonna Ceccaldi. Toutefois, il mentionne que la nation est \'#$'(.#2$#'B!-,B#$-#'Z, c’est du moins son impression amère': elle ne « comporte plus qu’un ou deux commissionnaires, quelques employés et petits marchands, et deux ou trois agriculteurs, les autres sont en proie aux expédients, ont leurs terres hypothéquées ou sont à la veille de les vendre'Z 34. Parmi les agriculteurs, sans doute pouvons-nous reconnaître le plus important, Georges Lapierre 35, ainsi que Claude Gayetti et Georges Bernard 36 qui est l’un de ceux qui désirent vendre leurs terres. g cette époque, en 1868, quelques représentants importants de la nation n’en font plus partie : Sosthène Grasset 37, exploitant agricole, a quitté Chypre, et Paul Tardieu 38, le principal commerçant, s’est suicidé.

La représentation consulaire de la France et les employés privilégiésAfin que les employés privilégiés (qui ne sont pas de nationalité française) des

consulats, des couvents et agences consulaires puissent réclamer les privilèges qui sont

34. CCC L22, 23 mars 1868, n ° 35, f. 370.

hectares dont seule une partie était cultivée en coton et céréales par manque de bras (CCC L22, 10 mai 1867, n° 15, f. 293). Sur ce personnage : Lapierre 2008.

36. Voir infra. Claude Gayetti était le père de Marius Gayetti, élève interprète du consulat de

37. Sosthène Grasset, arrivé à Chypre probablement vers 1856, joua un rôle non négligeable dans la genèse de la première mission archéologique française à Chypre (Bonato 2002). Son rôle n’ayant pas été reconnu et la fortune dont il jouissait arrivant à son terme, il se lança dans la culture du coton qui connaissait un développement remarquable après la guerre de Sécession (voir infra) sur une propriété sise à Ayios Serghios près de Salamine. Il quitta Chypre, sans doute en 1867, après avoir eu des démêlés avec la justice : il fut accusé d’avoir rossé un Ionien protégé anglais (Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 193-194) et voir infra l’affaire Grasset/Bargigli.

38. La famille Tardieu était originaire de Marseille. En 1832, le consul Alphonse Bottu note que « Jques Tardieu & Cie est la seule [maison de négoce cautionnée] qui s’occupe d’importations, et elle le fait en grand et d’une manière satisfaisante, ayant des facteurs sur toute la côte de Syrie et à Tartous ; ses opérations sont très étendues et lui assurent une prospérité et des succès qu’il serait

6 avril 1832, n° 18, f. 46). La même année, Jacques Tardieu liquida sa maison. Il s’associa avec son jeune frère, Paul (1811-1868), pour fonder la maison « Tardieu frères & Cie'Z'/ibid. 19 avril 1832, f. 53v). Paul Tardieu était un des principaux négociants français de Larnaca. Il jouissait d’une excellente réputation et fut élu à plusieurs reprises député de la Nation. Il était, entre autres, engagé dans le commerce des peaux et passementerie, et du coton. Ses affaires furent longtemps prospères, mais dans les années 1860 il subit des pertes considérables, le prix des cotons baissant continuellement, et fut acculé au suicide dans la nuit du 22 au 23 janvier 1868 (CCC L22, 28 janvier 1868, n°31, f. 343).


attachés à leur fonction, le règlement relatif aux consulats étrangers dans l’Empire prévoit que le consul en dresse la liste qui est transmise respectivement à l’ambassade, puis à la Sublime Porte pour approbation, enfin au gouverneur de Chypre 39. Nous n’avons pas connaissance de la liste envoyée par Colonna Ceccaldi'U toutefois les archives conservent celle qu’a dressée en juillet 1865 son prédécesseur, Louis Dumesnil de Maricourt 40. En 1866, il s’est avéré que cette liste comportait des erreurs, en particulier elle ne mentionnait pas Michael Chacally, le plus important négociant de Nicosie, drogman (ou drogman

au moment où la liste a été dressée 41. Larnaca - Consulat / Drogmans : Jean Cirilli (drogman auxiliaire, secrétaire du consul ; reconnu et

subventionné par le Département des Affaires étrangères. Vingt-deux ans de service) ; 42

Emir Ali, Akmet, Ali Moustapha, Djezaer.- Couvent de Terre sainte / Drogman : Petri Prenz ; Procureur : Elie Prenz.- Couvent des Sœurs de Saint-Joseph / Drogman : Elie Cirilli ; Procureur : Hadji Toïli.

Nicosie - Agence consulaire / Agent : Adolphe Laffon ; Drogmans : Élie (Elias) Nassri, Sofocle

Nicolaides (qu’il faut lire : Drogmans règlementaires : Chacally, Sophocli Lysandridis ; Drogman supplémentaire : Mikail Nassri) ; Cavas : Akmet Laptali, Akmet Djezar (Djezaer), vieux drogman, protégé temporaire : Hadji Jeronimo.

- Couvent de Terre sainte

Limassol- Agence consulaire / Agent : G. Acamas43 / Drogman : Theodori Moridi44 ; Cavas : Ismaïl.- Couvent de Terre Sainte

39. Le nombre de protégés est déterminé par le règlement consulaire de 1863 qui prévoit, en fonction de l’importance de la représentation : « les consuls généraux et les consuls des chefs-lieux de province ont le droit d’avoir quatre drogmans et quatre yassakdjis (yasak = interdit en turc, yasakdji étant celui qui exerce une fonction d’interdire ; le terme désigne les gardes accompagnant les consuls et ambassadeurs et ouvrant aussi la voie aux grands personnages) qui jouissent de leur protection ; les consuls dépendant des consuls généraux, trois drogmans et trois yassakdjis' U' .#&'12-#C-)$&@.&')@',?#$%&'-)$&@.,2"#&A'B#@M'B")?4,$&'#%'B#@M'yassakdjis » (Rey 1899, p. 288). On comprend que les gouverneurs voyaient d’un mauvais œil les protégés échapper à leur juridiction.

nation française. Il arrivait même que les gouverneurs demandent de rayer certains protégés de la liste comme étant « inutiles ».

40.

41.

42.

43. gouvernement français. « C’est un homme plein de bonnes qualités, parfaitement posé dans le monde de Limassol, et j’ai eu l’occasion de me convaincre des sentimens de reconnaissance qui

f. 289).

44. Il semble avoir été remplacé par Nicolas Rossidi qui, lui-même, fut remplacé par Trifon

202 CCEC 47, 2017

Colonna Ceccaldi demande que Chacally soit reconnu comme 3e drogman de l’agence de Nicosie. Toutefois, le nombre de drogmans !%,$% fixé à deux, alors que trois existent déjà sur la liste (qui manifestement est fausse), il propose d’appliquer les articles 1 et 2 du' "I?.#4#$%' B#' :8;L'()"%,$%' `@#,' \' &2' .#' $)49"#' règlementaire des employés privilégiés n’!%,2%'(,&'&@FF2&,$%A'.#&'-)$&@.,%&',@")$%'5 s’adresser à leurs représentants à Constantinople qui s’en entendront avec la Sublime Porte'Z='N#'`@2'F@%'F,2%='6’ambassade reçut une réponse positive à sa demande et une lettre vizirielle fut envoyée afin de continuer à protéger Chacally en raison de ses anciens services 45.

qu’en 1865 Maricourt ne demande au ministre Pdouard Drouyn de Lhuys l’autorisation d’en ouvrir une dans ce lieu, avec pour agent Sosthène Grasset 46 qui exploitait des terres dans les environs. Grasset reçu son brevet en mai 1865 47 et, en 1867, Colonna Ceccaldi

'Z 48. Concernant

par Hadji Nicolas Manzoura à la demande de « notre agent'Z 49A'`@2'$’!%,2%'(,&'E",&&#%, puisqu’il avait alors quitté Chypre.

et turcs, en tant que drogmans, cavas ou procureurs. Mais elle pouvait également avoir à son service des Européens, comme le docteur Giacinto Mantovani, agent consulaire de Limassol, de nationalité italienne en 1862 50.

La situation de l’!"#$%#$&'()*#Administrativement, Chypre est une province indépendante de l’Empire ottoman,

rattachée directement à Constantinople lorsque Colonna Ceccaldi prend ses fonctions en 1866. En avril 1868, une nouvelle organisation la fait dépendre du gouvernement général du Vilayet des hles de l’Archipel dont le siège est aux Dardanelles 51. Pour Colonna Ceccaldi, ceci ne peut être que néfaste, car la distance est bien trop grande entre Chypre et les Dardanelles.

45.

46. 2010, p. 86. Sur Grasset : supra, note 37.

47.

48.

49.

50. Personnage mentionné par Edmond Duthoit (Bonato, Dondin-Payre 2017, p. 201).

51. Chypre a changé à plusieurs reprises de statut. En 1861, elle constituait un indépendant rattaché directement à la Porte. Le vilayet des îles de l’Archipel était constitué des îles de la partie est de la mer Égée et des Dardanelles. Chypre y fut alors rattachée, divisée en cinq districts, et dépendit directement des Dardanelles.


Le rapport sur l’[.#'`@#'.#'-)$&@.'#$1)2#'#$':8;Y'52, ainsi que les informations qu’il donne tout au long de sa correspondance montrent que la situation de Chypre n’est guère florissante et n’a que très peu évolué depuis des décennies, si on la compare avec celle

'53. Il y règne désordre, improbité, insouciance et incurie. Les paysans sont misérables, écrasés par les impi%&A'beaucoup émigrent, ce qui aggrave la situation de ceux qui restent, puisque la fiscalité est perçue sur un nombre de plus en plus restreint de contribuables. Quant à la position de la

plusieurs reprises son prédécesseur, Louis de Maricourt'54.Colonna Ceccaldi pense que l’on connaît peu Chypre, aussi commence-t-il par

louer sa situation de premier ordre en Méditerranée orientale, puis par donner quelques informations sur la population (220'000 chrétiens, 40'000 Turcs) et son agriculture qui englobe les cultures les plus variées (coton, soie, céréales, graines oléagineuses, alizaris,

Le consul insiste surtout sur le fait que Chypre est une véritable mine d’or pour le Trésor du Sultan puisqu’elle abandonne chaque année le revenu des salines, des douanes, la dîme des produits agricoles, l’impôt du mîri'55, l’impôt de capitation des non-musulmans'56, les impôts divers sur la soie, le tabac, les vins et les eaux-de-vie, les moutons, le droit d’enregistrement, etc., soit un total de 19'700'000 piastres qu’il faut arrondir à 22'000'000, car le gouvernement trouve toujours le moyen de lever de nouveaux impôts. De ce montant il faut déduire les frais d’administration (gouverneur, fonctionnaires, services financiers, police, service sanitaire, force armée) qui s’!.I1#$%'5'(#@'("I&'5'7'RRR'RRR'B#'(2,&%"#&A'%)@%'#$'&,-D,$%'`@#'.,'0@&%2-#'$’est pas financée par Constantinople, puisque les juges achètent leur charge. Malgré l’importance de cette somme, l’administration reste insuffisante, que ce soit la police et les autres agents dont les « mœurs sont souvent plus que douteuses ». Le gouvernement turc ne se préoccupe nullement de l’[.#, puisqu’il n’engage pas plus de dépenses pour la population que pour les services publics, l’instruction publique, la mise en valeur des terres (en particulier l’irrigation)'57, les forêts (qui sont déboisées en dépit du bon sens à cause des machines à coton). De plus, les infrastructures sont inexistantes (pas de routes, pas de véritables ports, pas de môle ni de débarcadère à Larnaca et Limassol) ; quant à l’hygiI$#A' ,@-@$#' 4#&@"#' $’est prise, les rues de Larnaca sont un véritable

52. $e'::A'F='LRYCL7<K=

53.

54. Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 208.

55. Sorte d’impôt foncier payé par les chrétiens pour pouvoir cultiver la terre du Grand Seigneur, correspondant à la taxe de tenure payée par les musulmans qui pratiquent l’agriculture.

56. Cet impôt, le plus souvent appelé Kharâdj à Chypre, garantit la protection du Sultan, la pratique de la religion et des coutumes, ainsi que l’exemption du service militaire.

57. CCC L22, 10 mai 1867, n° 15, f. 295.

204 CCEC 47, 2017

cloaque. Et Colonna Ceccaldi de conclure : « Le gouvernement turc se conduit comme un voleur de grand chemin » [f. 315]…

Après l’exposé de cette situation désastreuse, le consul propose un remède : soustraire Chypre à l’administration de Constantinople : \'b#'(#$&#'B)$-'`@’il faudrait constituer l’autonomie administrative de l’hle de Chypre, sous la garantie des puissances, avec un Règlement analogue à celui qui régit le Liban » [f. 321].

Il explique ensuite ce qu’il conviendrait de mettre en œuvre : 1. R!(,"%2"'!`@2%,9.#4#$%'.#&'24(i%&'#$%"#'N)$&%,$%2$)(.#'/.#'(")B@2%'B#&'&,.2$#&A'.#'"#1#$@'B#&'G)@,$#&A'.’impôt de capitation) et l’[.#'/B[4es, mîri, impôts divers), ceux-ci serviraient aux services publics ainsi qu’5 l’armée et la justice ; 2. Réformer les tribunaux ; 3. Réaliser les infrastructures les plus urgentes (système d’irrigation, routes, ports) ; 4. Doter l’instruction publique ; 5. Enfin détruire les sauterelles, « le plus grand fléau du pays… après le Gouvernement Turc'Z']F='323]. Il termine en préconisant que ces mesures soient confiées à un homme nouveau, mais qu’il sera bien difficile de trouver en Turquie.

Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi se considère comme un « Agent consciencieux » [f. 307], il se doit de trouver une solution à la Question d’Orient, ni plus ni moins, qui pour lui se résume « dans l’autonomie progressive des populations de races diverses que renferme l’Empire ottoman » [f. 309]. Ce qu’il préconise est donc \'B#'rechercher les moyens de séparer sans secousse violente Chypre non de l’Empire Ottoman mais de l’administration de Constantinople et d’indiquer la possibilité d’y établir un état de choses normal, conforme à la fois aux intérêts généraux de l’Europe et aux besoins, aux droits légitimes du pays » [f. 325]. En cela il anticipait les événements de 1878 et la prise de l’administration de l’[.#'(,"'.#&'W$?.,2&, mais sans toutefois en imaginer les conséquences.

Portraits de gouverneursTout au long de sa correspondance, le consul dresse le portrait des personnalités

avec lesquelles il est en contact. Il ne s’!%#$B'(,&'&@"'.#&'NDV("2)%#&'?"#-&A'%)@%',@'(.@&'4#$%2)$$#C%C2.' .’archevêque de Nicosie, Mgr Sophronios : « Homme jeune encore, il paraît intelligent. Il a été élevé dans la Grèce continentale'Z 58. Quant à la population, elle est « laborieuse et ne manque pas d’intelligence'Z 59, mais les paysans sont apathiques, indolents « pusillanimes'Z'/2.'("!-2&#'*'-)$%",2"#4#$%',@M'N"!%)2&KA'#%'2.&'$#'F)$%'`@#'&#'.,4#$%#"' &)@&' .#' 0)@?'B#&'a%%)4,$&')@'\'&#' &,@1#$%'5' .’!%",$?#"'()@"'!12%#"' .,'("2&)$'.)"&`@’ils ne peuvent acquitter leurs impositions' Z 60. En revanche, il ne tarde pas à comprendre dans quelle situation catastrophique est plongée Chypre et ne cesse de mettre en avant que l’administration est très mauvaise. Il signale \'les détestables dispositions que manifestent en toute occasion envers les Européens les principales autorités musulmanes de Chypre'Z 61. Leur attitude n’est pas davantage bienveillante envers les Chypriotes :

58. CCC L22, 1er

59. CCC L22, 10 mai 1867 n° 15, f. 295.

60. CCC L22, 14 octobre 1867, n° 11, f. 286 ; 6 février 1868, n° 34, f. 359.

61. CPC TL1, 2 octobre 1866, n° 6, f. 107.


« Que dire d’un Gouvernement qui enlève à une contrée, en impôt, à peu près tout ce

Traités qu’elle ne remplit, envers ses administrés, les devoirs les plus élémentaires d’un Gouvernement'Z 62. Il est surtout caustique envers le gouverneur et le mudir de Larnaca dont « l’ignorance entêtée, le mauvais vouloir compliquent toutes les affaires' Z 63. Au cours des mandats de Colonna Ceccaldi et Laffon, deux gouverneurs ont officié : Taib

Louis de Maricourt avait déjà dressé un portrait de Taïb Pacha, ancien Mütesarrif d’Orfa (sous-préfet d’PB#&&#K' ,""21!' 5' .,' F2$' B#' &)$' 4,$B,%A' B!9@%' $)1#49"#' :8;T='W("I&'@$#'("#42I"#'24("#&&2)$'F,1)",9.#A'2.'&’!%,2%'",12&!'*'-’est un piètre administrateur enfermé dans le sérail, qui laisse les autres régler les affaires, bref c’est un homme incapable et trivial 64. Le portrait dressé par Colonna Ceccaldi lors la traditionnelle visite au gouverneur 5 Nicosie (il s’agit de se faire reconnaître avec ses lettres d’accréditation) n’est guère plus flatteur, malgré les échanges de politesses et de compliments 65'*

Taib Pacha est ce qu’on appelle un Turc de la vieille école, arriéré, n’ayant eu jusqu’ici aucune relation avec les agens Européens, relégué qu’il était dans des postes de l’intérieur de l’Anatolie, antipathique à la civilisation et assez mal disposé pour les étrangers. […]

« Si Taib Pacha pliait sous l’ascendant du Gouvernement que je représente, il était plutôt disposé à éluder les questions et à opposer la force d’inertie et le mauvais vouloir à de justes réclamations, qu’à reconnaître franchement le droit. […]

« Le Pacha actuel paraît disposé à encourager toutes les tracasseries que les Musulmans du pays suscitent de tems à autre à ces possesseurs étrangers. »

g plusieurs reprises, il insiste sur le fait que Taïb Pacha n’est pas le gouverneur qu’il faut pour Chypre, qu’il n’est pas ouvert au progrès, ni habitué au contact des Occidentaux. Il en veut pour preuve une affaire concernant le cavas du consulat des États-Unis, Salik Tefsi, appelé par le service militaire 66. Le Gouverneur, ayant décrété qu’il n’est pas régulièrement protégé, le fait arrêter dans une boutique appartenant au drogman du consulat américain et emprisonner. À la suite de la réclamation du consul des États-Unis, Luigi Palma di Cesnola, une commission procède à une enquête qui lui donne satisfaction': le mudir de Larnaca est destitué, le cavas enlevé est libéré et 10.000 piastres d’indemnités sont accordées au drogman auxiliaire dont la maison a été le lieu l’arrestation. Le pavillon des États-Unis est salué de 21 coups de canons 67.

de son sérail, est rappelé après que l’[.#' eut changé de statut en 1868, une nouvelle

62. CCC L22, 14 octobre 1866, n° 11, f. 287.

63.

64. CCC L22, 20 mai 1865, n° 61, f. 227-227 ; Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 145-146.

65. CCC L22, 1er mai 1866, n° 6, f. 273-276.

66.

67.

206 CCEC 47, 2017

favorablement accueillie par les Chypriotes et les Européens qui imaginaient qu’il était 'Z 68. Il est

remplacé par Saïd Pacha, auparavant Gouverneur de l’[.#'B#'J!%#.2$'(#$B,$%'$#@F'4)2& 69, qui a pour mission l’introduction de \'plusieurs améliorations dans l’administration, et particulièrement celle d’achever la destruction des sauterelles' Z 70. Il paraît avoir une qualité aux yeux de Laffon, celle de parler français 71':\'j,kB'X,-D,'(,",[%'2$%#..2?#$%'#%',&&#l'92#$'2$%#$%2)$$!='H$'-#'4)4#$%A'&)@&'.’impulsion du

Gouverneur général des hles qui a pris la chose à cœur, il poursuit la réalisation des mesures prises en vue de la destruction des sauterelles. \' Le gouverneur parle et comprend bien le français. Successivement employé dans les

bureaux de la Porte, directeur des affaires politiques à Beyrouth, gouverneur de Mételin, il paraît avoir mis à profit pour son éducation politique le contact des idées et des hommes de l’Europe. »

Il émet cependant un doute quant à son aptitude 5 traiter les affaires, car le gouverneur préfère les régler par les voies habituelles : traduction, présentation devant le Conseil supérieur de l’[.#' `@’il préside, commissions et rapports, ce qui fait craindre que les lenteurs de la bureaucratie turque ne mènent à la résolution d’aucune affaire 72.

La première mesure de Saïd Pacha fut d’imposer une taxe en œufs de sauterelles 73'*'-D,`@#' -)$%"29@,9.#' B#1,2%' #$' recueillir un kilo. Ceux qui étaient dans l’impossibilité de le fournir devaient l’acheter à des spéculateurs. Le montant demandé, de 100 à 150 piastres, était particulièrement élevé pour des paysans très pauvres, et les vexations qu’ils eurent à supporter des préposés étaient « épouvantables », obligeant certains à émigrer :\'a$'.#&'0#%,2%'#$'("2&)$'(,"'B2l,2$#&A')$'.#&'#$'"#%2",2%'()@"'.#&'")@#"'.2%%!",.#4#$%'B#'-)@(&A'5'-#'()2$%A'`@’on assure, que deux ou trois personnes y ont succombé. On dit qu’un prêtre grec figure parmi les victimes. Quand ces moyens ne réussissaient pas, ce qui arrivait parfois, on avait d’autres ressources en réserve : on saisissait et l’on vendait, à n’importe quel prix, les ustensiles et les objets de ménage des villageois. »

Ces mesures ont permis de ramasser 25 000 kilos d’m@F&, assurant ainsi de bonnes récoltes. Pour autant, la destruction de la sauterelle absorbe entièrement le gouverneur qui n’apporte aucune attention aux autres réformes : « il n’a ni le temps ni le désir de veiller à autre chose. C’est dire que les affaires ne marchent pas du tout'Z. après une première impression plutôt favorable, Laffon estime que Saïd Pacha est « très anti-chrétien et très anti-européen » :

68.

69. Metellin : Mytilène (Lesbos).

70.

71. d’un drogman, était une préoccupation de la Porte (Aymes 2010, p. 277).

72. 10 avril 1869, n° 57.

73.


« Toutes les fois qu’il se trouve en présence d’un intérêt européen qu’il peut combattre ouvertement, il le fait avec un plaisir visible. Lorsqu’il ne peut agir ainsi, il recourt à la ruse ou à l’action du temps, arme favorite de sa race. Il laisse s’accumuler affaire sur affaire, lettre sur lettre sans rien faire et sans rien répondre. »

C’est surtout vis-à-vis des Hellènes que l’attitude de Saïd Pacha est la plus dure. Après l’insurrection crétoise (1866-1869), la Porte intima aux Hellènes l’ordre de quitter le sol de l’Empire dans les quinze jours avant de leur accorder un nouveau délai. Saïd Pacha n’en dit mot à Chypre, les forçant ainsi 5'`@2%%er l’[.#'("!-2(2%,44#$%='nuand la Porte accepta finalement qu’ils restassent sur le sol ottoman, « il voulut forcer les Hellènes à payer de prétendus impôts remontant à vingt-trois années de date et dont personne jusqu’alors n’avait entendu parler. » À la suite de cet excès de zèle, quelques consuls intervinrent pour faire remarquer au gouverneur que son attitude allait à l’encontre des ordres du Sultan, il annula les directives qu’il avait données et « l’affaire en resta là ».

Aucun des administrateurs envoyés par la Porte ne semble inspirer une grande confiance ni à Laffon ni à Colonna Ceccaldi. Ce dernier dresse toutefois deux portraits

gouverneur g!$!",.'B@'Vilayet des hles, qu’il a connu à Beyrouth en 1862 alors qu’il en était le gouverneur g!$!",.'U'5'.’occasion de sa visite dans l’[.#'#$',1"2.':8;8A'N).)$$,'N#--,.B2' .#' B!-"2%' -)44#' *' \' ===' un brave homme, très honnête, animé d’excellentes intentions'Z 74. Le second est mudir de Larnaca en 1867, jeune fonctionnaire assez fortuné originaire d’Alep dont Larnaca est le premier poste ; pour Colonna Ceccaldi, « il est plein de bonne volonté, honnête et rempli de tendances tolérantes et progressistes'Z 75.

Le commerce, l’agriculture et la navigationLes chiffres du commerce variant en fonction des récoltes et des navires qui touchent

Chypre, il faut tout d’abord examiner les informations relatives à l’agriculture et la navigation.

L’agricultureLes exportations de Chypre dépendent principalement de l’agriculture, aussi les

consuls donnent-ils régulièrement des informations sur les récoltes des principales productions (céréales, coton, soie) qui sont tributaires de deux phénomènes : les aléas climatiques et les sauterelles. L’intérêt de la correspondance de Colonna Ceccaldi sur ce sujet se trouve dans deux rapports sur les céréales et le coton, à la suite de visites qu’il entreprit dans la Messaorée. Le premier rapport montre le mode d’exploitation des

76'*« Le propriétaire cultive directement, avec ses serviteurs à gages et ses paires de bœufs, une

étendue de terrain proportionnée aux moyens dont il dispose. Pour le reste de ses terres, il s’associe aux paysans qui labourent avec leurs bœufs, sèment et moissonnent. La récolte

74.

75. CPC TL1, 9 décembre 1867, n° 15, f. 151.

76.

208 CCEC 47, 2017

faite et évaluée, on met d’abord de côté la dîme pour le Gouvernement, puis le reste est partagé par moitié entre le propriétaire et les paysans, ses associés. »

Le deuxième rapport s’attache davantage à l’agriculture elle-même et à aux procédés de culture, de moisson, de battage qui se révèlent bien archaïques 77.

La culture des céréalesL’orge est semé de septembre à novembre, la moisson se fait fin avril ; le blé est

semé d’octobre à janvier, la moisson se fait de mai à juin 78. Le procédé de culture est la jachère un an sur deux, l’assolement étant inconnu 79

deux fois, on la laisse se reposer jusqu’en septembre-octobre et on effectue un troisième labour avant de semer les céréales. Les paysans effectuent leur labour à l’aide non d’une charrue 80, mais d’un araire, dont le soc pointu pénètre dans la terre, mais ne la retourne pas. Pour ameublir la couche superficielle du sol, les paysans ne connaissent pas la herse, mais passent quelques fagots d’!(2$#&'&@"'.#&'&2..)$&'`@2'&)$%'#$&@2%#'$21#.!&',@'4)V#$'B’une planche en bois, traînée par des bœufs.

Les moissons se déroulent d’avril à juin, de manière primitive, à la faucille : les hommes coupent, les femmes ramassent et lient. Il existe seulement quatre ou cinq moissonneuses à Prastio 81. Les machines ne sont pas plus répandues, car on ignore comment les réparer en cas d’incident technique. Les céréales sont séchées sur le sol pendant quelques jours, puis mises en meules et laissées dans les champs (ce qui présente l’inconvénient de les exposer à pourrir en cas de pluies tardives).

Le battage a lieu dans chaque village qui possède une aire de terre battue très vaste appelée ,')o'-D,-@$'5'&)$'%)@"',(()"%#'&,'"!-).%#='p$#'F)2&'&@"'.#'&).A'.#&'-!"!,.#&'&)$%'9,%%@#&'?"q-#'5'un système rudimentaire : une paire de bœufs tire une planche dont la surface inférieure est incrustée de silex tranchants et sur laquelle un homme, plus souvent une femme; ou même un enfant, se met debout ou s’assied 82, comme l’illustre bien un dessin d’Edmond Duthoit 83, en mission archéologique à Chypre en 1862 (Fig.'1). L’aire est alors balayée, le grain et la paille (pour partie transformée en poussière car hachée trop

77. CCC L22, 6 février 1868, n° 34, f. 348-363.

78. Mai-juin est la période pendant laquelle apparaissent les sauterelles, les paysans préfèrent donc semer davantage d’orge que de blé.

79. Il peut y avoir deux récoltes sur un même terrain, une de coton puis une de céréales (la terre étant retournée entre les deux) mais ceci est exception. La moitié des terres est donc en jachère chaque année.

80. \' X,"' 2?$)",$-#A' (,"#&&#' #%' ")@%2$#' B#&' (,V&,$&' ZA' @$' #&&,2' B#' -D,""@#' G)49,&.#' F@%'2$F"@-%@#@M=' G,$&' .,' ("#42I"#'4)2%2!' B@' !"!e siècle, l’agronome lorrain Mathieu de Dombasle (1777-1843) conçut une nouvelle charrue perfectionnée qui se révéla être une innovation de première importance.

81.

82. C’est le tribulum – grec ( à Chypre) –, d’usage très répandu au Proche Orient et dans le monde méditerranéen depuis l’antiquité jusqu’au XX

e siècle.

83. Publié dans Bonato, Dondin-Payre 2017, p. 133.


finement) accumulés en tas. Le vannage se fait en faisant sauter le grain en l’air avec une grande pelle en bois, de préférence lorsqu’il y a du vent. C’est une opération défectueuse car beaucoup de graviers se mêlent aux grains. Paille et grains sont enfin entreposés'&!(,"!4#$%'B,$&'B#&'4,?,&2$& dont l’ouverture se trouve sur le toit. Ces procédés sont

e du prix de vente pour le blé et 1/9e pour l’orge.

La culture du cotonSelon Albert Gaudry, « le coton de Chypre est de grande qualité, supérieure à ceux

de la Turquie, l’Europe, l’Asie Mineure, la Syrie, par sa blancheur et la résistance des fibres' Z 84. Cette appréciation n’!%,2%' (,&' (,"%,?!#'(,"'J,"2-)@"%' `@2'4#$%2)$$,2%' `@’il était considéré comme de nature inférieure et mélangé avec d’autres productions 85. Dans la seconde moitié du XIX

e siècle, la culture du coton enregistre une stagnation, avant de connaître un développement extraordinaire après le début de la guerre de Sécession (1861-1865) qui a engendré une pénurie et une hausse des prix. Dès 1861, des semences américaines (coton à longue soie) ont été introduites, peut-être par les Anglais, et la

84. E!).)?@#'#%'(,.!)$%).)?@#A'Albert Gaudry (1827-1908) arriva dans l’île en 1853, avec deux

rassembler les matériaux d’une carte géologique et d’une carte agricole de l’île (Gaudry 1861, p. 228).

85. Correspondance du consul Louis de Maricourt, CCC L22, 25 octobre 1863, n° 30, f. 148-152.

Figure 1. Femme et enfants occupés au battage à Athiénou.(Inscr. : ! : « aire de battage »,! ; crayon et encre).

Dessin d’Edmond Duthoit, 1862 (Musées de Picardie, Amiens).

210 CCEC 47, 2017

culture en fut encouragée, car « les cotons ordinaires du pays n’ont jamais convenu aux fabriques anglaises'Z 86. Elle fut également stimulée par Constantinople 87'*'\'6#'?)@1#"$#4#$%'B#'.,'X)"%#'[...] encourage le mouvement. Il dispense de tout droit d’entrée

les machines à filer, et, sans parler d’autres privilèges, le paysan qui veut acheter de l’Ptat des terrains incultes pour y planter du coton, obtient pour le paiement de grandes facilités, et il reste exempt de toute taxe pendant plusieurs années. »

La culture est identique pour les deux types de coton. Après avoir subi trois ou quatre labourages pendant l’hiver, les terrains sont ensemencés en mai, ou juin si les sauterelles font leur apparition (elles meurent entre le 10 et 15 juin selon les années). Une fois de larges sillons tracés, des femmes enfouissent légèrement à distance régulière cinq ou six graines dans un trou peu profond. Quarante jours environ après, on procède aux buttés et les gourmands sont enlevés. La plantation est ensuite abandonnée à elle-même, parfois arrosée en fonction du type de terrain.

La récolte se fait en octobre, parfois jusqu’5'F2$'$)1#49"# 88. Les graines indigènes sont cueillies avec leurs coques quand la maturité est atteinte pour toute l’!%#$B@#'B@'-D,4(='X)@"'.#&'?",2$#&',4!"2-,2$#&A'.#'-)%)$'&)"%'B#'&,'-)`@#'#%'2.'F,@%'.#'-@#2..2"',@'F@"'#%'5'4#&@"#A'-’est-à-dire tous les deux ou trois jours. La récolte se fait donc peu à peu, trois mois durant, et par conséquent demande plus de travail alors que les bras manquent. Et Colonna de dire que les paysans préfèrent les graines indigènes, car l’indolence est leur caractère général…

Les opérations de sistrage et de tirage ne concernent que les graines indigènes qui sont récoltées avec leur coque. Elles consistent à remuer les cotons dans de grands cylindres creux (ou des paniers) en roseaux afin que les débris passent'5'travers les'intervalles. Le coton est égrené au moyen de machines à vapeur dont l’emploi s’est beaucoup répandu. Il est mis dans des sacs dont la contenance est de 112 kg environ. Le volume des balles est réduit dans les ports 5'.’aide de presses mécaniques avant d’3%"#'-D,"?!#&'&@"'.#&'$,12"#&=

Plus particulièrement cultivé dans la plaine de la Messaor!#A' .#' -)%)$' ,4!"2-,2$' ,'(,"F,2%#4#$%'"!@&&2'#%'@$'%2#"&'#$12")$'B#'.,'(")B@-%2)$'#$'(")1#$,2%'#$':8;8='X#$B,$%'`@#.`@#&',$$!#&A'B#@M'%2#"&'B#&'-)%)$&'!%,2#$%'#M(!B2!&'1#"&'621#"())., mais, après la fin de la guerre de Sécession, l’Angleterre s’approvisionna de nouveau en Amérique et aux Indes. En 1868, le coton était acheminé vers Trieste et Barcelone, alors que Marseille restait un marché peu favorable 89.

Les chiffres suivants montrent comment le marché du coton a évolué à Chypre entre 1861 et 1868 et quel impact a eu la guerre de Sécession sur la production et le prix.

86. Correspondance du consul Édouard Du Tour, CCC L21, 9 octobre 1861, n° 10, f. 316.

87. Ibid. note 85 f. 149.

88. Dans ce cas, la cueillette se fait avec 30 à 40 jours de retard. Le coton n’ayant que trois mois de soleil au lieu de quatre ne vient pas à maturité à temps et, en outre, risque de subir les pluies d’octobre qui abîment la récolte.

89. CCC L22, 1er juin 1869, n° 51, f. 427.


1861 : 4 500 balles de 112 kg - le prix est de 1,60 fr.

1862 : 6 500 « «

1863 : 8 000 « «

1864 : 11 000 « « - le prix est de 7 fr.

1865 : 7 000 « «

1866 : 4 500 (mauvaise récolte)

1867 : 4 500 (mauvaise récolte)

1868 : le prix est tombé à 1,60 fr. alors que la main-d’m@1"#',',@?4#$%!=

Une fois la guerre terminée, le prix du coton est retombé à 1,60 francs, son prix de

alors retrouvés plus ou moins ruinés. Sosthène Grasset dut quitter l’[.#'/&,$&'B)@%#',@&&2'5'-,@&#'B#&',FF,2"#&',@M`@#..#&'2.'!%,2%'43.!K 90, Paul Tardieu se suicida 91.

La navigationComme l’agriculture, les liaisons maritimes entre Chypre et les autres ports de la

Méditerranée impactent directement le commerce. Le développement des communications maritimes est donc une question capitale et le consul ne manque pas d’informer le département de la création de nouvelles compagnies et de nouvelles lignes. En février 1866, une nouvelle compagnie égyptienne de navigation à vapeur, Azirié, relie les échelles entre Alexandrie et Constantinople avec un arrêt à Larnaca 92'U'&on tarif étant plus élevé que celui du Lloyd autrichien, la compagnie n’a fonctionné que six mois 93. En novembre 1867, une autre compagnie de navigation à vapeur, cette fois espagnole, instaure une ligne entre les échelles du Levant et les ports de Gênes, Marseille et Barcelone 94.

L’essentiel du commerce avec l’Occident se fait avec le Lloyd autrichien qui n’a pas de concurrence, les Messageries Maritimes Impériales n’ayant de service ni régulier, ni direct avec Chypre (trois navires font le service mensuel des échelles de Syrie sans y inclure l’[.#K= en dehors de son action'Z 95, le plus souvent par les entrepôts d’Alexandrie, Beyrouth et Smyrne sous pavillon autrichien et turc, par des barques arabes de Syrie 96. Effectivement, les liaisons directes

!(D!4I"#&A'pour beaucoup elles demeuraient aléatoires, alors que plusieurs compagnies maritimes avaient manifesté leur volonté de faire correspondre directement Larnaca avec Marseille,

90. Voir supra, note 37, et infra.

91. Voir supra, note 38.

92. CCC L22, 18 février 1866, n° 2, f. 266.

93.

94. CCC L22, 21 juillet 1867, n° 20, f. 326-327.

95.

96. CCC L22, 1er juin 1869, n° 51, f. 426-429.

212 CCEC 47, 2017

comme la Compagnie de Navigation Mixte (qui était avant 1858 la Société Louis Arnaud, Touache frères & Compagnie) 97 ou bien encore la maison Régis Ainé. Cette dernière, qui assurait aussi des liaisons avec la Caramanie et la Syrie, cessa de desservir Chypre en novembre 1866 à cause de la guerre des tarifs avec les Messageries sur ces deux destinations.

Arguant que le Lloyd ne suffit pas pour assurer le commerce de Chypre, qu’il n’a pas bonne réputation, car il a imposé des prix élevés faute de concurrence, qu’il ne prend pas soin des marchandises et que ses navires ont plusieurs fois fait naufrage, les consuls ont cherché à convaincre les Messageries d’instaurer une ligne, mais celles-ci ont refusé par deux fois, en 1859 et 1865 98. En avril 1867, Colonna Ceccaldi à son tour demande un nouvel examen de la question 99, écrit une note circonstanciée à l’attention de la Compagnie Impériale, dans laquelle il explique tout d’abord comment les communications avec

[.#'*'\'2.'V','@$#'"#.,%2)$'2$%24#'#$%"#'.’affaiblissement de notre position commerciale dans ce pays et la cessation d’un service de vapeurs entre Larnaca et Marseille ». Il donne des statistiques sur cinq ans qui révèlent comment navigation et commerce sont liés, et comment la navigation anglaise a supplanté la navigation française 100'*'

Angleterre France

1862 8 navires 2.800 tonneauxTrès peu de vapeurs anglais

25 navires 6.100 tonneauxTotalité du coton vers Marseille

1863 22 '\ 7.700 t.Peu d’opérations de commerce

31 \' 9.300 t

1864 27 \' 16.000 t.Exportation de coton

24 \' 4.500 t

1866 31 « 18.000 t. 30 « 5.000 t. peu d’opérations de commerceSeulement ! du coton vers Marseille

1866 31 vapeurs et 6 voiliers 21.000 t. 24 « 4.300 t.

97. Correspondance du consul Louis de Maricourt, CCC L 22, 23 mars 1863, n° 17, f. 73-74.

98. Maricourt, CCC L22, 14 juin 1865, n° 56, f. 230.

99.

100. Les navires français sont de moins en moins nombreux à Larnaca. En outre, ceux qui n’y font Administration des Phares des droits entiers, comme s’ils faisaient

du commerce (CCC L22, 31 décembre 1867, f. 337-338). L’Administration des Phares','!%!'-"!!#'

F",$r,2&#='X.@&'BO@$#'-#$%,2$#'B#'F#@M'&#")$%'24(.,$%!&'B#'.,'J#"'$)2"#'5'.,'J!B2%#"",$!#'(,"'.,'&)-2!%!'F",$r,2&#'Collas et Michel qui prit la gestion à partir de 1860 (Thobie 2004). Deux fanaux

rades de Larnaca et Limassol (Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 116 ; Correspondance de Maricourt, CCC L22, 26 juillet 1863, n° 26, f. 135-137).


Il réfute ensuite les trois arguments de la Compagnie pour refuser de desservir Chypre :

du temps de station déjà très limité accordé aux échelles de Syrie.\'n@

conséquence une diminution de subvention que ne couvriraient pas les bénéfices du trafic en cette localité. »

Pour Colonna Ceccaldi, il ne faut pas diminuer le temps d’escale des vapeurs dans les ports de Syrie. Il faut trouver une autre organisation entre les escales de Lattaquié, Beyrouth et Tripoli, car il y a des heures non employées utilement. Avec une meilleure organisation un jour et une nuit pourraient être gagn!&'()@"'%)@-D#"'6,"$,-,'#%'624,&&).'/)o'#&%'-)$-#$%"!'.#'-)44#"-#'B#&'12$&'#%'B#&'#,@MCB#C12#K=

2 : « Qu’en effet la population de Chypre était en décroissance, la plupart des terres en friche et que la production s’y appauvrissait. »

Pour le consul, la population n’a cessé de croître. Elle est aujourd’hui de 220 000 habitants (100 000 en 1823) et les terres sont cultivées pour la plupart, et ainsi la production augmente, en particulier celle du coton 3 500 balles de 112 kg en 1859, 8 à 9 000 aujourd’hui.

à l’île n’y ont trouvé presque aucun élément de fret. »

L’une des raisons principales est qu’il n’y a pas de liaisons régulières avec Marseille, si bien que, lorsqu’un navire se présente sans avertir, les négociants ont déjà expédié leurs marchandises quelques jours auparavant, ce qui leur donne l’impression que Chypre n’a pas de fret, alors que les produits ne manquent pas : coton, laines, alizaris, graines oléagineuses, vins. Il serait aussi possible de développer les relations avec les échelles où les céréales et les caroubes sont déjà expédiées. D’autres marchandises pourraient y être ajoutées, comme les fruits, les animaux. Par ailleurs, il ne faut pas oublier le trafic passager et en particulier les pèlerins : en mars de chaque année 3 à 400 pèlerins s’embarquent pour Jaffa, ce qui représente de 4 à 5 000 francs à l’aller et au retour. Enfin, les importations augmenteraient également, car au lieu d’3%"e entreposées à Smyrne,

10 % (env.) de frais supplémentaires. Il y aurait donc pour une compagnie sérieuse deux

Et de conclure :\' 6’[.#' B#' NDV("#' ,' @$' ("!&#$%' ,--#(%,9.#, mais elle a surtout un magnifique avenir. Il ne

nationales, que l’influence commerciale maritime, et par suite politique, de notre pays soit sérieusement établie dans ces parages ».

Malheureusement, ce souhait ne fut suivi d’aucune action. À propos des états de la navigation en 1868, il notait avec regret'*'\'$)&'$,12"#&'12#$$#$%'B#'4)2$&'#$'4)2$&'B,$&'.#&'(,",?#&'Z 101. En réalité, pour cette année 1868, les statistiques, 5 l’entrée et la sortie réunies, donnent 10 navires sous pavillon français et 7 pour l’Angleterre, mais c’est le

101. CCC L22, 1er juin 1869, n° 51, f. 426-433.

214 CCEC 47, 2017

chiffre du tonnage qui est plus important'*'7Le commerce anglais a dépass!'#%'B#'9#,@-)@('-#.@2'B#'.,'s",$-e 102.

Quelques chiffres du commerce : l’exemple de 1868Les états du commerce et de la navigation, ainsi que les rapports qui les accom-

pagnent 103, donnent d’amples informations sur les commerces d’exportation et d’importation.

Le commerce d’exportation est basé sur les produits de l’agriculture : céréales (blé et orge), soie, laines, coton, vins, alizaris, graines oléagineuses, peaux brutes, sel, caroubes, ainsi que des animaux, en particulier les mules dont la réputation est excellente 104. 105

1868 francs

France 1 452 000 24% Alizaris, céréales pour 1 000 000 (69%) 105, coton, graines oléagineuses, laine, peaux brutes, soie et cocons, vins

Angleterre 976 000 16% Alizaris, caroubes, céréales, coton

Autriche 535 000 9% Alizaris, caroubes, coton, peaux brutes, soie et cocons, vins

Grèce 154 000 3% Caroubes, coton, peaux brutes, vins

Italie 131 000 2% Caroubes, laine, vins

Turquie 2 735 000 46% Caroubes, céréales, coton, graines oléagineuses, laine, sel, soie et cocons, vins

Soit un total de 5 983 000 francs contre 4 712 000 francs en 1867. La récolte des céréales

Le coton est moins exporté vers l’Angleterre et prend davantage le chemin de Trieste (Angleterre 140 000, Autriche 360 000).

Le commerce d’importation' #&%' #$' (,"%2#' -)$&%2%@!' (,"' B#&' (")B@2%&'4,$@F,-%@"!&A'NDV("#'$’ayant que très peu d’industrie. Il existe quelques manufactures d’impression d’indiennes à Nicosie, des tanneries ainsi que des fabriques de soie (dentelles, foulards,

102. Ibidem2 731 tonneaux). La Grèce (10 navires, 1 579 tonneaux) et l’Italie (9 navires, 1 929 tonneaux) se plaçant aux rangs inférieurs. Il faut néanmoins noter que l’essentiel de la navigation se fait avec la Turquie : 1 434 navires, 190 862 tonneaux.

103. Pour 1866 : CCC L22, 2 avril 1867, n° 14, f. 290-291 ; pour 1867 : CCC L22, 23 mars 1868, er juin 1869, f. 426-429.

104. Les mules de Chypre jouissaient d’une réputation méritée. Les Anglais achetèrent des mules pour l’expédition d’Abyssinie en 1867. Les conditions étaient : des animaux de plus de 4 ans et moins de 15 ans, taille 1,40 m, pas de blessure. Le prix était de 20 livres sterling ou 500 frs par animal. Le vice-consul anglais, R. H. Lang (voir infra, note 108), recevait 5 % sur toutes les sommes (CPC L22, 26 octobre 1867, n° 14, f. 148-149).

105. L22, 9 décembre 1867, n° 25, f. 333-334 et 1er juin 1869, n° 51 f. 428).


étoffes, mouchoirs), de toiles de coton, de sacs de laine ou chanvre et des savonneries, poteries et distilleries 106. Sont donc importés : étoffes manufacturées, café, cuirs, fer, cuivre, plomb ouvré, quincaillerie, sucre, huile, parfumerie, tabac, tissus, coton filés, veaux cirés.

1868 francs

France 716 000 18% Café, cuirs, fer, cuivre, plomb ouvré, quincaillerie, sucre, tissus et cotons filé, veaux cirés, vernis, parfumerie.

Angleterre 1 710 000 43% Tissus et coton filé

Autriche 213 000 5% Café, fer cuivre, plomb ouvré, quincaillerie, sucre, tissus et coton filé

Grèce 267 000 6% Café, cuirs, sucre, veaux cirés

Italie 194 000 4% Café, sucre

Turquie 948 000 24% Café, cuirs, fer, cuivre, plomb ouvré, sucre, tabac et huile, tissus et coton filé

Soit un total de 4.008.000 francs contre 4.538.000 en 1867. Les étoffes manufacturées ont beaucoup moins été importées. Elles l’avaient été beaucoup trop en 1867.

Comme Maricourt, Colonna Ceccaldi constate que le commerce français ne cesse de

francs (570 300 francs pour tous les autres pays) 107

Ceccaldi les attribue à trois facteurs :– L’absence de communications rapides et régulières avec Marseille au moyen de la

vapeur (les vapeurs anglais sont plus fréquents que les français).– Le commerce se fait de plus en plus avec l’Angleterre, qui est partie de rien en 1860.

Liverpool a largement dépassé Marseille pour l’!-)@.#4#$%'",(2B#'B#&'-)%)$&A'("2$-2(,.')90#%'B’exportation depuis 1862. Quant au commerce d’importation anglais, il continue de prospérer. Il en attribue le mérite à un homme, Robert Hamilton Lang 108 (1836-1913)'* \'6,'-).)$2#',$?.,2&e n’a qu’un seul représentant, mais c’est l’homme le mieux

106. Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 165.

107. Correspondance de Maricourt, CCC L22, 22 juillet 1862, n° 11, f. 42-48 ; Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 168.

108. Arrivé à Chypre en 1861 comme représentant d’une société commerciale anglaise, il fut nommé Directeur de l’agence de la Banque ottomane et fut provisoirement chargé du vice-consulat d’Angleterre à plusieurs reprises (1861-1862, 1864, 1865-1866, 1868-1869). Il était également engagé dans les activités agricoles avec la ferme qu’il possédait à Pyla. Bien connu pour ses activités archéologiques, il a réuni une collection personnelle lors de ses fouilles, notamment à Dali, Alambra et Pyla. Il quitta Chypre en 1872 (Goring 1988, p. 7-10).

216 CCEC 47, 2017

posé du pays. Le poste de Directeur de la Banque Impériale Ottomane est d’une grande aide à ses affaires commerciales par le crédit qu’il lui donne, par les relations qu’il lui crée avec les producteurs et les négocians du pays. Il est de toute justice d’ajouter que M. Lang consolide ces avantages en déployant les qualités distinctives de sa nation : l’activité, l’esprit de suite, le bon sens. Aussi le commerce avec l’Angleterre a-t-il pris ici une rapide impulsion depuis 5 ou 6 années. » [f. 371]

– Les maisons de commerce françaises sont trop faiblement représentées, mais les 109, les Italiens sont dans une situation pire

encore, seuls les Grecs réussissent : \'6#&' -).)$2#&' #@")(!#$$#&' #$'NDV("#' &)$%' #$' (.#2ne décadence. À proprement parler il n’y

une importante fraction, avant la cession de la Vénétie en 1866, vivait sous la juridiction de l’Autriche. Quant aux Grecs, même Hellènes, on peut plutôt les considérer comme gens du pays. [...] On ne compte plus en Chypre une seule maison française sérieuse [...] Nos échanges se font déjà presque exclusivement par les indigènes qui déploient activité et intelligence là où nos négocians, nés la plupart et vieillis dans le pays, n’apportaient que routine et indolence. » [f. 369-370]

Dans son rapport envoyé avec les états de 1867, il dressait déjà un constat désabusé et essayait de convaincre l’ambassadeur des mesures à apporter :\'g moins d’une infusion de sang nouveau, à moins de la venue en ce pays de quelques jeunes

commis actifs, intelligens, honnêtes, soutenus par des maisons de Marseille, la colonie commerciale française en Chypre est finie. \'[...] Je suis convaincu, Monsieur le Marquis, qu’avec de la volonté nous aurions en Chypre une

situation au moins égale à celle de nos rivaux, mais pour cela il faut des hommes d’!$#"?2#'#%'B’entreprise avec quelques capitaux, et c’est ce qui nous manque absolument ici. » [f.371].

L’année suivante, avec les états de 1868, il insistait encore :\'6#' -)44#"-#' ,1#-' .,' s",$-#' %)49#' B#' (.@&' #$' (.@&' #$%"#' .#&'4,2$&' B#'4,2&)$&' 2$B2?I$#&='p$#'12?)@"#@&#'24(@.&2)$'B)$$!#'(,"'B#'$)@1#..#&'4,2$&'F",$r,2&#&',((@V!#&'&@"'B#&'-,(2%,@M'&!"2#@M'()@"",2%'&#@.#'"#4!B2#"'5'-#%%#'&2%@,%2)$='>.'#&%'`@#&%2)$A'0#'-")2&A'B#'.’!%,9.2&&#4#$%'#$'NDV("#'B’un comptoir de la Compagnie pour le développement de l’industrie et du commerce de

!%",$?#"A'2.'&#",2%',1,$%,?#@M'()@"'$)@&'`@#'-#'(")0#%'&#'"!,.2&q%='Z']F='T78_=Il ne semble pas que ses suggestions aient été suivies d’une quelconque façon.

Le droit de propriété dans l’Empire ottomanDans le cadre des réformes engagées par la Porte au XIX

e siècle (Tanzimat) 110, les transformations foncières – en particulier l’uniformisation institutionnelle de l’ensemble

109. CCC L22, 23 mars 1868, n° 35, f. 369.

110. Au XIXe siècle, sous la pression de ses alliés, la Turquie avait entrepris des réformes pour

Tanzimat 1839-1876). Le Khatt-i-cherîf de Gülkhâne (1839) énumérait les réformes à entreprendre (résumées par Paul Dumont : « centralisation administrative, modernisation de l’appareil étatique, occidentalisation de la société, sécularisation –avec bien des restrictions– du droit et de l’enseignement », Dumont 1989, p. 459). En 1856, le Hatt-i-humayoongarantissant l’égalité entre tous les citoyens ottomans sans distinction de religion ou de nationalité,


des territoires – sont d’une importance primordiale, puisqu’elles concernent les revenus de la terre qui constituent la plus grande ressource économique de l’Empire. La propriété foncière privée 5' (")("#4#$%' (,".#"' n’existait pas et cette situation présentait deux obstacles : il n’y avait pas de droit de succession, aliénation ou donation (la loi était détournée, la transmission se faisaient par ventes fictives), pas davantage que de droit d’hypothèque (pour emprunter, les paysans ne pouvaient pas engager leur terre et les prêts se faisaient à des taux exorbitants, ce qui empêchait tous les progrès de l’agriculture).

Quant à la légitimité de possession des étrangers, elle n’!%,2%'(,&'#$-)"#'"#-)$$@#'(,"'.,'X)"%#='N#@MC-2',-D#%,2#$%'B#&'%#""#&'(,"'.’intermédiaire d’un prête-nom, sujet ottoman, ce dernier rédigeait ensuite une lettre de rétractation qui était enregistrée en chancellerie du consulat du pays dont était originaire l’acheteur réel 111.

Le Code foncier de 1858, consacré à la législation des terres domaniales, distingue cinq grandes catégories de terres situées dans l’Empire ottoman 112'*'/1). Mulk, propriété privée, (2). Miri, propriété de l’P%,%'̀ @2'%",$&4#%'@$'B")2%'B’usage, (3). Mevcoufè, bien de mainmorte, non sujet à mutation (donation à des fondations pieuse – vakf), (4). Metrouké, terres laissées pour l’usage public (voies, places, etc.), (5). M!"#$, terres incultes, telles que montagnes, endroits rocailleux, maquis, etc.

En 1867, trois lois ont été promulguées sur lesquelles Colonna Ceccaldi rédige une étude circonstanciée 113 pour laquelle il reçoit les félicitations de l’ambassadeur114' : (1) « Loi relative à l’extension du droit d’hérédité sur les biens fonds mirié [miri] et mevcoufé'Z (21 mai) ; (2) \'Loi sur les vacouf'Z'(9 juin) ; (3) « Loi concédant aux étrangers le droit de propriété immobilière dans l’Empire ottoman'Z (10 juin).

C’est surtout cette troisième loi qui intéresse le consul. Les raisons qui ont poussé les autorités ottomanes, sous l’impulsion des Européens, à reconnaître officiellement le

octroyant de larges concessions aux minorités (liberté de culte, jouissance des immunités traditionnelles).

111. La correspondance en contient un exemple, l’attestation suivante de Janko Piérides [traduction du grec] : « Je soussigné déclare que les quatre cents échelles de terrains que l’autorité locale a passées à mon nom, en vertu des titres portant les numéros 126 et 127 inscrites à ce registre n° 87 sont la propriété réelle de M. Georges Bernard et que la vente faite en mon nom est une vente

prête-nom, pour satisfaire à l’économie et à la règle des lois musulmanes]. Je m’engage par conséquent à disposer des terrains en question conformément à ses instructions pendant sa vie et après sa mort. Larnaca 26 mai 1865 » (CPC TL2, 25 mai 1866, f. 93).

112. Aristarchi Bey1873, p. 57-64, Young 1906, p. 45.

113. \'P%@B#'&@"'.#&'$)@1#..#&'.)2&'̀ @2'-)$&%2%@#$%'.,'(")("2!%!'F)$-2I"#'#$'Q@"`@2#'#%'̀ @2',--)"B#$%',@M'!%",$?#"&'.#'B")2%'BOV',-`@!"2"'B#&'244#@9.#&'ZA'NNN'677A':R',)d%':8;YA'F='L781-29'#%'sNG6A'434#'B,%#A'$e'L7=

114. 12#$%'B#'&@92"'.#'B")2%'B#'(")("2!%!'B!$)%#$%'@$#'-)$$,2&&,$-#',((")F)$B2#'B#'.O!%,%'B#&'-D)&#&'#$'Q@"`@2#'#%' 0#'4O#4("#&&#'B#'1)@&'F!.2-2%#"'B@'&)2$'`@#'1)@&',1#l',(()"%!'5'F,2"#'-#%' 2$%!"#&&,$%'%",1,2.='Z'/sNG6A'QD!",(2,A''7T'&#(%#49"#':8;YA'$e':R;K=

218 CCEC 47, 2017

droit des étrangers d’acquérir des biens-fonds sont liées à la clarification de la politique de la propriété foncière, à la diversification de la fiscalité ottomane, afin de subvenir aux dépenses sans cesse croissantes de l’Empire. Il s’agissait également de mettre fin à des fraudes de plus en plus fréquentes 115. Colonna Ceccaldi souligne que cette nouvelle législation va faciliter les transactions sur la propriété foncière, mettre fin aux difficultés, aux abus et aux incertitudes se produisant au sujet de l’exercice du droit de propriété par les étrangers qui dorénavant devraient venir s’y établir en plus grand nombre et ainsi développer la prospérité de l’[.#'*\'N#'`@2'B)$$#',@M'$)@1#..#&'.)2&'%)@%#'.#@"'()"%!#A'-#'&)$%'.#&'-2"-)$&%,$-#&'`@2'.#&')$%',4#$!#&A'.’esprit qui les a dictées. Ces lois ont été rendues sous le coup des nécessités impérieuses qui étreignent la Turquie et par suite, du reste, d’une vision nette des intérêts du pays. Pour le vivifier, il était nécessaire d’y appeler le travail, les procédés, les capitaux et l’industrie de l’Europe. Pour cela, il fallait offrir aux Européens des conditions acceptables comme propriétaires en Turquie [32828]. »'\'>.'$#'F,@%'(,&'(#"B"#'B#'1@#'`@#'-’est surtout en perspective de la participation de l’Europe

aux affaires agricoles et industrielles de la Turquie que les lois dont nous nous occupons ont été faites et que cette participation n’est possible qu’5'.,'-)$B2%2)$'`@#'.’Européen trouve une législation conforme aux principes des sociétés modernes. »

Nous résumons ici les grandes lignes de l’!%@B#'B@'-)$&@.. La nouvelle législation se conforme à peu de chose près aux codes de l’Europe : – elle établit définitivement le droit de propriété \'indigène'Z, tous les biens sont désormais

susceptibles d’achat, de vente, de transmission héréditaire (du 1er au 7e ou 8e degré avec égalité des parts entre les héritiers de même degré) ou par testament, de donation, et d’hypothèque. En facilitant l’accession à la propriété, les paysans seront tentés de développer leurs cultures ce qui permettra d’augmenter les rentrées fiscales, c’est du moins ce que pensent les autorités.

– En même temps, le droit de propriété était reconnu aux étrangers, chaque pays devant approuver le protocole annexé à la loi. Dorénavant, ils sont admis, au même titre que les sujets ottomans, et sans autre condition, à jouir du droit de propriété dans toute l’!%#$B@#'B#' .’Empire 116. Les conséquences de cette assimilation des étrangers aux sujets ottomans sont triples : Ils doivent se conformer à toutes les lois et à tous les règlements de police ou muni-cipaux qui régissent actuellement et pourront régir dans l’avenir la jouissance, la transmission, l’aliénation et l’hypothèque.

115. la nationalité de leur femme – qui demeurait ottomane – pour acheter des terres, mais faisaient appel à leur consul en cas de problème (Arminjon, 1903, p. 94). On comprend que ceci était vu d’un mauvais œil par l’administration turque.

116. À l’exception de la province de l’Hedjaz (ouest de la péninsule arabique dont les villes principales sont La Mecque, Médine, Djeddah) « à cause de son état social et religieux et du peu d’autorité effective que la Porte y exerce » [32822].


Ils sont tenus de régler toutes les charges et contributions frappant ou pouvant frap-per la propriété foncière et en particulier la dîme (1/10e des produits bruits de la terre) et les maisons (mîri, taxe proportionnée au revenu).

Ils sont justiciables des tribunaux civils ottomans.Colonna Ceccaldi remarque que, si les lois présentent lacunes et obscurités sur le

nouveau statut de propriétaire des étrangers, ceci n’est que détails qui seront résolus rapidement par de nouveaux règlements et codification (cas de faillite, aliénation des biens, questions de procédure et de police). Mais les privilèges des étrangers consacrés par les traités, et en particulier l’immunité de la personne, l’inviolabilité de sa maison, vont-

Son analyse du protocole que chaque nation doit signer lui permet d’affirmer que ce texte est digne de confiance : \'Nous nous croyons donc autorisé à conclure que les intérêts et les privilèges des étrangers sont

suffisamment garantis pour que les Puissances n’hésitent pas à apposer leur signature au bas du Protocole et pour que leurs nationaux, de leur côté, abordent avec confiance les nouvelles perspectives ouvertes en Orient à leur activité » [32827].

Le consul voit tout l’intérêt des nouvelles lois pour les Européens : « Que l’Européen se prépare donc sans perte de tems, aux nouvelles perspectives que l’Orient va

offrir à son activité, à son génie civilisateur » [32829].

ne doit pas être en reste :\'t@.'B)@%#'`@’avec leur grand sens politique les Anglais ne comprennent vite cette situation.

Ils viendront aider à la régénération agricole et industrielle de la Turquie. Les Allemands, les

reste fidèle à son utile et glorieux passé d’influence en Orient. »

La loi de juin 1867 pour les étrangers ne prit effet qu’une fois le protocole de chaque pays signé 117. Pour les sujets français, ce fut le 9 juin 1868. Jusqu’au début de la Première Guerre mondiale, les étrangers purent acquérir sans entraves des biens fonciers dans les provinces ottomanes, à condition de respecter le Code ottoman.

La protection de la France'\'$,%2)$'.,'(.@&'F,1)"2&!#'Z'(,"'.#'j@.%,$A',1,2%'

)9%#$@' B#' &)@&%",2"#' &#&' "#&&)"%2&&,$%&' ,@M' .)2&' B#' .’Empire ottoman 118. Le rôle des

117. agents de la force publique pourront pénétrer dans la demeure, le rôle du consul, les compétences des tribunaux, les conditions d’appel.

118. avantages, entre autres : exemption des impôts demandés aux musulmans et aux minorités, possi-bilité d’un jugement par le tribunal consulaire, liberté de voyager, de commercer, liberté du culte.

par le sultan (en 1535 ou 1569). D’autres pays signèrent des Capitulations par la suite, comme l’Angleterre (1580), la Hollande (1612) et l’Autriche (1675).

220 CCEC 47, 2017

consuls, jusqu’5' .,'c!1).@%2)$' .242%!' ,@M',-%212%!&' !-)$)42`@#&' #%' -)44#"-2,.#& 119, a 120'*'

2.&' ,2B,2#$%' #%' (")%!?#,2#$%' .#&' $,%2)$,@M ainsi que les voyageurs, que ce soit pour la sauvegarde de leur personne ou de leurs intérêts financiers. Toutefois, le calme régnait le plus souvent à Chypre en dépit de quelques mécontentements sporadiques.

La correspondance entre Larnaca et Constantinople 121 conserve quelques cas pour lesquels Colonna Ceccaldi et Laffon agirent au mieux des intérêts de la colonie française,

protectrices de l’!()`@#' – pouvait accorder sa protection non seulement à certains Européens lorsqu’ils n’!%,2#$%'(,&'"#("!&#$%!&A'-)44#'.#&'j@2&&#&')@'.#&'u#..I$#&'v'.#&'&@0#%&'B@'$)@1#. P%,%'?"#-'v, mais aussi aux sujets ottomans employés pour « l’utilité de la nation », tels les drogmans, les cawas, parfois les domestiques 122.

La protection des personnesLa protection des nationauxPendant son mandat, Colonna Ceccaldi n’eut pas à intervenir pour protéger ses

concitoyens, car la situation était particulièrement calme au cours de ces trois ans et aucun

Notons cependant la pétition du 23 juin 1866 adressée au corps consulaire de Larnaca par les résidents et protégés européens (66 personnes) pour éloigner la quarantaine dont

-tion demande également que le directeur de l’institution soit autorisé, en cas d’urgence, à mettre en quarantaine provisoire tous les voyageurs provenant des pays suspects en attendant qu’il ait pu recevoir des instructions, celles-ci étant longues à arriver de par les conditions de navigation et les communications aléatoires avec Constantinople 123.

La protection des HellènesDepuis l’indépendance de la Grèce le 3 février 1830 (Conférence de Londres) jusqu’5'

.’arrivée du premier vice-consul à Chypre en 1846, D. Margaritis, les Hellènes avaient, 124. En 1855 furent signées les premières

Capitulations entre la Grèce et la Turquie, mais l’autorité du représentant de la Grèce était

119. Par le décret du 14 février 1793, les consulats furent rattachés au ministère des Affaires étrangères alors que, jusque-là, ils dépendaient de la Marine.

120. La protection est « un lien juridique qui rattache une personne à un État et la fait jouir de cer-tains des droits et avantages dérivés de la qualité de national de cet État, sans cependant lui conférer la qualité de national ni le statut personnel qui en dépend ». D’après Arminjon 1903, p. 262.

121. En effet, pour toute action relative à la protection qu’il exerce, le consul s’adresse à l’ambas-

122. Voir supra.

123.

124. p. 91-97 ; à Chypre : Bonato 2006, p. 145-148.


remise en cause chaque fois que les relations entre les deux pays s’envenimaient. Nous trouvons dans la correspondance de Colonna Ceccaldi avec l’ambassade deux missives relatives à la protection des Hellènes. En mai 1866, le gouverneur fait emprisonner par le mudir de Larnaca nombre de Grecs que le consul des Hellènes, D.'Margaritis,'"!-.,4#'-)44#'(")%!?!&='N#'B#"$2#"'B#4,$B#'

125''N’est la question que Colonna Ceccaldi pose à l’ambassade. La réponse ne figure pas dans les archives. Le consul sollicite une deuxième fois des instructions pour la protection des Hellènes en mai 1867 126. Une maison hellène, « MM. Rousso et fils »,

tête d’une « entreprise industrielle », s’inquiète d’une rumeur selon laquelle les Hellènes habitant dans l’Empire ottoman seraient expulsés en cas de rupture entre la Turquie et la Grèce. Rousso et son fils veulent savoir s’ils seraient couverts en cas d’expulsion par leur qualité de représentants et associés d’une maison française. Si Colonna Ceccaldi confirme qu’ils jouissent de la protection du consulat pour les intérêts français qu’ils représentent, les actes ayant été enregistrés et déposés en chancellerie, il suggère qu’!%,$%'B)$$!'.#'(#@'B#'$!?)-2,$%&'&!"2#@M'!%,9.2&'5'NDV("#A'2.'&#",2%'B)44,?#'()@"'.#&'4,2&)$&'F",$r,2&#&'B’3%"#'-)$%",2$%es de choisir d’autres représentants. Ici encore, nous ignorons quelle fut la réponse de l’ambassade puisqu’elle ne figure pas dans les archives.

La protection des Persans

envoyé des instructions à Maricourt en ce sens 127. Le 29 janvier 1869, Laffon avise l’Ambassade de Perse à Constantinople d’un incident survenu à Nicosie en octobre 1868, afin qu’elle obtienne réparation auprès de la Porte 128. La patrouille de nuit voulut arrêter deux Persans alors qu’ils se trouvaient dans « une maison publique » de Nicosie. Ceux-ci, ayant refusé d’obtempérer et ayant déjoué la surveillance de deux zaptiés, retournèrent dans le khan où ils logeaient. Rejoints par une vingtaine de zaptiés accourus du sérail, ils furent roués de coups et traînés chez le gouverneur qui avait ordonné, du moins on l’assure, « de lui amener les Persans morts ou vifs », puis mis en prison « presque mourants ».

L’affaire eut une suite mettant en cause Ali Aga, le frère de l’un des Persans arrêtés, qui tenta de le voir en prison, ce qui lui fut refusé' U il aurait alors proféré « quelques paroles amères à l’!?,"B'B#'.’autorité locale ». La réaction du gouverneur ne se fit pas attendre :

125.

126.

127. Le 5 février 1863, le Ministre de Perse à Constantinople a fait des démarches auprès de

er mars 1863, n° 40).

128.

222 CCEC 47, 2017

\'j,kB'X,-D,'2$B2?$!'B@'(")-!B!'B’Ali aga le fit arrêter dans son propre magasin et conduire en prison. Quelques heures après on le fit monter dans une chambre du sérail où il se trouva en face du gouverneur et de deux zaptiés. Il avait eu à peine le temps de les apercevoir qu’il fut violemment saisi par la nuque et les pieds, pendant qu’une main (qu’Ali aga croit être celle de Saïd Pacha) le frappait impitoyablement sur les fesses. »

sortir sans l’accord du gouverneur, mais sans rencontrer de résistance. Laffon affirme qu’il peut « sans exagérer assurer que la conduite de Saïd Pacha dans cette circonstance

de l’ambassade est assez cinglante 129'*Persans, regrette que l’agent de Nicosie se soit autorisé à intervenir, et reproche à Laffon d’avoir écrit directement à la légation de Perse :

« Je dois vous rappeler à ce sujet qu’un agent français, chargé des intérêts étrangers, ne peut et ne doit correspondre avec une légation étrangère que par lettre sans cachet volant qui doit passer par mes mains afin de me mettre à même d’apprécier la situation qui nous est faite par la défense des intérêts étrangers et au besoin d’intervenir auprès de mes collègues ».

Colonna Ceccaldi, ayant repris ses fonctions, explique à l’ambassadeur que Laffon a agi ainsi car il a trouvé des précédents dans les dépêches de Maricourt. Il envoie une copie et ajoute 130'*'\'c2#$'$#'4#'&#",2%'(.@&',?"!,9.#'`@#'B’3%"#'B!?,?!'B#'-#%%#')9.2?,%2)$'Z=

La sauvegarde des intérêts des nationauxC’est la correspondance avec l’ambassade qui est la plus riche concernant les

interventions de Colonna Ceccaldi et Laffon pour sauvegarder les intérêts de leurs compatriotes. Ces affaires avaient suffisamment d’importance pour être rapportées à Constantinople, car il est bien recommandé au consul de ne référer à l’ambassade qu’en cas de nécessité bien évidente. Quelques affaires s’avérèrent simples (Tardieu, Grasset), d’autres bien plus compliquées et bien plus longues à résoudre (Bernard et surtout Gayetti), en particulier parce qu’elles mettaient en cause des sujets ottomans, protégés ou non.

Affaire Grasset / Bargigli 131

L’affaire débute avant l’arrivée de Colonna Ceccaldi. En 1864, Sosthène Grasset 132, s’!%,$%' .,$-!' B,$&' .#' -)44#"-#' B@' -)%)$A' .)@,' 1#"9,.#4#$%, pour 25 Napoléon en or payables par anticipation, une maison avec dépendances pour abriter sa machine à vapeur

Grasset en prend possession le 1er septembre sans avoir réglé le loyer convenu. Quelques mois plus tard Bargigli mourait, et sa veuve, Adèle Bargigli, essaya de se faire payer et de faire établir un contrat de ce qui avait été convenu verbalement. Ses démarches auprès de Grasset étant

129.

130.

131.

132. Sur Grasset : supra, note 37.


demeurées vaines, elle transmet au vice-consul d’Italie, Negri, en date du 27 septembre 1865, une requête pour récupérer la maison et obliger Grasset au paiement. Pourquoi le

qu’il avait prise aux luttes de l’Indépendance grecque » ; mais, peu avant sa mort, il avait demandé à récupérer sa première nationalité. En attendant la réponse du gouvernement italien, Negri avait été autorisé à lui accorder ainsi qu’5'&,'F,42..#'.,'(")%#-%2)$'B#'&)$'12-#'-)$&@.,%='La famille fut reconnue de nationalité italienne le 18 mai 1865.

Grasset refusa l’intervention du consul d’Italie, car à l’!()`@#'B#' .,'-)$-.@&2)$'B@'-)$%",%A'.#&'!()@M'!%,2#$%'&@0#%&'D#..I$#&='a"A'.#'?!",$%'B@'-)$&@.,% !()`@#A'Charles de Vienne, avait transmis la lettre de Grasset à Negri. Ce dernier en avait été irrité, ne pouvant concevoir « qu’un particulier qui reçoit de son autorité légitime la notification d’un acte judiciaire, au lieu de répondre, vienne à mettre en discussion le droit sur lequel se base l’action du consulat étranger ». Colonna Ceccaldi admet que le gérant a agi par maladresse et qu’il s’agit d’un malentendu,' \' -,"' .’intention blessante n’existait ni de

d’accord pour reprendre l’affaire à son point de départ, c’est-à-dire que Negri transmette la requête de Mme Bargigli comme si elle venait d’3%"#'("!&#$%!# 133.

Nous ignorons quelle fut la conclusion de cette affaire. Toujours est-il que Grasset était sans doute bien incapable de régler sa dette, puisque, une fois la guerre de Sécession terminée, le prix du coton !%,2% retombé à son niveau de 1862. Ruiné et ayant eu déjà maille à partir avec la justice dans une autre affaire pour laquelle il fut condamné (il a été accusé d’avoir rossé Constantin Aroni, sujet ionien protégé anglais qui l’aurait insulté) 134, il quitta Chypre en 1867.

Affaire Tardieu / Douane de Larnaca 135

Le commerçant Paul Tardieu 136, se préparant à embarquer du vin pour Smyrne, présenta les teskérés attestant que les droits intérieurs avaient bien été acquittés. Le douanier les refusa, prétendant que l’agent du fisc ayant distribué trop de reçus, ils avaient tous été annulés. L’administration des douanes étant « aussi peu éclairée que suspecte », Colonna Ceccaldi s’insurge contre cette décision :

« Il n’est pas admissible que l’administration ottomane fasse retomber sur les négociants la responsabilité des choix malheureux qu’elle a pu faire pour son personnel. »

Après deux semaines de discussion, le directeur de la douane consent finalement à l’expédition des vins moyennant le paiement des droits d’exportation, à la condition que l’affaire soit portée à Constantinople et que les droits intérieurs soient réglés, s’il est reconnu qu’ils sont effectivement dus. Le consul en profite pour signaler à l’ambassade

133.

134. Emery 2010, p. 193.

135.


224 CCEC 47, 2017

que le douanier demande dorénavant à visiter les caves des Européens qui font le commerce du vin afin de vérifier la quantité fabriquée. Il a refusé tout net, sous prétexte que les employés pourraient alors pénétrer légalement dans le domicile des nationaux.

Les démarches de l’ambassade sont fructueuses 137 et Tardieu obtient satisfaction, il ne lui sera rien réclamé. En revanche, les négociants qui font commerce du vin produit à Chypre sont soumis aux mêmes obligations que les sujets ottomans et ne peuvent refuser l’accès à leur cave. Toutefois, s’ils subissent une vexation de la part de l’administration, Colonna Ceccaldi est chargé de prévenir l’ambassade qui interviendra auprès de la Porte.

Affaire Bernard / quatre habitants du village de Sinda 138

Georges Bernard 139 eut maille à partir avec l’administration ottomane pour une question de surface des terrains dont il était \'propriétaire' Z. Pour Colonna Ceccaldi, c’est une affaire peut-être accessoire, mais qui met en avant les « procédés malveillants et injustes et les moyens dilatoires de l’autorité turque » envers les propriétaires étrangers 140.

En 1855 Bernard a acheté du gouvernement des terrains en friche « couverts de buissons'Z'("I&'B@'12..,?#'%@"-'B#'j2$B,='>.&'&)$%'"#("!&#$%!&'(,"'B#@M'%2%"#&'B#'(")("2!%!&'()@"' 7RR' !-D#..#&' -D,-@$A' &)@&' .#&' ("3%#C$)4&' B#' w"2&%)Fi et de Janco Pieridi (pour Piérides), sujets de la Porte 141. Bernard a loué diverses portions de ses terrains à quatre habitants du village en 1862 142. Trois ans plus tard, il' B!&2"#' 1#$B"#' &#&' %#""#&' 5 des paysans du village voisin de Lissi 143. Les habitants de Sinda ont alors porté plainte devant le medjlis de la province, estimant que Bernard s’!%,2%',((")("2!'2$0@&%#4#$%'-#&'%#""#&='>.&' F@"#$%' B!9)@%!&' #%' @$ mazbata reconnut que Bernard était le légitime propriétaire, énumérant la délimitation de façon très précise et mentionnant le chiffre de 500 échelles. Bernard contesta la légitimité de la demande des habitants de Sinda, mais consentit à

137.

138. L’affaire est exposée dans CPC TL2, 25 mai 1866, n° 3, f. 80-84 et plus en détail avec pièces

139. honorables, agriculteur distingué » habitant Larnaca.

140. Le ministère est d’accord : « les intérêts de nos nationaux, qui ont des propriétés dans l’île de Chypre, sont en jeu dans cette affaire et elle doit être suivie ainsi que vous l’avez fait avec une grande vigilance » (CPC TL2, 26 juin 1866, n° 1, f. 99).

141. des « Titres des terrains possédés par M. Bernard au nom de M. J. Piérides », et (original en grec, 26 mai 1865) « Attestation du Sr. J. Piérides et autres témoins que les terrains portés au nom de M. J. Piérides appartiennent à M. G. Bernard ».

142. Le contrat de location stipule : « […] Ont été louées 18 échelles pour semer de l’orge et 13

de Sinda pour des terrains appartenant à Mr Bernard », daté 4 rezzeb 1279 = 27 décembre 1862).

143. piastres pour un autre morceau de 272 échelles er'F!1"2#"':8;YA'&2?$!#'W$%='j%'


restituer au gouvernement la portion supposée dépasser les 400 échelles. Pour trouver une solution, le medjlis de Nicosie donna l’ordre de procéder à l’arpentage par le medjlis de l’endroit en calculant l’!-D#..#'5'TR'(,&'#$'.)$?'#%'#$'.,"?#=

Or, quand il a acheté ces propriétés, l’!-D#..#'&#'4#&@",2%'5';R'(,&'#$'.)$?'#%'#$'.,"?#='N).)$$,'N#--,.B2' 1,' 2$%#"1#$2"' ,@("I&'B#' .’ambassade qui obtient une lettre vizirielle informant Taïb Pacha que, si que le mesurage de 60 pas a été fixé à l’!()`@#')o'.#&'%2%"#&')$%'!%!'B!.21"!&'5'+#"$,"BA'.’ordre de mesurer « le deunum 144 à raison de 40 pieds » n’est arrivé à Chypre que trois ou quatre ans après et qu’il ne saurait avoir un effet rétroactif. L’ambassade, très circonspecte, demande à Ceccaldi d’3%"#'("@B#$%'&@"'-#&'2$%#"1#$%2)$s dans lesquelles des sujets du Sultan sont impliqués 145'*\' […] dans des affaires de cette nature, où des sujets ottomans servent de prête nom, c’est à

ceux-ci à s’adresser directement à l’autorité turque pour défendre leurs droits et les autorités françaises doivent se borner à faire des démarches purement officieuses. Sans quoi, il y aurait lieu de craindre que, sous le voile d’intérêts français, nous n’eussions à user de notre influence en faveur de réclamations purement turques.'Z

Le mesurage effectué par le medjlis du district de la Messaorée donna 605 échelles, moins 20 qui sont reconnues comme appartenant à Hussein Isman Oglou. Bernard restait donc propriétaire de 585 échelles 146. Le gouverneur refusa de modifier le mazbata et le consul dut « revenir à trois fois et parler assez ferme pour obtenir la promesse que la clause de mesurage serait modifiée ». Toutefois, il n’osa pas faire vendre les portions retranchées et annula les ordres donnés à cet égard 147.

Georges Bernard a perdu beaucoup d’argent dans cette affaire, non seulement à

Messaorée, ou à Nicosie, mais aussi à cause du procès : l’!?"#$,?#'B#'&#&'-)%)$&','!%!'F,2%'%")('%,"B21#4#$%A'2.&'$’ont été expédiés que fin mars et sont arrivés sur le marché anglais en avril, alors que le prix avait baissé de 35% 148='H$')@%"#A'2.'$#'%")@1#'(.@&'5'1#$B"#'&#&'%#""#&'`@’5':7R'(2,&%"#&',1#-'@$'%#"4#'B#'f'4)2&'5'.,'&@2%#'B#'.,'-"2&#'-)44#"-2,.#'B)$%'&)@FF"#' .’[.#, alors qu’au début de l’affaire on lui en offrait entre 150 et 200 piastres. Colonna Ceccaldi demande alors l’intervention de l’ambassade afin de réclamer une indemnisation de 60.000 piastres aux habitants de Sinda 149. Il insiste en soulignant que c’est l’autorité turque qui a mis en cause Bernard dès le début et, dans les documents qu’elle a envoyés, il n’est question que de « M. Bernard », « les terrains de M. Bernard »

144. Le deunum équivaut à 940 m2.

145.

146. Medjlis du district de la Messaorée, 24 mars 1866.

147. CPC TL2, 25 mai 1866, n° 3, f. 83.

148. En janvier 1866, il avait 2 500 ocques de coton prêtes à être expédiées en Angleterre ; la

Lettre de R.H. Lang, 28 janvier 1867).

149.

226 CCEC 47, 2017

et non de Piérides. L’ambassade n’est pas du même avis et suggère qu’5'.’avenir il faudrait demander une caution aux demandeurs ottomans 150.

Affaire Gayetti / Santi Mattéi et l’affaire Bernard / Murat 151

Cette affaire fut particulièrement compliquée et impliqua l’intervention des consulats

des États-Unis à Constantinople, car les parties en cause, étant étrangères à l’Empire, ne relevaient aucunement des tribunaux ottomans. Elle est bien documentée, puisque toutes les pièces justificatives sont conservées dans les archives de Nantes.

Par contrat signé le 26 octobre 1866, Claude Gayetti, sujet français, a loué la « campagne de Tricomo », propriété qui appartient par tiers à Antonio Santi Mattei, sujet italien, à Mme Elisa, veuve Télesphore Santi Mattei, et à sa femme, Marianne Gayetti (née Santi Mattei), toutes deux sujettes françaises [f. 398].

Le contrat s’entend pour huit ans, les conditions sont les suivantes : Gayetti doit payer à A. Santi Mattei et à E. Santi Mattei la somme de 17.000 piastres payables par moitié le 30 septembre et le 30 décembre et leur fournir trente charges chameaux de paille, dix mozes de grain et quarante cafiz d’orge 152. Le 28 octobre 1866, Gayetti nomme Antoine Murat, fils d’un sujet ottoman, protégé américain, procureur de cette « campagne de Tricomo153'Z']F='TRL_=

nommé comme « procureur général » un négociant anglais, P.C. Wilkinson, et l’avoir laissé libre « d’accepter, réfuter, référer, régler toute pendence [sic] [f. 400] ». Santi Mattei réclame 3.500 piastres – les autres 5.000 ont été cédées à un débiteur, Eugène

5'x2.y2$&)$'̀ @2'"#F@&#'B#'.#&'"!?.#"='

150.

151.

152. Moze = müd, mesure de grains équivalant à deux poignées. (ou ) est une mesure correspondant à 250 pounds, soit 113 kilos environ. Le contrat prévoit également qu’au bout de

« qui ont été estimées ensemble à six mille neuf cents piastres, quatre vaches et quatre petits dont un petit

piastres, un troupeau composé de deux cent dix-neuf chèvres, quatre-vingt treize moutons et brebis. Une grande chaudière, trois petites, huit charrues, huit (mot illisible) pour domestiques, six chaînes pour les bœufs, une casserole, et une autre petite usée » [f. 398-399].

153. D’après Laffon, Murat n’a aucun titre sérieux à la protection américaine, il est simplement le commis de Gayetti à raison d’un traitement annuel de 5 000 piastres. Pendant un an, Murat a : « la pleine faculté de faire tout ce qu’il jugera convenable pour la bonne marche de la susdite, soit vendre les

produits, acheter et emprunter de l’argent aux intérêts au besoin sans que personne ait le droit avant le terme susdit de lui demander compte de sa gérance » (CCC L22, extrait du contrat entre Gayetti et Murat, 28 octobre 1867, f. 403).


j,$%2'J,%%#2'()"%#',.)"&'(.,2$%#'(,"'.’intermédiaire du consulat d’Italie auprès du consulat

Le 3 octobre, Laffon émet un décret en ce sens et envoie à Tricomo Georges Bernard

exécuter ses ordres. Ce dernier est muni d’une lettre du consul des États-Unis, Luigi Palma di Cesnola, qui incite Murat à ne pas faire de difficultés. Le 4 octobre, l’affaire se complique : Mme Elisa Santi Mattei porte plainte à son tour et demande un séquestre

lui aussi, contre Gayetti, car il a engagé de l’argent pour la marche de la propriété. Laffon l’assure que ses intérêts seront sauvegardés et expédie un courrier à Bernard pour lui demander d’arrêter la saisie. Le lendemain, il rencontre Cesnola, lui transmet une lettre de Bernard l’informant qu’il n’avait pas procédé au séquestre, et se met d’accord avec lui :\' Que M. A. Murat lui présenterait sa demande par écrit ; que lui, M. de Cesnola, me la

transmettrait ; que moi, pour sauvegarder les intérêts de M. Murat, je mettrais séquestre sur tous les produits de la campagne de Tricomo et qu’après l’accomplissement des formalités prescrites par la loi, ces produits seraient vendus et le produit de cette vente partagé entre tous les ayantdroits [sic] d’après la catégorie des privilèges de chacun d’eux. Il a été explicitement

celui d’Amérique n’aurait qu’à lui transmettre la réclamation de M. Murat. ZLe 6 octobre, Laffon rend visite à Cesnola, sa stupéfaction est totale : \'je n’en pouvais croire mes oreilles ». Ce dernier lui donne lecture d’une demande de Murat pour un séquestre en sa faveur d’un montant de 18 000 piastres et d’un décret qu’il vient d’!4#%%"#'*'\''[...] autorisons M. A. Murat à mettre séquestre entre ses mains sur toute la récolte de cotons de

la campagne de Tricomo, ordonnons à M. Bechbech, drogman de notre Consulat, de se rendre à ladite Campagne, d’y saisir tous les cotons et de les expédier à la Chancellerie de ce consulat qui les y vendra pour payer, avec le produit de cette vente, M. A. Murat. Dans le cas d’un excédent il sera partagé entre les autres créanciers de M. Gayetti. »

Pour Cesnola, les produits de la campagne ont été acquis avec les fonds d’un protégé américain, il a le droit de les faire saisir et de les vendre pour le compte dudit protégé, cela en suivant la loi américaine. Laffon essaie de persuader Cesnola du bon droit du consulat

Laffon donne son opinion sur l’homme :\'J='B#'N#&$).,A'`@2','?,?$!'.#&'!(,@.#%%#&'B#'?!$!",.'B,$&'.,'B#"$2I"#'?@#""#'-212.#'B’Amérique,

n’est pas homme à reculer devant l’exécution d’une attaque dès qu’il en a formé le plan. Trente heures après la signature de son décret, toute la population de Larnaca pouvait voir devant la porte de son Consulat plusieurs charges de coton appartenant à M. Gayetti. »

Devant ce coup de force, et devançant une protestation du consul d’Italie Ricardo Colucci en faveur de A. Santi Mattei [f. 407], Laffon, qui ne conteste pas les droits de Murat mais la façon d’agir de Cesnola, répond d’une autre façon et adresse le 9 octobre au consulat d’Amérique un acte dans lequel il proteste énergiquement [f. 401-102] :\':='Vous avez usurpé dans une affaire française une compétence et des attributs qui n’appar-

\'un cawas de votre consulat le domicile d’un sujet français.

228 CCEC 47, 2017

\'3. Vous avez fait saisir et enlever toujours par l’effet de votre pure volonté par vos dits employés plusieurs charges de coton appartenant à un sujet français Z.

Et il s’en explique à l’ambassadeur, Nicolas-Prosper Bourée']F='LfL_'*\ […] j

de violence qu’un acte de loi. Je pouvais sans doute repousser la force par la force ; j’ai cru mieux de me pénétrer de l’esprit de mes supérieurs en accordant à M. de Cesnola un triomphe

moins bruyant, peut-être, mais assurément plus beau et plus durable : celui que donne le droit et que Votre Excellence saura sans doute me faire obtenir « ».

Laffon demande à l’ambassadeur réparation pour ce grave préjudice, et surtout d’effectuer avec promptitude des démarches auprès de la Légation des États-Unis, étant donné que la

Le différend va encore se compliquer avec l’affaire Bernard / Murat... Georges Bernard aurait été copieusement injurié par Murat lorsqu’il était venu à Tricomo pour

refuse de s’en occuper tant que Bernard n’a pas déposé une caution de 2 000 francs en sa chancellerie. Dans sa lettre 5'.que Bernard, étant investi d’une mission officielle dans une propriété française, c’est le

demandée si c’est un consulat qui est mis en cause, par courtoisie. Cesnola en convient, renonce à la demander et déclare qu’il va faire une enquête. Il se met d’accord avec Laffon :

« […] j’en aurais remis ensuite le jugement à Monsieur le Ministre des États-Unis à Constantinople pour qu’il agisse d’accord avec son Excellence le Représentant de votre Gouvernement ».

Cette enquête eut lieu en deux séances, les 22 et 23 octobre, devant la cour consulaire des États-Unis.

Cesnola le 9 novembre 1868. Les parties en présence sont les deux protagonistes, Bernard et Murat, ainsi que leur témoins respectifs' : Philip Mac Laughlan, Anglais établi à Tricomo, au service de Mme Santi Mattei « as engineer », et n’ayant avec Bernard aucune relation, et Costantino Besbes, arabe, drogman du consulat d’Amérique.

Murat a donné la clé des magasins de Gayetti à Bernard pour la saisie (Bernard ayant menacé d’enfoncer les portes, selon Murat). Après avoir reçu la lettre de Laffon lui ordonnant de ne pas procéder à la saisie, Bernard l’a rendue dans l’après-midi. Le soir, Bernard est revenu à 11 h avec McLaughlan pour faire signer à Murat un procès verbal selon lequel il avait bien rendu la clé et remis les choses en place. Puis il affirme':

« Murat se déchaîna contre moi d’une manière frénétique en me comblant des injures les plus grossières et en m’enjoignant de sortir à l’instant de chez lui ».

McLaughlan confirme les insultes : « When M. Murat called him a pig [cochon], M. Bernard answered to Murat: you are a pig.'Z

La déposition de Murat est contradictoire : \'I was frightened [...] I was supplying [...] Every time I was telling Mr Bernard to go away,

M. Bernard was saying “No – I do not want to go out and let us see what you can do to me”. After having told him for six or seven times to go away and Mr Bernard not going, I got more


and more frightened and begged Imbrahim the cavas of our honourable Consulate to force him to go away [...] Soon after M. Bernard went away on his own accord. Some minutes afterwards, I saw again coming in M. Philip McLaughlan holding a note in his hands written and signed by M. Bernard who was challenging me to fight a duel with him, and this challenge I will now deposit before this Court. I took that note from Mr McLanghlan and told him I had no answer to give.'Z

Les dépêches vont ensuite se succéder 154'*– 1er novembre, Bourée à Laffon : il a pris « les mesures nécessaires pour sauvegarder

les droits tant de M. Gayetti que de M. Mattei en faveur duquel le consul d’Italie était intervenu de son côté ».

– 1er novembre, Bourée à Edward Joy Morris (1815-1881), ministre de la Légation des États-Unis : il transmet la plainte.

– 6 novembre, Morris à Cesnola : il espère que, conformément à ses instructions,'\'%)@%'-#'`@’il y a d’erreur ou arbitraire dans ses procédés sera corrigé ».

– 8 novembre, Bourée à Laffon'*'\'b#'4#'&@2&'(.,2$% à M. le Ministre d’Amérique de la violation inqualifiable d’une propriété française par M. de Cesnola en demandant que

– 9 novembre, Cesnola à Laffon : il transmet copie de l’enquête. – 21 novembre, Paris à Laffon : le Ministre approuve son attitude de réserve 155.– 25 novembre, Bourée à Morris : envoie des pièces justificatives transmises par Laffon.– 28 novembre, Morris à Bourée : la légation refuse toute immixtion, Cesnola doit régler

l’affaire à Larnaca avec Laffon. Il ajoute qu’il est dans l’impossibilité de contraindre Cesnola à suivre ses instructions.

– 1er décembre, Bourée 5'X,"2&'*'2.'B#4,$B#'B#'&,2&2"'x,&D2$?%)$'B#'.’affaire si Cesnola ne se conforme pas aux prescriptions de Morris.

Hamilton Lang, provisoirement charg!' B@' 12-#C-)$&@.,%' B’Angleterre 156. Ce dernier rend son jugement le 7 décembre, Laffon en donne la substance, car Lang en a fait une traduction « longue et passablement lourde en français »'*\'1. M. de Cesnola écrira à M. Laffon une lettre dans laquelle il reconnaîtra l’illégalité de son

action dans l’affaire Murat-Gayetti et exprimera ses regrets d’avoir empiété sur la juridiction

\'2. Le produit intact de la vente des cotons de M. Gayetti sera remis par le Consulat d’Amérique

\'dans toutes les réclamations qu’il aurait à faire valoir contre M. Gayetti.'Z

L’affaire nécessitera encore nombre de missives avant sa complète résolution, à la satisfaction de Laffon :

– 9 décembre,'6,FF)$'5'Bourée'*'.#'-)$F.2%'\ vient d’3%"#',(.,$2'B#'.,'4,$2I"#'.,'(.@&'0@&%#'#%'.,'(.@&'&,%2&F,2&,$%#='Z'

154. Elles sont toutes conservées à Nantes, sauf mention autre.

155. CCC L22, 21 novembre 1868, n° 74, f. 412.


230 CCEC 47, 2017

– 9 décembre,'N#&$).,'5'J)""2&' *'\' %D#'4,%%#"'D,&'9##$' &,%2&F,-%)"2.V' &#%%.#B'9V' %D#'H$?.2&D'N)$&@.'%)'zD)&#',"92%",%2)$'2%'z,&'&@942%%#B'9V','-)44)$',?"##4#$%'Z='H%'#$'Xj='*\'I have the honor to add that the long suit of the orphans Murat has been closed and the

money paid over to them and therefore their protection by this Consulate has already ceased.'Z

– 11 décembre, Bourée à Laffon : a écrit à Morris, mais celui-ci n’ayant pas juridiction sur les consuls américains, il a !?,.#4#$%' !-"2%' 5' X,"2&' ()@"' !1#$%@#..#4#$%' F,2"#'2$%#"1#$2"'x,&D2$?%)$.

– 15 décembre, Morris à Bourée : « les difficultés sont aplanies ». – 20 décembre, Bourée 5'J)""2&'*'\'0#'4’en réjouis'Z='– 20 décembre, Laffon à Bourée : « M. de Cesnola a scrupuleusement rempli la décision

de M. Lang et de mon côté je me suis déclaré satisfait ayant trouvé que cette réparation n’!%,2%'#$'&)44#'̀ @#'-#'̀ @#'0’avais moi-même réclamé auparavant à M. de Cesnola.'Z

La protection religieuse

chrétiens catholiques dans l’Empire ottoman : elle assurait la liberté du culte, la sécurité 157

protégèrent efficacement le Patriarcat latin, les linopambaki et firent preuve de zèle en faveur des Maronites 158, Colonna Ceccaldi n’eut que peu à intervenir en faveur des catholiques.

Le vicariat du Patriarcat latin de Chypre Outre trois lettres concernant la demande de l’abbé Cirilli, Grand vicaire du Patriarche

de Jérusalem, pour obtenir un drogman et un procureur conformément aux concessions faites par la Porte aux établissements religieux 159, les archives conservent deux missives relatives 5'.,'(")%#-%2)$'B@'(,%"2,"-,%'.,%2$='

La première relate que le Gouverneur de Chypre conteste la protection exercée par 160'#%'1#@%'F,2"#',-`@2%%#"',@M'

XI"#&'B#'Q#""#'j,2$%#' .,' $)@1#..#' -)$%"29@%2)$' &@"' .#&' 244#@9.#&A' #$' .’espèce sur une

157. Théodore Goepp fut consul de 1845 à1849 (Bonato 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008).

158. Bonato 2006, p. 170-194.

159.

160. Jusqu’en 1848 et la création du Patriarcat latin de Jérusalem par Pie IX, la Custodie de Terre-Sainte délivrait des patentes de navigation et les navires arboraient le pavillon de Jérusalem, c’est-à-dire le drapeau des Croisés (blanc'semé'de'croix'rouges). La Porte consentait à ce que l’Ordre arme des navires de peu d’importance pour le transport des religieux, des pèlerins et le ravitaillement des missions, ceux-ci naviguant sous la protection des agents consulaires français. Mais dès le XV

e siècle, les Pères de Terre Sainte délivrèrent des patentes à des armateurs catholiques quelle que

furent accordées avec davantage de parcimonie (Blanchard 1938, p. 553-554).


propriété dont ils tirent un loyer 161. Sur ce deuxième point, l’ambassade instruit Colonna Ceccaldi que les propriétés des communautés religieuses sont assimilées à des propriétés particulières, seuls sont exemptés les églises, les monastères et les hôpitaux, les révérends pères ne peuvent donc se soustraire à la règle générale 162.

La deuxième rapporte que la Douane de Larnaca a saisi et expédié à Constantinople vingt livres envoyés d’Athènes pour l’!-).#' B2"2?!#' (,"' .#&' XI"#&' B#' Q#""#' j,2$%# 163. Cet ouvrage, intitulé Bénédictions, Prières, chansons pour les écoles publiques, est la traduction d’un livre grec et contient des chants patriotiques dans lesquels « les Turcs ne sont pas très bien traités ». Si Colonna Ceccaldi souligne qu’il ne conteste pas la bonne foi des religieux, car il n’y a aucune raison qu’ils veuillent relayer la propagande grecque, il a néanmoins réprimandé le père supérieur pour ne pas s’3%"#' &)@-2!'B@'-)$%#$@'B#&')@1",?#&=' >.'&)@.2?$#'!?,.#4#$%'`@#' .,'-)$F2&-,%2)$','!%!'F,2%#'&ans que le consulat de

'Fd%',1#"%2'#%'`@#'-#-2'$’est pas conforme aux traités,'\'$2'434#',@'"I?.#4#$%'B#'.,'X)"%#'2$&!"!'B,$&'.#'b)@"$,.'B#'N)$&%,$%2$)(.#'B@':Y',1"2.':8;L'Z=

Les linopambaki Après la conquête de Chypre en 1571, certains chrétiens malmenés par les Turcs

n’eurent d’autre alternative que d’!()@&#"'.,'"#.2?2)$'4@&@.4,$#= Parfois, ils professaient en cachette la religion chrétienne : dans le langage populaire ils sont appelés linopambaki, c’est-à-dire « moitié lin, moitié coton'Z='>.'V'#@%'B#&'1,?@#&'B’apostasie encore dans les années 1840, et le cas des'\'"#$!?,%&'Z',',.24#$%!'.,'-)""#&()$B,$-#'B#&'-)$&@.&et Goepp 164.

Un seul fait est rapporté par Laffon à l’ambassade 165, 5'.,'B#4,$B#'B#'J?"'j)(D")$2)&'*'@$'E"#-' B#'{,")&D,' $)44!'6#F%!"2A'4,"2!' 5' @$#'E"#-`@#' #%' (,V,$%' .’impôt militaire depuis cinq ans, a été mis en prison, enrôlé de force dans l’armée turque et soumis à l’opération de la circoncision, ce qui a soulevé l’indignation au sein de la population grecque :\'Le Grec dont il s

sa mère, devenue veuve, épousa en secondes noces un de ces individus, comme il y en a tant dans l’île de Chypre, qui sont musulmans en apparence et chrétiens en secret, et qu’on désigne en grec sous l’appellation assez expressive de linobambaki (moitié lin, moitié coton). Le jeune Leftéri suivit sa mère dans la maison de son second mari. Les autorités turques profitant donc de ce qu’il a été élevé dans la maison de ce dernier veulent le faire passer pour son fils et légitimer ainsi, par un mensonge calculé, une action abominable qui leur a été suggérée par la haine implacable que tout mahométan nourrit contre les linobambaki. »

161.

162.

163.

164. Bonato 2006, p. 179-182.

165.

232 CCEC 47, 2017

\'Si la Russie avait ici un consulat sérieux, nul doute qula compliquer avec la condition générale des Linobambaki et susciter par là des embarras au gouvernement turc, tandis que si Votre Excellence s’en occupe, elle pourra, sans donner aucun motif de tracasserie à la Porte, lui procurer l’occasion d’acquérir un nouveau titre à l’estime de l’Europe, et fournir en même temps aux Grecs une preuve éclatante de la sollicitude avec laquelle le Gouvernement français s’applique à les favoriser dans les limites compatibles avec le programme de paix et de civilisation qui sert de base à sa politique. »

On ne sait ce qu’il est advenu du malheureux Leftéri, mais un article signé « Impartial » parut à ce sujet dans la Turquie le jeudi 7 janvier 1869. Toutefois, deux notes de la main

donnent quelques informations. La première, sans date, mentionne que l’article n’est pas la copie de la lettre de Laffon. La deuxième, datée du 12 janvier 1869, montre que l’ambassade n’est pas restée inactive, même si dans de telles affaires elle n’intervient que rarement et de façon officieuse'*'\' La Porte vient d’adresser [...] des instructions à Saïd Pacha. Elle lui demande un rapport

circonstancié et lui recommande d’agir, dans les circonstances actuelles, avec circonspection et modération ».

Les MaronitesLa correspondance consulaire du XIX

e siècle ne manque pas d’exemples prouvant que !?,"B'B#&'J,")$2%#& 166, les consuls

n’ayant pas ménagé leurs efforts pour leur venir en aide 167. Quant 5'N).)$$,'N#--,.B2A'2.'#$%"#("#$B un voyage dans les villages maronites en compagnie de l’!13`@#, Mgr Jahjah, en janvier 1868. Il arrive le 17 à Cormachiti où il séjourne trois jours et est de retour à Larnaca le 20 janvier 168. La réception qui lui est réservée est empressée, la même que celle qu’il reçut dans la Montagne libanaise où il a résidé plusieurs années : « [...] je fus reçu au son des cloches, au bruit des coups de fusil des jeunes gens, au milieu du concours

Il a observé que la population maronite est « paisible, honnête, laborieuse et que l’administration ottomane se montrait, en somme, équitable envers elle. » Néanmoins, il

166. Les maronites, d’origine syrienne et libanaise, se sont installés à Chypre dès le VIIIe siècle,

et l’immigration s’est poursuivie tout au long de la période latine. Ils formaient la population la plus misérable de l’île et subissaient les vexations à la fois des Turcs et des Grecs orthodoxes, qui exerçaient sur eux une véritable suzeraineté ; ces privilèges avaient été accordés aux évêques grecs en vertu de Larnaca, s.d., f. 96). Aussi des incidents éclataient-ils périodiquement (Pouradier Duteil-Loizidou 1995, p. 22-23).

167. Louis de Maricourt, il dut intervenir en leur faveur en décembre 1863, alors qu’ils étaient maltraités par les Turcs : on venait de leur imposer un impôt en charbon à l’usage des troupes, alors que les

gouverneur Ismaïl Effendi, 19 novembre 1863 [non foliotée], et Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 195-197).

168. CPC TL2, 3 février 1868, n° 16, f. 157-162.


a attiré l’attention du gouverneur sur l’inégalité de la répartition de certains impôts entre les villages grecs et maronites du même district.

Statistiques sur la population et la situation économique des Maronites 169 170

Villages Habitants1868

Habitants 1847 170

Paires de bœufs

Hectares de terrain Dîmes, impôtsfonciers(piastres)

Miri, impôtpersonnel(piastres)

AskarieRemplacement

militaire(piastres)

Cormachiti 300 227 44 800 (1) blé, orge, coton

13 500 9 500 3 880

Assomatos 256 90 23 450 (2) blé, orge, coton, fèves

13 500 2 370 940

Hagia Marina

70 42 12 350 (3) blé,orge, coton, haricots

5 400 700 252

Carpassia 55 56 8 300 (4) blé, orge, coton

4 650 850 312

Campili 16 34 3 121 (5) blé, orge, coton

2 086 140

Couvent de St-Elie

12, dont4 moines

3 75 (6) blé, orge, légumes

400

Total 709 649 93 2 187 39 530 13 680 5 524

On compte en outre dans l’[.#'f<'4,")$2%#&'5't2-)&2#'(80 en 1847), 50 5'6,"$,-,'(100 en 1847) et quelques autres qui sont disséminés dans le pays ; 20 à Limassol en 1847.

Rapport par hectare :(1) Rapport par hectare : blé 10 hectol. " ; orge 13 " ; coton 350 kiloges en graine. Beaucoup de

terres disponibles.(2) Rapport par hectare : blé 13 hectol. " ; orge 18 ; coton 450 kiloges. Pas de terres disponibles :

territoire resserré.(3) Même rapports qu’à Assomatos.(4) Même rapport des terres que dans les deux localités précédentes. Peu de terrains disponibles.(5) Rapport par hectare : blé 10 hectol. ; orge 13 ; coton 350 kilo(es). Nombreux terrains

disponibles.(6) Même rapport qu’à Campili.

Deux colporteurs maronites assassinés Un père et son fils, colporteurs maronites originaires de Beyrouth, ont été assassinés

près de Paphos et volés de 14 000 piastres 171. Les habitants du village sont connus comme « le rebut de la population de l’[.#'#%'-’est presque toujours de ce côté de l’[.#'que se

169. Ibid., f. 161-162.

170. Recensement effectué en 1847 par l’abbé Cirilli (vicaire général des Maronites) à la suite d’une enquête réclamée par la Propagande de Rome afin d’établir un relevé exact des catholiques

en 1891 donne le chiffre de 1 131 maronites.

171.

234 CCEC 47, 2017

commettent les rares assassinats qu’on signale en Chypre ». Plusieurs personnes ont été

ceci expliquant peut-être cela d’après le consul.Le patriarche des Maronites s’est ému devant l’inertie du gouverneur et pria Colonna

Ceccaldi d’intervenir auprès de Taïb Pacha afin qu’il fasse une nouvelle enquête. Le consul pense que Taïb Pacha n’est pas de mauvaise volonté, mais qu’il veut régler l’affaire d’une façon peu orthodoxe : \ […] il traite un peu trop cette affaire d’après l’ancienne méthode turque : son dernier moyen

d’enquête sera celui-ci : envoyer un délégué sur les lieux, s’assurer si, de l’endroit où les deux colporteurs ont été trouvés morts, des cris peuvent s’entendre jusqu’5'+,FF)'U'B,$&'-#'-,&A'"#$B"#'.#'12..,?#'"#&()$&,9.#A'B,$&'.#'-,&'-)$%",2"#A'.,'.)2'%@"`@#'$#'(#"4#%%",2%'(,&'B#'()@&&#"'.,'-D)&#'(.@&'.)2$'5'.’!?,"B'B#&'?#$&'B#'+,FF)='H%'2.'4’a offert, si le résultat est négatif, de m’envoyer le mazbata du grand conseil de Nicosie qui constatera que la loi reste impuissante afin que je puisse, en m’adressant à l’ambassade, obtenir qu’il reçoive de Constantinople l’ordre de poursuivre en dehors des formalités légales, ordre qu’il s’empressera d’exécuter. ».

Nicosie 172 et refuse la proposition du Gouverneur car on lui a dit que du lieu de l’assassinat rien ne pouvait être entendu dans les villages voisins. Il envoie alors un dossier retraçant l’ensemble des faits à l’ambassade et propose que les habitants des villages voisins paient « le prix du sang » si aucun coupable n’est trouvé rapidement, même si ceci semble arbitraire. Il confirme :

« […] je suis convaincu que les autorités locales s’y serait engager [sic] sans scrupules si elles avaient à faire punir le meurtre d’un musulman ». La réponse de l’ambassade est sévère 173' *' 4

une justice équitable pour tous dans l’Empire ottoman, les Maronites sont sujets du Sultan et c’est à leur Patriarche de faire des démarches. Laffon n’est autorisé qu’5',?2"')FF2-2#@&#4#$%=

Pour conclureLa correspondance des consuls est une source de première importance pour notre

connaissance de Chypre, et celle de Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi n’y déroge pas. Elle est dans la continuité de celle de Maricourt, si ce n’est par son ton. Autant Maricourt est

Colonna Ceccaldi en militaire est direct et ne s’embarrasse pas d’artifice sans toutefois être protocolaire.

Il a une bonne connaissance de l’Orient puisqu’il y est en poste depuis octobre 1861. Dès son arrivée, il constate qu’5'NDV("#' .#' ?)@1#"$#4#$%' )%%)4an « ne respecte pas plus les stipulations formelles des Traités qu’elle ne remplit, envers ses administrés, les

172.

173.


devoirs les plus élémentaires d’un gouvernement'Z 174, et il ne cessera d’attirer l’attention du ministère sur la situation de l’[.#A'#%'B#'&2?$,.#" l’incurie des gouverneurs et comment la Porte l’exploite impunément 175'*\'NDV("#'.@2'",(()"%#'(,"',$'7;'42..2)$&'B#'(2,&%"#&'U'#..#'$’en dépense pas deux dans le pays,

qui reste sans ports, sans routes, sans améliorations d’aucune sorte et la presque totalité de cette somme s’en va ainsi à Constantinople, pour être consacrée, quand ce n’est pis, à des services qui n’intéressent en rien les habitants de cette île. »

Les signes de modernité déjà annoncés par Maricourt, pour modestes qu’ils soient, sont pourtant perceptibles' *' certains ont été menés à bien, comme la création d’une

Gata, alors que d’autres ont avorté, comme la construction d’une route carrossable entre Larnaca et Nicosie 176. En septembre 1868, il est de nouveau question de cette route. Une nouvelle taxe est levée et il est demandé aux étrangers et aux protégés d’y contribuer. Si Colonna Ceccaldi penche pour accepter de payer étant donné la modestie de la somme, alors que d’autres consuls ont refusé, le Ministère refuse catégoriquement : les nationaux sont affranchis de toute charge de cette nature par les traités 177.

Le consul nous apprend que deux autres projets sont envisagés par le gouvernement ottoman : l’organisation d’une municipalité à Larnaca, qui devrait rendre de grands services car il y a urgence pour certaines situations (propreté de la ville, distribution de l’eau, construction de quais et de débarcadères), et la création d’une banque de crédit agricole, alors que l’agriculture est dévorée par l’usure avec des taux d’intérêt allant de 18 à 36% 178.

La municipalité est composée de neuf personnes : trois musulmans, trois Grecs, trois Européens que les consuls doivent élire, mais certains ont refusé, car aucun règlement n’a été porté à leur connaissance. Le gouverneur a alors fait élire par une assemblée populaire (« 15 ou 20 notables, ni les moins intrigans ni les plus honnêtes ») deux Italiens et un Anglais nés dans le pays. Les ressources de la municipalité sont constituées des droits de pesage et de mesurage pour la ville (60 000 piastres), mais, comme elle n’a rien touché, elle a imposé arbitrairement, sans règle ni surveillance, l’entrée des légumes, l’abattage des animaux de boucherie, l’embarquement des bestiaux.

Si le contexte est chaotique pour la municipalité, il en est de même pour la banque de crédit agricole qui n’a pas de capitaux propres. Le consul pense qu’il aurait été « équi-table » de consacrer une petite partie de l’impôt de l’[.#'/77'42..2)$&'B#'(2,&%"#&K, mais il en fut tout autrement, une nouvelle taxe fut imposée en nature (blé et orge) aux paysans

174. CCC L22, 14 octobre 1866, n° 11, f. 286-287 ; CPC TL2, 14 octobre 1866, f. 110-111.

175. CPC TL2, 2 octobre 1866, n° 6, f. 109.

176. Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 111-112, 116-118.

177. CCC L22, 2 septembre 1868, n° 44, f. 386 et CCC L, 10 sep 1868, f. 393.

178. 1869, n° 61.

236 CCEC 47, 2017

possédant une paire de bœufs. Ayant'B!05'1#$B@'.#@"'(")B@-%2)$A'2.&')$%'Bd'(,V#"'%"#$%#'(2,&%"#&'(,"'(,2"#='N#.,'"#("!&#$%,';RR'RRR'(2,&%"#&, puisqu’il y a 20 000 paires dans l’[.#='Nela se passa \'5'.,'%@"`@#'Z'#% ce qui était à craindre est arrivé : les 600 000 piastres furent employées à défrayer les dépenses de l’administration : \'

le prévoir. L’an prochain, on imposera de nouveau chaque paire de bœufs pour 30 piastres, la mesure deviendra normale ; quant à la Banque, elle fonctionnera en 1870 comme en 1869 ; le progrès pompeusement annoncé se résoudra en un nouvel impôt. »

Et de conclure : « En réalité, les réformes progressistes de la Turquie'se transforment en mesures fiscales mais n’aboutissent aucunement ». Ses convictions sont faites, la Turquie n’arrivera jamais à se réformer :\ [...] les conditions normales d’existence des sociétés et des gouvernements modernes ne se

trouvent pas et ne se trouveront jamais ni dans la société musulmane ni dans le gouvernement turc. »

Pour autant, il est conscient de la valeur de Chypre et de ce que l’[.# pourrait devenir si elle était correctement administrée 179'*\' […] Or l’[.#'B#'NDV("#A'`@2'(#@%'(,&&#"' 2$,(#"r@#'#$'-#'4)4#$%A'(,",[%",'@$'0)@"A'&)@&'@$#'4#2..#@"#',B42$2&%",%2)$A'-#'`@’elle est réellement, une position magnifique, une terre de pro-mission, une des plus riches contrées de l’Orient. Que ce jour là au moins notre influence ici soit telle qu’aucune autre ne la prime dans les arrangements à intervenir.'Z

Surtout, comme Maricourt 180

insiste : Chypre ne doit pas « échapper aujourd’hui à notre action'Z. Nous savons qu’il n’en fut rien.

Nous refermons ici ce premier chapitre consacré aux activités consulaires de Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi. Il nous reste à en ouvrir un autre, celui de ses activités archéologiques, puisque, à l’instar de ses confrères, il s’est adonné à la recherche d’objets antiques, passe-temps favori des diplomates dans l’[.# au XIX

e siècle.

Université Paris X-Nanterre, UMR 7041 - ArScAn [Archéologie et Sciences de l’Antiquité]

GLOSSAIRE

179. archives de La Courneuve et n’est donc pas foliotée.

180. Bonato, Emery 2010, p. 208.

Cafiz (ou Kafiz) : mesure correspondant à 250 pounds, soit 113 kilos environ. C’est aussi un terme utilisé comme mesure de terrain. Il correspond alors à 124 coudées, soit 5,60 m.

Caïmacam : lieutenant, substitut (littérale-ment). Au XIX

e s., titre donné à un gouver-neur de province.

Cavas (Kawas) : garde du corps appartenant au gouvernement turc alloué pour


SOURCES

Archives diplomatiques du ministère des Affaires étrangères (La Courneuve)

CCC L : Correspondance consulaire et commerciale, LarnacaCPC TL': Correspondance politique du consul, Turquie, LarnacaCPC TLC : Correspondance politique du consul, Turquie, La Canée

Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes (Nantes)

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

ARISTARCHI BEY (G.) [!B=' G=' t2-).,kB#&_, 1873, Législation ottomane ou Recueil des lois, règlements, ordonnances, traités, capitulations et autres documents officiels, de l’Empire Ottoman.

ARMINJON (P.), 1903,' Ptrangers et protégés dans l’empire ottoman, Tome Ier. Nationalité, protection, indigénat, condition juridique des individus et des personnes morales, Paris.

AYMES (M.), 2010, \'p$'?",$B'(")?"I&'v'&@"'.#'(,(2#"' Z=' u2&%)2"#' (")12$-2,.#' B#&' "!F)"4#&')%%)4,$#&'5'NDV("#',@'!"!e siècle, Louvain.

BLANCHARD (G.), 1938, « Le régime des Capitulations et son abolition en Égypte par la Convention de Montreux du 8 mai 1937 », Revue catholique des institutions et du droit 11, p. 541-563 (consultable sur Gallica).

BONATO (L.), 2000a, « Le témoignage de

Larnaca de 1840 à 1845 (introduction à la publication du Mémoire sur l’!%,%'("!&#$%'B#'.’[.#' B#'NDV("#A' :8TT' ZA CCEC 30, p. 119-126.

accompagner les ambassadeurs, les consuls et voyageurs, signalant par sa présence que ces personnes sont protégées par l’P%,%=' >.' #&%' ,"4!' Bargenté pour asseoir son autorité et assurer la sécurité. Le nombre de cawas indique la dignité et le rang de celui ou ceux qu’il accompagne.

Drogman' : interprète assurant la commu-nication avec les autorités (le mot désigne à la fois les interprètes au service des Européens et les fonctionnaires au service de l’administration ottomane).

Effendi : seigneur, maître. Titre donné aux dignitaires civils ou religieux de l’Empire. Terme de courtoisie dès le XIX

e s.

Firman : ordre écrit du Sultan commandant l’obéissance au monde entier.

Kharâdj' : |' NDV("#A' 5' .’origine impôt foncier basé sur la valeur des terres puis nom donné à l’impôt de capitation.

Mazbata' *' (")-I&C1erbal de séance d’une assemblée (comme les séances des tribunaux).

Medjlis'*',&&#49.!#, conseil.

Mîri' *' j)"%#' B’impôt foncier payé par les chrétiens pour pouvoir cultiver la terre du Grand Seigneur, correspondant à la taxe de tenure payée par les musulmans qui pratiquent l’agriculture.

Moze = müd': mesure de grains équivalant à deux poignées.

Mudir' *' ,B42$2&%",%#@"' /,?#$%K' #$' -D,"?#'B#&' ,FF,2"#&' .)-,.#&' B’une subdivision administrative.

Mütesarrif' : gouverneur d’une subdivision de l’administration ottomane.

Pachalik' *' charge d’un pacha, territoire soumis à l’autorité d’un pacha.

Sipahi'*'-,1,.2#"'B#&'%")@(#&'%24,"2,.#&.Teskérés'*'"#r@&'B#'.,'G)@,$#=Timar' *' 9!$!F2-#' F)$-2#"' B)$%' .#&' "#1#$@&'&)$%'-)$-!B!&'5'@$'sipahi.

Vilayet : la plus grande division provinciale de l’Empire.

Zaptié : gendarme turc.

238 CCEC 47, 2017

BONATO (L.) éd., 2000b,' '\'J!4)2"#'&@"' .’!%,%'("!&#$%'B#'.’[.#'B#'NDV("#A':8TT'(,"'G,?)9#"%'s)@"-,B#'ZA'CCEC 30, p. 127-218.

BONATO (L.), 2002, Sosthène Grasset d’Orcet et la découverte de l’archéologie chypriote, Amboise.

BONATO

Larnaca à la fin de la Monarchie de Juillet.

Théodore Goepp (1840-1849). I. L’orga-nisation de l’institution consulaire. La représentation du gouvernement français », CCEC 33, p. 273-303.

BONATO

Larnaca à la fin de la Monarchie de Juillet.

Théodore Goepp (1840-1849). II. L’aide au commerce », CCEC 35, p. 169-190.

BONATO (L.), 2006, \'6#' -)$&@.,%' B#'s",$-#' 5'6,"$,-,'5' .,' F2$'B#' .,'J)$,"-D2#'B#' b@2..#%='N)""#&()$B,$-#' B#' G,?)9#"%' s)@rcade et Théodore Goepp (1840-1849). III.

CCEC 36, p. 143-194.

BONATO (L.), sous presse, %& -magusta during the Ottoman period in travel-

& ', dans Maritime Famagusta,

Leiden, sous presse.

BONATO (L.), EMERY (M.), 2010, Louis Dumesnil de Maricourt, un consul pour la France, Mannheim.

BONATO (L.), DONDIN-PAYRE (M.), 2017, La Méditerranée d’Edmond Duthoit, archéo-logue et architecte, XIXe siècle, Paris.

DUMONT (P.), 1989,'\'6,'(!"2)B#'B#&'Q,$l24q%'/:8LfC:8Y8K'Z, dans R. Mantran (dir.), His-toire de l’Empire ottoman, Paris.

GAUDRY (A.), 1861, « L’[.#'B#'NDV("#A'&)@1#$2"'B’une mission scientifique », Revue des deux mondes, p. 212-237.

GEORGEON (F.), VATIN (N.), VEINSTEIN (G.) dir., 2015, Dictionnaire de l’Empire ottoman, Paris.

GORING (E.), 1988, A Mischievous Pastime, Edimbourg.

KUNERALP (S.), 2002, Poids, mesures et monnaies et cours des changes dans les principales localités de l’Empire ottoman à la fin du XIXe siècle, Istanbul.

LAPIERRE (L.), 2008, \'E#)"?#&'6,(2#""#'/:Y8fC:8T;KA' j#2?$#@"' B#' NDV("#' #%' (")&-"2%' ZA'CCEC 38, p. 195-225.

MILLIEX (R.), 1973, « Esquisse d’une biographie de Gustave Laffon (1835-1906) », Actes du 1er colloque international sur Chypre, !

! , Nicosie, p. 221-236.

PAPADOPOULLOS (T.), 1965, Social and Historical Data on Population (1570-1881), Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus I, Nicosie.

POURADIER DUTEIL-LOIZIDOU (A.), 1995, Consulat de France à Larnaca 1696-1699, t. II, Nicosie.

REY Protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les échelles du Levant et de Barbarie, Paris.

SEVERIS (R.), BONATO (L.), 1999, Along the Most Beautiful Path in the World. Edmond Duthoit in Cyprus, Nicosie.

SMYRNELIS (M.-C.), 2005, Une société hors de soi. Identités et relations sociales à Smyrne aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, Leuven.

THOBIE (J.), 2004, L’administration générale des phares de l’Empire ottoman et la société Collas et Michel (1860-1960), Paris.

YOUNG' (G.), 1906, Corps de droit ottoman : recueil des codes, lois, règlements, ordonnances et actes les plus importants du droit intérieur, et d’!$()*+& +(,& -*& ),./$&0.($(1/*,& )*& -’Empire Ottoman, vol. VI, Oxford.


A HEAD DEFINITELY NOT FROM RANTIDI

And a tribute to Olivier Masson!1

Stephan G. SCHMID

Sophie G. HORACEK

Résumé. Cet article revient sur une tête féminine en calcaire à couronne végétale publiée dans l’Illustrated London News (article du 4 février 1911, sur les découvertes de Max Ohnefalsch-Richter à Rantidi, Paphos). Divers arguments montrent que la tête provient en réalité d’Idalion, mais c’est avant tout la reprise de l’étude des archives de Max Ohnefalsch-Richter qui a apporté la confirmation d’une provenance idaliote. La tête, découverte en 1894 sur l’acropole orientale d’Idalion, a été trouvée dans un sanctuaire dédié à une divinité féminine, et les notes du fouilleur permettent de localiser avec précision le lieu de sa découverte. Elle fait désormais partie d’une série de têtes comparables dont le contexte de découverte est connu, ce qui contribuera à l’interprétation de ce type de sculptures. L’exemple de cette tête montre aussi que, de manière générale, les documents issus des activités de Max Ohnefalsch-Richter constituent une source riche et précieuse pour les recherches modernes.

In the Illustrated London News (ILN) of February 4th, 1911, an article entitled “The dwelling place of divinities? – A ‘Mount Olympus’ in Cyprus. The remarkable discoveries of Dr. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter at Rantidi”!2 was published (Figs. 1-2). The article covers

the results of a rather strange enterprise leading to the discovery of a series of highly

important inscriptions, an excavation headed by Robert Zahn on the account of the Royal

Academy of Sciences of Berlin, and the complete falling out of Max Ohnefalsch-Richter

1. The present contribution is a small extract of a recently launched project dealing with Max

Ohnefalsch-Richter’s activities in Idalion. The project took off from the archive material related

to MORs planned but never published volume “Tamassos und Idalion” that is stored within the

archives of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, but also refers to many other archive

material held in several other countries. We would like to thank the responsible colleagues for their

cooperation and the generous access to the respective archives. Particularly for this contribution

Andreas Scholl, Martin Maischberger, Sylvia Brehme (Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin), Klaus Hallof (Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin), Christos Kyriakides (State Archives [Kratiko

Archeio], Nicosia) are to be thanked, as well as the Shelby White & Leon Levy Program for

Archaeological Publications (Harvard) for the funding of the project and Will M. Kennedy (Berlin)

for correcting the English text.

2. ILN February 4th, 1911, p. 162-163.

240 CCEC 47, 2017

with the former.3 From Max Ohnefalsch-Richter’s (in the following MOR) point of view,

the discovery and partial excavation of the archaeological site of Rantidi must be set

in the context of his last trip to Cyprus in 1910 and his subsequent, nearly complete,

banishment from scholarly research on Cypriot antiquities.4

This contribution does not attempt to look into the details of the earlier stage of

archaeological explorations at Rantidi,5 or of MORs last sojourn in Cyprus. Instead,

the aim of the present paper is to evaluate one of the objects that was published in the

abovementioned article in the ILN in more detail: the limestone head of a women wearing

a vegetal crown (Fig. 3).

3. On these events see Summa 2018; Karnava 2018.

4. On these aspects see Schmid 2018a; Schmid 2018b.

5. For the more recent archaeological activities at Rantidi see Bazemore 2010; Bazemore 2007;

Young 2005, especially 29-34.

!"#$%&'()*+,(-.&!"##$%&'(&)*!+,-*,-!.)/%(/0(!&1%$2%3(45.()6))((7"5.(28(2%5"9:&(13(;2<(=.8&02:'9.*>"9.5&%?(&85"5:&@(A

B01)!')2('3(4#)!*5%6,7)'5)%!,8!9':!;(<!=1-)8(#%61>?561&)'!(&!?(-&5*5C?@:!A!D,()E+(A(F-.&(@7&::"8#*D:29&(/0(@"G"8"5"&'H(I(J(F;/$85(=:3KD$'L("8(M3D%$',L((B:!A!D,()EN(A(((F-.&('29%&@(."::(/0(O%&&P(K35./:/#3A(J(M3D%"28(F;/$85(=:3KD$',L(

C,DE!D')%)'7)*!5-!&1)!('6157)%!,8!Q8'9%"D5"/8&'(O%2&92&F!!G)'#5->G'(-*)-4$'H!I6(*)2E!,8!J65)-6)%F!G)'#5-:

@:!!

B:!

S. SCHMID, S. HORACEK, A HEAD NOT FROM RANTIDI 241

Why one should learn proper English

On the bottom left of page 162, MOR depicted the illustration of a female head

(Fig. 3) as figure 6 and the caption of that figure reads: “6. The Goddess. A shrine to whom, discovered on the hill of Rantidi, lead to further excavations, and the belief that the place is a ‘Mount Olympus’: a fine head of Aphrodite”. This head subsequently became

the object of a somewhat more detailed discussion by Veronica Tatton-Brown in 1982,

where she dated it to the first decade of the 5th c. BC and compared it to a number of

similar Cypriot heads. Interestingly, from those where the archaeological provenance is

secured, the majority of the discussed heads derive from Idalion.6 The motivation for

Tatton-Brown’s dealings with the head was the fact that doubts had arisen considering its

attribution to the site of Rantidi. In addition to the well-known inscriptions and the female

head, the only other elements illustrated in the ILN article was a small terracotta group of

a man in military dress holding two horses, equally of unknown provenance.7 Moreover,

while Tatton-Brown was preparing her contribution for the Rantidi publication,8 the

association of the terracotta group with Rantidi was so severely doubted within scholarly

discourse that similarly strong doubts were also raised for the origins of the limestone

head. Both the terracotta group as well as the limestone head were therefore excluded

6. Tatton-Brown 1982, p. 180-182.

7. Tatton-Brown 1982, p. 174-180.

8. Mitford, Masson 1983.

!"#$%&(N,(R"K&'5/8&(.&2@(%&D%&'&85"8#(2(0&K2:&(0"#$%&(7&2%"8#(2(G&#&52:(9%/78,K'5-&!D')%)'7)*!5-!&1)!('6157)%!,8!&1)!I-&53)-%(22#$-HF!J&((&#561)!;$%))-!G)'#5-F!L!@@BM:

4:!K',85#)!75)/:!(:!K$4#5%1)*!(%!85H:!N!5-!&1)!QRS!('&56#):

242 CCEC 47, 2017

from the Rantidi volume, which necessitated the publication of the separate article in

RDAC 1982. However, it was never possible to point out an alternative findspot of the

head.9 Still, our head occasionally appears in publications dealing with Cypriot sculptures

in general and, particularly, in publications dedicated to this type of female heads wearing

a vegetal crown.10 However, as the archaeological context of the find remained so far

unknown, it was of only limited scholarly use.

The next important appearance of the head Figure 3 was with the publication of an

edited version of a luxurious album with photographs that the couple Ohnefalsch-Richter

had offered to Bernhard, the prince of Saxe-Meiningen and his wife, princess Charlotte,

a sister of the emperor Wilhelm II, in 1895.11 The emperor and his wife had also received

such an album,12 the whereabouts of which, however, are unknown. Bernhard’s copy was

also considered lost, until it re-appeared on the art market where it was purchased by a

Cypriot bank in 1992 and which also funded the edition of 1994.13 MOR and his wife had

prepared and presented the two volumes as a sign of gratitude for the financial support

granted by Wilhelm II that had made MORs 1894-1895 Cyprus expedition possible.

Bernhard was to be thanked because of his strong lobbying at the imperial court until

Wilhelm II agreed to support MORs archaeological activities.14 Consequently, many of

the volume’s illustrations are directly related to MORs activities in Cyprus in 1894 and

1895. Others are of an older date, but, of course, none can be younger than 1895.

In this volume, the head in question is illustrated as plate 47a and the caption refers to

it as an “Archaic stone-head found in the excavations ibidem, 1894. Today in the Berlin Museum” 15. Clearly, the mentioned excavations must have been specified on the previous

plate (plate 46) which indeed depicts Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter sitting in the middle

of an ongoing excavation (Fig. 4) and the corresponding caption reads: “View from the eastern acropolis of Idalion. In the foreground a part of the excavations in 1894 with Mrs. Ohnefalsch-Richter. In the background the modern village of Dali”.16 Therefore, the

9. Tatton-Brown (1982, p. 181) insists that the head was the product of illicit excavations,

probably alluding to MORs activities at Rantidi. Nevertheless, she does not argue in favour of a

provenance from Rantidi.

10. Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821.. Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821.Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821.

11. Malecos, Marangou 1994.. Malecos, Marangou 1994.Malecos, Marangou 1994.

12. As is indicated, for example, in Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913, p. IX.. As is indicated, for example, in Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913, p. IX.As is indicated, for example, in Ohnefalsch-Richter 1913, p. IX.

14. For the details see Schmid 2018a.. For the details see Schmid 2018a.For the details see Schmid 2018a.

15. “. ““Archaischer Steinkopf gefunden in den Ausgrabungen daselbst, 1894. Heute im Berliner Museum” (Malecos, Marangou 1994, pl. 47a).

16. “. ““Blick von der östlichen Akropolis zu Idalion. Im Vordergrunde ein Theil der Ausgrabungen von 1894 mit Frau Ohnefalsch-Richter. Im Hintergrunde das moderne Dorf Dali” (Malecos,

Marangou 1994, pl. 46).


findspot of our head can be more accurately traced back to MORs excavation of what is

likely to be a sanctuary of Aphrodite on the eastern acropolis of Idalion.17

In his seminal review of Malecos and Marangou from 1995, Olivier Masson

immediately realised the importance of this identification and was able to include the

correct inventory number of the object in the Antikensammlung in Berlin.18 In light of

these results, it is quite enigmatic that Dimitris Mylonas’ dealings with the head not

only still maintains that it comes from Rantidi, but also falsely claims that the piece is

preserved in the Cyprus Museum.19 This is all the more surprising since he is quoting

not only Tatton-Brown’s article of 1982, but also the work of Malecos and Marangou,

including the correct plate number, where one can clearly read that the head derives from

Idalion and has entered the Berlin collection of Cypriot antiquities.

17. On that excavation see Schmid, Horacek 2018b, and, in a wider context, Ulbrich 2008, . On that excavation see Schmid, Horacek 2018b, and, in a wider context, Ulbrich 2008, On that excavation see Schmid, Horacek 2018b, and, in a wider context, Ulbrich 2008,

p. 316-319 ID 3a-b.

18. Masson 1995, p. 39: “. Masson 1995, p. 39: “Masson 1995, p. 39: “

en calcaire, acropole de l’est, 1894; connue jusqu’ici par une photo dans Illustr. London News du 4 février 1911, où la légende faisait croire d’une manière erronée à une trouvaille de la région de Rantidi-Paphos en 1910 (cf. Mitford-Masson, The Syllabic Inscr. of Rantidi-Paphos, 1983, pl. 1, 3,

”.

19. Mylonas 1999, p. 179 n. 745; 180 (list); 181 n. 755; 399 n. 1674.. Mylonas 1999, p. 179 n. 745; 180 (list); 181 n. 755; 399 n. 1674.Mylonas 1999, p. 179 n. 745; 180 (list); 181 n. 755; 399 n. 1674.

!"#$%&(4,(;2#@2(=.8&02:'9.*>"9.5&%('"55"8#(7"5."8(5.&(&<92G25"/8'(/0(5.&(&2'5&%8(29%/D/:"'(/0(Q@2:"/8("8(;23*T$8&()U64,(

K'5-&!D')%)'7)*!5-!&1)!('6157)%!,8!&1)!I-&53)-%(22#$-HF!J&((&#561)!;$%))-!G)'#5-F!L!@@ON:

244 CCEC 47, 2017

Before having a closer look at the head and its exact findspot, we shall briefly consider

the source of the misleading interpretation, e.g. MORs article in the Illustrated London News and, more specifically, the caption to figure 6, since otherwise the head is not at all

dealt with in the article. It is quite obvious that “The Goddess. A shrine to whom, discovered on the hill of Rantidi, lead to further excavations, and the belief that the place is a ‘Mount Olympus’: a fine head of Aphrodite” is a typical MOR-caption, i.e. that, on the one hand,

his moderate English always maintained a particularly German syntax translated literally

into English, and, on the other hand, that MOR typically attempted to squeeze as much

information as possible into a single sentence.20 Taken as such, the caption could be read

as something similar to “A fine head of Aphrodite, the goddess, who’s recently discovered shrine on the Rantidi hill led to further excavations etc.” In any case, the caption was not

meant to imply that the head on figure 6 in the ILN (here Fig. 3) originates from Rantidi.

Instead, it merely states that it is the same deity. That this is not an unsubstantiated and ex

20. For a more detailed analysis of MORs written expressions in German and English see Schmid . For a more detailed analysis of MORs written expressions in German and English see Schmid For a more detailed analysis of MORs written expressions in German and English see Schmid

2018a.

!"#$%&'(V*E,(W&52":'(/0(!"#$%&'()*+(P%$D'(Q,

9)&(5#!,8!R5H:!@,

9)&(5#!,8!R5H:!B,


post exegetic analysis of MORs words and thoughts, is demonstrated by taking a closer

look to the pages from the ILN illustrated here as Figures 1 and 2. Factually, this was the

copy of the article sent by MOR himself to Richard Meister (1848-1912) with whom he

was in contact for the reading and publication of the syllabic inscriptions from Rantidi.21

The double-page is now preserved in the archives of the Inscriptiones Graecae within

the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Meister had noted with pencil on top

of the page “received from Dr. O-R on June 30th 11” ( ).22 More interesting for the

purpose of this contribution, however, are the comments in black ink clearly written

in MORs handwriting on several spots of the two pages. At the end of the caption of

figure 6 he wrote: “from the eastern acropolis of Idalion. Not my mistake. Dr. M. O-R”

(Fig. 6).23 And further below one can read: “I never have pretended [so]. Dr. M. O-R”.24

Although it is not clear whether the second comment is related to figure 6 (the limestone

head), or to the sentence on the bottom of the page where the Mount Olympus theory is

mentioned, there can be no doubt that the first comment deals with figure 6 (here Fig. 3a).

In other words, in 1910/11 MOR perfectly knew that this head was found by himself on

the eastern acropolis of Idalion in 1894 and he had no intention to falsify this information.

It was simply his bad English that led to the whole confusion.

The provenance of the head

Idalion can be considered one of the most important sites in MORs archaeological

career, rivalled only by Tamassos and Marion/Arsinoe.25 If we take into account not only

his excavations in or very near the ancient city, but also his explorations of sanctuaries

and necropoleis in Idalion’s surroundings, his activities there started as early as 1883,

when he first explored graveyards in Alambra as well as those closer to Idalion on behalf

of Charles Newton.26 In the same year and on the same account, he carried out small-scale

excavations both on a hill to the west of Idalion’s double acropoleis, where a sanctuary of

a kourotrophic deity had been located before MORs activities,27 as well as on a lower spot

of the eastern acropolis, where he located a sanctuary or shrine of Aphrodite who’s exact

relation with the “main” sanctuary of Aphrodite higher up the eastern acropolis remains

to be determined.28

21. For the inscriptions and Meister’s part in reading them see Karnava 2018; Summa 2018.. For the inscriptions and Meister’s part in reading them see Karnava 2018; Summa 2018.For the inscriptions and Meister’s part in reading them see Karnava 2018; Summa 2018.

22. “. ““erhalten von Dr. O-R. am 30/6 11”..

23. “. ““v. d. östl. Akropolis von Idalion. Nicht mein Fehler. Dr. M. O-R.”.

24. “. ““Habe ich nie behauptet. Dr. M. O-R.”.

25. For a more recent and detailed discussion see Schmid, Horacek 2018b.. For a more recent and detailed discussion see Schmid, Horacek 2018b.For a more recent and detailed discussion see Schmid, Horacek 2018b.

26. On MORs activities on behalf of Newton and the British Museum see now Kiely 208.. On MORs activities on behalf of Newton and the British Museum see now Kiely 208.On MORs activities on behalf of Newton and the British Museum see now Kiely 208.

27. Ulbrich 2008, p. 321-322 ID 6.. Ulbrich 2008, p. 321-322 ID 6.Ulbrich 2008, p. 321-322 ID 6.

28. Ulbrich 2008, p. 318-319 ID 3b; Sophie Horacek is studying the sanctuary or sanctuaries of . Ulbrich 2008, p. 318-319 ID 3b; Sophie Horacek is studying the sanctuary or sanctuaries of Ulbrich 2008, p. 318-319 ID 3b; Sophie Horacek is studying the sanctuary or sanctuaries of

Aphrodite on the eastern acropolis of Idalion as part of her doctoral thesis embedded within the

research project mentioned above in n. 1.

246 CCEC 47, 2017

MOR had reserved a detailed publication of both his own archaeological activities

in and around Idalion as well as his evaluation of previous research in the area for his

notorious opus magnum “Tamassos und Idalion”, which was often announced but in

the end never published. As is well known, thanks to the work of Olivier Masson and

others,29 the remaining manuscripts, typoscripts, and a collection of the illustrations for

MORs work are preserved in the archives of the Antikensammlung, the successor of

the Antiquarium, in Berlin. Due to the manifold turbulences within the life of MOR,

important parts are missing from the archives in the Antikensammlung, though some

elements can be retrieved from other archives, both in Germany as well as in other

countries.30 Concerning the limestone head discussed here, we can put together the

following information from the various archival documents: In 1887 MOR had spent

a longer period of time in Idalion and during this sojourn he was able to identify the

spot on the eastern acropolis as a sanctuary of Aphrodite, observing and apparently

also motivating the search of the villagers for ancient spolia used as building material

in the modern village of Dali.31 From that moment onwards, he attempted to obtain an

excavation permit and also the necessary funding for a larger excavation there. He indeed

succeeded to interest the Royal Museums in Berlin for the project as is indicated, among

other documents, by a formal letter of Richard Schöne32 dating to February 7th 1889, then

29. Masson 1964, p. 199-202 n. 4; Masson 1968, p. 42 n. 1 and other contributions by the same . Masson 1964, p. 199-202 n. 4; Masson 1968, p. 42 n. 1 and other contributions by the same Masson 1964, p. 199-202 n. 4; Masson 1968, p. 42 n. 1 and other contributions by the same

author. As a matter of fact, O. Masson started studying the documents related to MORs manuscript

“Tamassos und Idalion” in Berlin as early as the 1960s; see also Masson, Hermary 1988.

30. For Germany one has to mention the former state archives of Prussia, where many documents . For Germany one has to mention the former state archives of Prussia, where many documents For Germany one has to mention the former state archives of Prussia, where many documents

ended up dealing with the administrative aspects of MORs archaeological work, since the funding

of his activities in 1894/95 came from the emperor’s exchequer and, therefore, the Prussian state

was following the affair until the 1930s. These documents are now preserved in the Geheimes

Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin, the Ohnefalsch-Richter papers bearing the

register number GStA PK I. HA Rep. 76 Kultusministerium, Vc, Sekt. 1 Tit. 11 Teil. V B Nr.

15. Other important archives for reconstructing MORs activities in Idalion are preserved in the

British Museum in London (see Kiely 2018) and within the archives of Salomon Reinach, split

up (for the parts of interest to our project) between the Bibliothèque Méjanes in Aix-en-Provence

and the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. It was again Olivier Masson

who realised the importance of the documents within the archives of Salomon Reinach for MORs

activities in Idalion and elsewhere (cf. Fivel 1994, p. 28; Hermary 1997).

1908, he had spent three months in Idalion in 1887: Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche

Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1112-I, p. 3. However, according to Ohnefalsch-Richter 1888, p. 44 it

was a shorter period: “

compass I inserted in this map as exactly as possible the situation of the different necropoleis and their character, sanctuaries and other interesting spots, especially the exact localities where objects of importance had been found”.

32. For Schöne (1840-1922) see Lullies-Schiering 1988, p. 75-77 (C. Bohm).. For Schöne (1840-1922) see Lullies-Schiering 1988, p. 75-77 (C. Bohm).For Schöne (1840-1922) see Lullies-Schiering 1988, p. 75-77 (C. Bohm).


director general of the Royal Museums in Berlin, to the Cypriot authorities.33 Due to

continuous obstruction by the British administration of the island who tried to secure the

spot in question for excavation either by the Cyprus Museum or by British archaeologists,

it took quite some time and effort by MOR before being able to start excavating there.34

In the end, he only managed to excavate for ten working days between May 24th and June

4th 1894 with German imperial funding and again for seven working days in January

and February 1895 on behalf of the Saxonian government.35 From these excavations,

the archives in the Antikensammlung in Berlin preserve detailed accounts including a

catalogue of some 300 finds as well as numerous photographs.

Fortunately, among the archived photographs is also our head Fig. 3, including a

profile view (Fig. 3 right) and some handwritten notes by MOR in pencil as well as

blue and red colour crayon on the back of the prints ( ).36 The indication in pencil

states that the head comes “from the fortifications” and that it is “now in Berlin”. In red

colour we read “29 Nord” and in blue colour “N.S. 39” and “N.S. 39a” respectively.

These indications correspond with the catalogue entry no. 29 in the typoscript listing

the larger stone sculptures revealed during the abovementioned excavations. The

differing numbering in blue and red colour goes back to MOR having ordered a new

series (“N.S.” for “Neue Serie”) of prints for the publication to which he attributed a

new numbering system in blue, while the original system in red corresponds with the

33. The letter, in which Schöne thanks the Cypriot authorities for having granted a permit to . The letter, in which Schöne thanks the Cypriot authorities for having granted a permit to The letter, in which Schöne thanks the Cypriot authorities for having granted a permit to

excavate in Idalion, is preserved in the Cypriot State Archives: Kratiko Archeio SA1/589/1889.

34. For details about the tribulations until a proper excavation permit was obtained see Schmid . For details about the tribulations until a proper excavation permit was obtained see Schmid For details about the tribulations until a proper excavation permit was obtained see Schmid

2018a, Schmid, Horacek 2018b.

35. Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1106-07, p. 13; cf. . Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1106-07, p. 13; cf. Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1106-07, p. 13; cf.

also typoscript Z 1112-II, p. 5. 12.19.

36. There are several prints of the same negatives, always showing the same two views (frontal . There are several prints of the same negatives, always showing the same two views (frontal There are several prints of the same negatives, always showing the same two views (frontal

detailed indications on the back sides, which are not necessarily on the same prints illustrated here

but in any case on other prints of the same object.

!"#$%&(X,(Y29P(/0(5.&(D%"85(7"5.(.28@7%"55&8(8/5&'(0%/K(;2<(

=.8&02:'9.*>"9.5&%,(PB.:J:!STU!"8(1:$&!V!WBT!.,'*U!"8(%&@Q

K'5-&!D')%)'7)*!5-!&1)!('6157)%!,8!&1)!I-&53)-%(22#$-HF!J&((&#561)!;$%))-!

G)'#5-F!L!@@BM

248 CCEC 47, 2017

catalogue entries. According to the description, there can be no doubt, that our head is

no. 29 in the catalogue, as it reads: “Again from the northern part comes the limestone

The point of the nose is broken off. The rendering of the hair, the entire modelling of the face, the eyes, the mouth, cheeks and chin indicate a more advanced, purely Greek style of around 400 BC. One clearly sees the round weaving of the kalathos, under which the frontal curls fall out in two rows. The kalathos is decorated with rosettes and palmettes, unfortunately only poorly preserved. Following the division [of the finds] the head came to the Berlin Antiquarium, which already houses a similar limestone head, although of a somewhat more distinct Greek style (illustrated in K.B. & H. pl. CXC Fig. 2)”37. MOR

considered this head as one of the most important finds from his excavation on the eastern

acropolis of Idalion, since he is most likely referring to this object in a letter he had sent to

Herman von Lucanus (1831-1908), chief of the emperor’s civilian cabinet, on November

11th 1894 from Nisou near Idalion, mentioning the most significant highlights from the

said excavation.38

One of the most important contribution of MORs excavation on the eastern acropolis

of Idalion is a detailed plan on which he had marked all soundings and walls that were

carried out and documented respectively in 1894 (Fig. 8). Further documents include

photographs of walls and stratigraphies that were combined with drawings. Since most of

the roughly 300 objects from this excavation bear a provenance referring to the elements

on the plan (such as soundings, walls etc.), almost every single object can be attributed to

a precise findspot, at least in the second dimension as the third dimension (stratigraphy) is

much more difficult to establish. As for our head, it was reportedly found built into what

seems to be a fortification wall at the spot N2 on the plan, together with several other

important pieces of sculpture. Already in 1887, when the villagers looking for building

material had exposed an ancient, partially up to four meters high, wall on the southern

side of the plateau, MOR had realised that the eastern acropolis was fortified at a later

stage in the history of Idalion. In 1894 the villagers had started to dismantle a similar

wall on the northern side, so that MOR and Furtwängler rose to the occasion and opened

several soundings there. Built into the northern wall, a substantial number of fragmented

sculptures and reliefs was discovered and MOR quickly realised that these finds would

37. Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1112-II, 3.A.b, p. . Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1112-II, 3.A.b, p. Archive of the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Berlin, typoscript Z 1112-II, 3.A.b, p.

3: 29 & 29a: “

verwittert, aber doch besser erhalten ist. Die Nasenspitze ist abgestoßen. Die Haarbehandlung, die ganze Gesichtsbildung, Augen, Mund, Wangen und Kinn verraten einen mehr vorgeschrittenen,

welchem die Stirnlocken in zwei Reihen hervorquellen. Er ist mit Rosetten und Palmetten besetzt, die leider nur schlecht erhalten sind. Er gelangte bei der Teilung ins Berliner Antiquarium, die [sic] bereits einen ähnlichen Kalksteinkopf, jedoch etwas strengeren griechischen Stiles, besitzt. (Abgebildet in K.B. & H. Taf. CXC Fig. 2)”.

38. “. ““…, einen schönen weiblichen archaisch-griechischen Kalksteinkopf mit Krone, …”. GStA

PK I, Rep. 76 Vc, Sekt. 1, Tit. 11, Teil. VB, Nr. 15, 271 (backside).


be of crucial importance for dating the secondary fortification of the eastern acropolis that

apparently was unfortified in an earlier period. Logically, the youngest elements from the

fortifications will give a terminus post quem (or ad quem at the best) for the construction of

this extension of Idalion’s city wall. Taking into consideration the probably unsuccessful

siege of Idalion by the Persians and their allies from Kition during the first half of the 5th

c. BC, the conquest of Idalion by king Ozibaal/Azbaal of Kition in the second half of that

same century, as well as the subsequent struggles of the kings of Kition and Idalion (and

later on Tamassos) with their adversaries, it becomes clear that there are many interesting

possibilities to combine the archaeological record with historical information.39

In this contribution, we do not aim to present a detailed analysis of the various finds

and hence the dating of the secondary fortification of the eastern acropolis, built from

39. Körner 2017, p. 234-237, 239 and . Körner 2017, p. 234-237, 239 and passim; Körner 2016, p. 33-42; Satraki 2012, p. 284-294;

for the important consequences depending on the precise dating of these events see Hatzopoulos

2011.

!"#$%&(U,(=%"#"82:(D:28(/0(5.&(&2'5&%8(29%/D/:"'(/0(Q@2:"/8(7"5.('/$8@"8#'(%&2:"'&@(13(;2<(=.8&02:'9.*>"9.5&%("8()U64,((

-.&(.&2@("8(!"#,(N(72'(0/$8@("8(5.&(/$5&%(72::("8('/$8@"8#(S+,(K#(-!D')%)'7)*!5-!&1)!('6157)%!,8!&1)!I-&53)-%(22#$-HF!J&((&#561)!;$%))-!G)'#5-F!L!@@OX:

250 CCEC 47, 2017

spolia.40 Instead, we shall only insist on the identification of a precise findspot within a

well-defined archaeological excavation for our head (Figs. 3 and ). Clearly, the head does

not belong to the latest spolia reused for the fortification works, but it offers interesting

insights into the cultic topography of the ancient city. Thus, its now established findspot

may contribute to the study of female heads with vegetal crowns from Cyprus.41 As

pointed out above, several of the better parallels for our head that Veronica Tatton-Brown

collected in 1982 come from Idalion, hence confirming the hypothesis of a regional

school or workshop being active there at the end of the 6th and during the first half of the

5th c. BC.42 As for the dating of our head, everything depends whether one prefers to make

it a ‘real’ late Archaic piece and, therefore, roughly date it to the first decade of the 5th c.

BC,43, or whether one recognizes an archaizing tendency of the second to third quarter of

the 5th c. BC.44 In comparison to similar heads that definitely belong to the late Archaic

period,45 one has to admit small differences: For example, our head features a different

hairstyle as well as a less developed “Archaic smile”, rendering the later chronology

more likely. As for the identification of the head from Idalion, the findspot of course

presents a strong connection with the great Cypriot goddess (may we call her Aphrodite

or otherwise), although it was “only” found reused in a later wall surrounding what must

have been one of her sanctuaries. We therefore propose to follow Antoine Hermary in his

identification of similar heads as representing the great goddess herself.46

In any case, this brief glimpse into MORs work at Idalion indicates that, after more

than 120 years, a great deal of his excavations can possibly be reconstructed for farther-

reaching research. Indeed, MORs archaeological activities and numerous objects secured

from ancient Idalion can be re-contextualized and meaningfully used as valuable sources

of information and interpretation for contemporary archaeological research.

Winckelmann-InstitutHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin

40. A discussion that shall be dealt with in the PhD study of Sophie Horacek and that may well . A discussion that shall be dealt with in the PhD study of Sophie Horacek and that may well A discussion that shall be dealt with in the PhD study of Sophie Horacek and that may well

include the meaning of the female heads with mural crowns of which a certain number is said to

come from Idalion: Rogge, Zachariou-Kaila 2014, p. 224 and passim.

41. See for instance Hermary 1989, p. 398-410 with further references; Hermary 1982, especially . See for instance Hermary 1989, p. 398-410 with further references; Hermary 1982, especially See for instance Hermary 1989, p. 398-410 with further references; Hermary 1982, especially

p. 167-170.

42. . Supra n. 7; cf. Mylonas 1999, p. 418-419 and generally 411-419; Gaber-Saletan 1986.

43. As did Tatton-Brown 1982, p. 181 and, by comparing his arguments for other similar heads, . As did Tatton-Brown 1982, p. 181 and, by comparing his arguments for other similar heads, As did Tatton-Brown 1982, p. 181 and, by comparing his arguments for other similar heads,

Mylonas 1999, p. 418 with n. 1761, although he dates the head itself to the mid-5th c. BC: ibid.,

p. 179 n. 745.

44. As proposes Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821; in any case, one will have to consider the head . As proposes Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821; in any case, one will have to consider the head As proposes Hermary 1989, p. 405 cat. 821; in any case, one will have to consider the head

from Idalion dealt with in this contribution together with the head from Malloura and now in the

Louvre since they are really very similar. On the provenance of the Louvre head see Hermary 1988.

45. Such as a life-size limestone head of unknown provenance now in Berlin: Brönner 2001, . Such as a life-size limestone head of unknown provenance now in Berlin: Brönner 2001, Such as a life-size limestone head of unknown provenance now in Berlin: Brönner 2001,

p. 158-159 cat. 170; or a similar head from Golgoi in the Louvre: Hermary 1989, p. 402 cat. 816.

46. Hermary 1989, p. 398; Hermary 1982, p. 167-169; . Hermary 1989, p. 398; Hermary 1982, p. 167-169; Hermary 1989, p. 398; Hermary 1982, p. 167-169; contra Mylonas 1999, p. 181-182.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAZEMORE (G.B.), 2007, “The Rantidi forest

excavations preliminary report 1996-2007”,

RDAC, p. 175-192.

BAZEMORE (G.B.), 2010, “The syllabic

inscriptions of the sanctuary at Lingrin tou

Dhigeni, part I. Report of the Rantidi forest

excavations”, RDAC, p. 249-272.

BREHME (S.), BRÖNNER (M.), KARAGEORGHIS (V.)

ET AL. ,2001, Ancient Cypriote Art in Berlin,

Nicosia.

BRÖNNER (M.), 2001, “Limestone sculpture”, in

Brehme et al. 2001, p. 131-160.

FIVEL (L. [= O. MASSON]), 1994, “Lettre de Max

Ohnefalsch-Richter à A. H. Smith, 1912”,

CCEC 21, p. 23-28.

GABER-SALETAN (P.), 1986, Regional Styles in Cypriote Sculpture. The Sculpture from Idalion, New York & London.

HATZOPOULOS (M.), 2011, “« Factoides » et la

date du Bronze d’Idalion”, in A. Demetriou

(ed.), Proceedings of the IV. International Cyprological Congress. Lefkosia 29 April- 3 May 2008, Nicosia, p. 499-506.

HERMARY (A.), 1982, “Divinités chypriotes, I”,

RDAC 1982, p. 164-173.

HERMARY (A.), 1988, “Nouvelles découvertes

sur la mission Vogüé de 1862”, CCEC 10,

p. 15-22.

HERMARY (A.), 1989, Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités orientales. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre. Sculptures, Paris.

HERMARY (A.), 1997, “Nouveaux documents

sur le sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Idalion

(Ohnefalsch-Richter 1885)”, CCEC 27,

p. 97-108.

KARNAVA (A.), 2018, “Die kypro-syllabischen

Inschriften aus Rantidi bei Paphos”, in

Schmid, Horacek 2018a [in print].

KIELY (T.), 2018, “Auf Max Ohnefalsch-

Richters Spuren im British Museum”, in


KÖRNER (C.), 2016, “The Cypriot kings under

Assyrian and Persian rule (eight to fourth

century BC): Centre and periphery in a

relationship of suzerainty”, Electrum 23,

p. 25-49.

KÖRNER (C.), 2017, “Monarchie auf Zypern

im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Herrschaft

von König und Polis?”, in S. Rebenich (ed.),

Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum, Berlin

& Boston, p. 217-244.

LULLIES (R.), SCHIERING (W.) eds., 1988,

Archäologenbildnisse. Porträts und Kurzbio-graphien von Klassischen Archäologen deutscher Sprache, Mayence.

MALECOS (A.), MARANGOU (A. G.), 1994, Studies in Cyprus, Nicosia.

MASSON (O.), 1964, “Kypriaka, I. Recherches

sur les antiquités de Tamassos”, BCH 88,

p. 199-238.

MASSON (O.), 1968, “Une statuette chypriote

de Tamassos retrouvée à Berlin”, Berliner Museen 18:2, p. 42-44.

MASSON (O.), 1995, “Un album de photographies

chypriotes de Max et Magda Ohnefalsch-

Richter (1895)” [= review of Malecos,

Marangou 1994], CCEC 23, p. 37-39.

MASSON (O.), HERMARY (A.), 1988, “Les fouilles

d’Ohnefalsch-Richter à Idalion en 1894”,

CCEC 10, p. 3-14.

MITFORD (T. B.), MASSON (O.), 1983, The Syllabic Inscriptions of Rantidi-Paphos, Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern, 2,

Constance.

MYLONAS (D.), 1999, Archaische Kalkstein-plastik Zyperns. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie, Typologie und form-geschichtlichen Entwicklung der kyprischen Rundplastik der archaischen Zeit, Diss.

Mannheim.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1888, “Topogra-

phical studies in Cyprus. District II. Idalion.

Ancient Idalion and neighbourhood”, The Owl 6, p. 41-47.

252 CCEC 47, 2017

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.), 1893, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, Berlin.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.H.), 1913, Griechische Sitten und Gebräuche auf Zypern. Mit Berücksichtigung von Naturkunde und Volkswirtschaft, sowie der Fortschritte unter englischer Herrschaft, Berlin.

ROGGE (S.), ZACHARIOU-KAILA (E.), 2014, “Large

and well fortified: A colossal female head with

a mural crown in Berlin”, in V. Karageorghis,

E. Poyiadji-Richter, S. Rogge (eds.), Cypriote Antiquities in Berlin in the Focus of New Research, Münster & New York, p. 193-241.

SATRAKI (A.), 2012,

,

Athens.

SCHMID (S.G.), 2018a, “Max, Magda und

Hermann Ohnefalsch-Richter: Beiträge zu

biographischen Flickenteppichen”, in Schmid,

Horacek 2018a [in print].

SCHMID (S.G.), 2018b, “Das Katastrophenjahr

1910”, in Schmid, Horacek 2018a [in print].

SCHMID (S.G.), HORACEK (S.G.) eds., 2018a,

“I don’t know what am I myself, it is so very difficult to explain”. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter

,

Studia Cyprologica Berolinensia 1, Berlin [in print].

SCHMID (S.G.), HORACEK (S.G.), 2018b,

“Idalion”, in Schmid, Horacek 2018a [in print].

SUMMA (D.), 2018, “Die Kampagne von

Rantidi. Schwierigkeiten und Ergebnisse

einer wissenschaftlichen Unternehmung”, in


TATTON-BROWN (V.), 1982, “Two finds allegedly

from Rantidi”, RDAC, p. 174-182.

ULBRICH (A.), 2008, Kypris. Heiligtümer und Kulte weiblicher Gottheiten auf Zypern in der kyproarchaischen und kyproklassischen Epoche (Königszeit), Münster.

YOUNG (P.H.), 2005, “The Cypriot Aphrodite

cult. Paphos, Rantidi, and Saint Barnabas”,

JNES 64.1, p. 23-44.


BRITAIN AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CYPRUS

II. 1914 TO THE PRESENT DAY *

Thomas KIELY

Résumé. Cet article est la seconde partie d’une enquête sur l’implication de la Grand-Bretagne dans l’archéologie chypriote (voir première partie, avec A. Ulbrich : CCEC 42, 2012, p. 305-356). Après avoir rappelé la déclaration de Chypre comme Colonie de la Couronne, ainsi que l’arrière-plan et l’évolution de l’archéologie dans les années 1920-1930, on étudie comment les résidents britanniques expatriés et les premiers travaux de terrain « britanniques » dans l’île, souvent menés par des femmes remarquables, ont contribué à faire évoluer la discipline jusqu’à l’indépendance de l’île en 1960. Les principaux travaux de terrain britanniques de la période suivante sont présentés dans le contexte plus large des recherches et de l’enseignement menés dans les universités britanniques, au sein d’une collaboration internationale grandissante. De grands archéologues chypriotes ont été formés ou ont mené leurs recherches dans des institutions britanniques, une tradition encore bien vivante. Des changements sont intervenus dans la présentation des antiquités chypriotes dans les musées du Royaume-Uni, en particulier pour les grandes collections qui ont bénéficié de l’aide financière de la Fondation A. G. Leventis (l’accent est mis sur d’importantes collections régionales). En conclusion, on présente quelques remarques générales sur d’éventuels développements futurs de la discipline face aux défis et aux orientations intellectuelles de notre époque.

Introduction

This article is the long-delayed second part of a survey of British engagement with the archaeology of Cyprus, the first half of which (co-authored with Dr Anja Ulbrich) appeared in Cahier 42 (2012).1 As in the earlier section of this study, space does not allow a comprehensive narrative of the myriad of excavations, personalities or museological

* This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Eddie Peltenburg (1942-2016) in recognition of his many and profound contributions to Cypriot archaeology – see Caubet and

around the United Kingdom; this has helped to create an extended Cypriot archaeological family

United Kingdom who have assisted in the writing of this survey in various ways, including proving information on and access to their collections.

1.

254 CCEC 47, 2017

developments over the past century. Nor is it possible to provide an overarching intellectual history of British scholarship on Cypriot archaeology. This would be a

scholarly trends, both within Cypriot archaeology itself and across related Classical and Near Eastern disciplines. The long history of Cypriot archaeology now sub-divides into a series of academic disciplines – earlier prehistory, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Hellenistic-Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman (and later) – which are complemented by related fields such as historiography, heritage studies and museology. Each moreover forms part of their own broader traditions of study, and within which are additional micro-specialisms (such as epigraphy, artefact studies and archaeological sciences) which extend well beyond the island itself.

These various activities are carried out with distinction in institutions across the United Kingdom, a selection of which will be mentioned in what follows. But, as demonstrated by the developments in the modern era throughout Europe surveyed in Cahier 42, not to mention numerous other countries which were not represented in that volume, Cypriot

the ostensibly ‘British’ field projects discussed below reflect the increasingly international profile of the discipline as it developed through the 20th century – universities and museums

and experience of staff and students drawn from across the world. At the same time, the realities of empire and colonial culture throughout much of the 20th century are such than only gradually does the term British become restricted to the modern United Kingdom (and from which Eire gradually detached itself from 1922 onwards). This is especially the case when we consider how leading figures such as Australian-born James Stewart (see below) shared many of the values of the middle and upper classes in the imperial centre among whom he was educated and trained, however much he subsequently might be defined as Australian and effectively created the discipline of Cypriot archaeology in that country.2 Scholars from throughout the Empire, and then from the Commonwealth that emerged from it, attended or staffed British universities as well as participating in

of distinct national traditions and institutions since the 1950s and 1960s, in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth, were accompanied by continued and indeed increasing collaboration across political boundaries. The same is true of collaborations within the

to Cypriot archaeology have been rooted in local universities, learned societies and museums, they have also drawn much of their character and success from a broader internationalism (and particularly through association with Cyprus itself). At the same

2.

circumstances been different (see below).

T. KIELY, BRITAIN AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CYPRUS, II 255

noteworthy, especially in the earlier part of the period before the emergence of strong or focused institutional support for the discipline.

With these perspectives in mind, this paper aims to provide an overview of what the author considers to be major developments across the 20th and early 21st centuries, highlighting in particular the current research and curatorial scene, and ending with some more general comments on how the discipline might progress and prosper in the years to come in the light of contemporary realities and challenges.

Part I. The Imperial TurnCyprus on Show

Empire was confirmed by the Treaty of Lausanne. This came into force in August of 1924 and the island was formally declared a Crown Colony early the following year.3 That this transition merely confirmed the de facto status of the island can be illustrated by the fact

4 This great spectacle featuring some 33 imperial dominions and territories opened in the spring of 1924 but had been on the drawing board since the end of hostilities. It was designed to instil a sense of unity and optimism – but also to encourage greater economic integration – across the vast Empire of which Cyprus had been a protectorate since 1878. In the first year of the exhibition Cyprus shared an exotic domed and white-painted pavilion with the mandate of Palestine, designed by Austen St. Barbe Harrison,

5 This juxtaposition of regions was due to the geographic proximity of the two territories but also reflects the tendency of the exhibition’s designers to exoticize – and perhaps even to essentialize – the participant countries through the architecture

colonies of East and West Africa were contained within reconstructed walled cities; Burma featured an elaborate pagoda; while many of the main exhibition buildings, but also the pavilions of the major Dominions, bore the mantle of Roman grandeur (albeit many constructed in ferro-concrete). As in the 1886 Colonial and Indian Exhibition in London, numerous pavilions included ‘live’ representatives of their respective peoples, another notable feature of such exhibitions which, literally, brought the peoples of the

3.

4.

on “Sea power and outposts of the Empire” (Dorling 1924, p. 367-374).The general details of this

.

5.

256 CCEC 47, 2017

British Empire t ogether.6

moved to the windows were added to replicate the exotic feel of the 1924 structure (though the palm trees were already there; Fig. 1).7 The interior was divided with pointed arches which

prepared in native fashion’.8

Apart from this generalised orientalism, the initial juxtaposition Cyprus and Palestine in 1924 underlines their ambiguous status within contemporary perceptions of imperial spaces. The British Empire was larger than ever before because of its absorption of former enemy territories (several as mandates). Yet this political mastery was balanced – and

ineffective it was in reality, combined with the emergence of ethno-nationalist movements across all the European empires, not to mention myriad economic problems (especially after the financial crash of 1929). In legal terms, Cyprus was now unambiguously British and, as in the late 19th century, it continued to be regarded as an essentially ‘European’ possession; this was the case even if investment and political reform were slow to manifest

6. Kiely and Ulbrich 2012, p. 326-327; for colonial exhibitions more generally, see Stephen 2013.

7. images of the empire presented in the exhibition were disseminated on a large scale.

8. Lawrence 1925a, p. 92-93.

Figure 1. British Empire Exhibition, Wembley, Cyprus Pavilion 1925. 12 Wembley snapshots.

“Real photographs of the British Empire Exhibition. Series No. 2”, London, 1925. Image in possession of author.


themselves, though the much hated ‘Tribute’ was finally abolished in 1927.9 Palestine was not a colony but a League of Nations mandate; yet it too posed many of the same anxieties for its new administrators in the same way as Cyprus. These ranged from the pressing need for economic development to the growing tensions between their various ethnic/religious groups; these had to be balanced with imperial strategic and financial interests. Nonetheless, regardless of the emerging Hellenic identity of Cyprus’s majority Christian population (which was rapidly evolving into modern ethnic nationalism), together with an ideological shift by the authorities towards a more ‘Philhellenic’ official view of the island10

responses from commentators in Britain and Western Europe. Apart from the architecture

and exotic present.11 This was partly with an eye on the potential development of tourism and trade12 – and some 27 million visitors came to the exhibition over its two years of operation – but to British eyes at least, the island’s cultural profile also continued to be as ambiguous as its geo-political identity.

Unsurprisingly, archaeology played a role in this presentation of the island to the world at Wembley. Archaeological displays were common at such exhibitions and the Wembley

(which provided a vicarious representation for another ambiguous British possession in the exhibition).13 At the Colonial and Indian Exhibition of in 1886, the Cyprus pavilion displayed antiquities alongside contemporary crafts and other products regarded as typical of the island.14

but distinguished by a characteristic native touch from other pottery.”15 It is not entirely clear whether the author here is referring to modern or ancient ceramics, but the overall tone stresses the traditional and ageless nature of many of the exhibits, merging past and present.

9.

exhibitors). A separate pamphlet catalogue of the Cyprus pavilion, just 9 pages in total, was also published though I have been unable to locate a copy.

12. Lawrence 1925a, p. 93 (who emphasised the archaeological interest of the island as well as Lawrence 1925a, p. 93 (who emphasised the archaeological interest of the island as well as the more general attractions); see also Storrs, O’Brien 1930, p. ix, who noted “there is no country in the Near East less visited or more worth visiting than Cyprus”.

14. Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 326-327.Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 326-327.

258 CCEC 47, 2017

as much attention to its archaeology and history as to its contemporary products and lifestyle.16

Some of the ancient Cypriot artefacts, vases, figurines and lamps, were supplied

17 An article published in the Yorkshire Evening Post on this subject recalled the city’s earlier acquisition of Cypriot artefacts from Sandwith, but also describes how the objects were displayed to illustrate the “development of art”, very much a nod to 19th-century attitudes about the role of museums in showing social evolution and progress.18

Continuity and change

Such continuities with 19th-century exhibitions raise a number of questions. How much did the formal annexation of the island after 1914 change attitudes to archaeology? How did government policy react to the opportunities provided by its new legal status?

formal British hegemony and involved individuals of British (or more broadly British imperial) origin?

On the one hand, the growing internationalism of the post-conflict world meant that, even more than before, scientific activities such as excavation could no longer be regarded as a national monopoly. Direct British influence on the conduct of archaeology within the island naturally remained strong. This however was chiefly because of its

of Antiquities (established in 1935) – and especially of its finances, albeit somewhat negatively through the miserly attitude and inaction of various post-war governors. The colonial authorities had not responded in any significant way to the opportunities represented by the 1905 antiquity legislation nor to the subsequent reforms of 1909 because of the impoverished state of the island, apart from the construction of the

19 Certainly, there was no immediate or direct effort to privilege British archaeologists or their institutions and the local scene can be characterised as

20,

16. Knight, Sabey 1984, p. 62.Knight, Sabey 1984, p. 62.

17. Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 349.Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 349.

2012.


the University of Pennsylvania (1931 onwards),21 and then Claude Schaeffer’s expedition

Syria).22

argued that the broader agenda and practices related to archaeology in Cyprus at this time were broadly imperialist and Eurocentric in nature, though Sir Ronald Storrs’ promotion of the SCE also stemmed from a genuine interest in archaeology. Any attempt by him and his officials to manipulate the interpretation of the new discoveries, and particularly to

nationalism, could only be pushed so far when the archaeological results generated by foreign excavators were subsequently used by a range of scholars, including classicists, to affirm the Hellenic culture of the island (however provincial to some eyes).23

Whatever the success of the authorities in influencing historical narratives, official sponsorship of archaeology by the local authorities, which might have helped to underscore

predicted by its critics at the time, the ban on the exportation of most antiquities by the 1905 antiquity law proved a serious disincentive to foreign archaeological missions.24 Ironically, over the course of the early British period, official protection of antiquities had

irregular and inconsistent operation of the 1874 Ottoman antiquity law (and the refusal of the British authorities to introduce the much stricter 1884 version) – to being possibly the most stringent. The legislation of 1905 had to be amended in 1927 to allow the SCE

have been carried out on such a large scale.25 Although initially prompted by the request

1905 law also reflects broader developments in archaeological practices elsewhere in the British Empire, especially the mandated territories of Palestine and Transjordan. Here,

perceived restrictions of older Ottoman regulations.26 An early example of this initiative

21. Pilides 2008. To these must be added the abortive attempt by the Oriental Institute of the Pilides 2008. To these must be added the abortive attempt by the Oriental Institute of the

landowners rather than the British authorities (see Hermary 2006; also Pilides 2008, p. 8-11).

passim (and see also comments on Stanley Casson below). Ironically,

of the SCE’s discoveries, accords better with modern Cyprocentricism than with either Orientalist or Philhellenic approaches, even if for rather different motivations.

shared.

26. British Empire exhibition was very scathing of archaeology under the previous Ottoman rulers of

260 CCEC 47, 2017

Archaeological Joint Committee in 1920.27 Second, and again with clear parallels with Palestine, while the interwar years were

28 this was true only to a limited degree in Cyprus where very limited public funding was available for archaeology on Cyprus from official British sources. Even if the authorities were favourably disposed to granting excavation permits to their own citizens and institutions, and certainly after 1927 there were fewer disincentives to British excavations, there were severe economic

crash of 1929 (and despite the abolition of the ‘Tribute’).29 The finances of the British archaeological schools at this time was also parlous, especially when institutions such as the British School at Athens, together with its recently-established but underfunded – and less highly regarded – counterpart in Palestine, the British School in Jerusalem (BSJ), were already committed to other projects.30

official government funding was not renewed after its initial three-year grant. Indeed, as Thornton has pointed out, much of the success of British archaeology in Palestine at this time was due to private sponsors and personal initiatives, but also collaboration with better-funded bodies such as the American School in Jerusalem) of which the BSJ became

31

Consequently, the wave of pioneering scientific excavation supported by foreign

eccentric – attempts at protecting the island’s built heritage in particular, as well as

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in the United Kingdom and other private bodies concerned with

the region (Anon. 1924, esp. p. 51-54); this suggests that these sentiments or prejudices would have

27. Hill 1920, p. 54-58.Hill 1920, p. 54-58.

institutions were placed under the umbrella of the British Academy and funded by the government

a Cold War environment but also in line with developments in research pioneered during a period of post-war reconstruction (see Wheeler 1970, p. 16-22).


such matters rather than public institutions.32 Jeffery also played a major role in the advancement of Byzantine archaeology on the island.33

34, though his career was unfortunately hampered by ill-health until his premature retirement in 1929.35

with very felicitous results. He had studied for a time in the British School at Athens (1924-25) and the University of Liverpool (1925-26) though moved to the Paris for his advanced studies.36 Vounous in 1931, which were spurred by large-scale looting at the site (which enriched several private collections of British residents), were supported by private individuals among the local community, but not significantly by the cash-strapped – and sometimes indifferent British – colonial authorities.37

38

with the University of Pennsylvania expedition, also relied on institutional and personal support but limited official funding.39

the project – in this case Sir Edward Stubbs, once again, and the wealthy oriental scholar 40

official with a self-proclaimed interest in protecting the archaeology of the island (as Inspector of Antiquities) – acquired and sold antiquities illegally; nor was he regarded as a particularly competent archaeologist or scholar by his contemporaries, whatever his ethics.41 Typical of the petty rivalries within small-scale colonial contexts, he also hindered

officials obstructed the first Director of Antiquities, J.R. Hilton, to the point that the latter

33. Davies, Stewart 2014. Davies, Stewart 2014.

passim

At the same time Historic Cyprus. A guide to its towns and villages, monasteries and castles (1936/1947)

262 CCEC 47, 2017

42 Indeed, the formal creation of the Department of Antiquities in 1935, following several years of bureaucratic and political wrangling, was largely the result of interventions from a group of wealthy and influential individuals in Britain; spurred initially by the condition of Byzantine monuments, they were appalled by the general neglect of the island’s historic remains but also by the often contrarian attitude of (admittedly cash-strapped) local administrators. Roueché has narrated this complicated story in some detail which need not be repeated here. A

philanthropy and personal connections (though involving individuals occupying the top levels of the establishment), a major reason why official bodies in Britain finally began

were seen to be more proactive and that Britain needed a cultural policy to counteract its 43 It will

be recalled that similar concerns were raised in 1887 upon when the Cyprus Exploration 44

The First ‘British’ Fieldwork

Despite the impressive results of the Cyprus Committee in securing funds for protecting

money available for excavation remained somewhat small. This is underlined by the way

excavation at Vounous in 1937-8, was initially funded. Although Australian, he came from an upper class settler family and was educated in Britain to university level at Cambridge, where he absorbed much from the prehistoric archaeological scene there, including an

45

prejudices – of his British upper-middle class contemporaries. His excavations were formally under the auspices of the British School of Athens (which however contributed nothing to the cost for the reasons suggested earlier).46 The majority of the funds came from a number of private supporters, especially the Birmingham newspaper proprietor

42. Roueché 2001, p. 163; Powell 2013, p. 46-47. Roueché 2001, p. 163; Powell 2013, p. 46-47.

43. As the governor of the island, Sir Richard Palmer noted, “We must show that we are not less As the governor of the island, Sir Richard Palmer noted, “We must show that we are not less

Xypolia 2016.

45. Powell 2013, p. 40-41. An account of the syllabus and personalities in Cambridge during Powell 2013, p. 40-41. An account of the syllabus and personalities in Cambridge during Stewart’s time can be found in Smith 2009; on Stewart’s interest in geography, see Kearns 2013.


Sir Charles Hyde (1876-1942)47 – to whom the final report of the Vounous excavations is dedicated – and the industrialist and patron/scholar of biblical archaeology Sir Charles

Beasley.48

received his share of the finds.49 This was part of a longer-term family tradition of cultural

the Near East during the 1930s, including at Nineveh.50 Stewart’s father contributed to the exploration of Vounoushis own money on the project.51 Stewart also received limited subventions from several British institutions such as the Linnaean Society and his alma mater, the University of Cambridge, which consequently received a share of the finds which were given to the

had dug in Anatolia with Winifred Lamb, the honorary Curator of Antiquities at the 52 another personal connection with his Cambridge days whom he

seems to have regarded as a mentor.53

The fact that the benefactors and beneficiaries of Stewart’s excavations increasingly were universities and museums, or at least private individuals (such as Beasley) who intended their largesse to benefit public collections and institutions, signals a shift away from older patterns of archaeological patronage, collection habits and research. One of these institutional beneficiaries was the Institute of Archaeology in London, founded in

professional training in archaeological methods, and to function as a research centre with a global remit.54

in 2012, noted how the establishment of the London Institute55 “marked a coming of age

48. Powell 2013, 55-59; Davey 2013. Powell 2013, 55-59; Davey 2013.

passim.

50. Davies 1985, p. 42-43, p. 64-65. Davies 1985, p. 42-43, p. 64-65.

51. Powell 2013, p. 56.Powell 2013, p. 56.

52. Karageorghis et al. 1999 passim; Chrysophilopoulou 2016.

biography he is currently writing.

2012.

55. This was anticipated by an earlier Institute of Archaeology, that in Liverpool founded by John This was anticipated by an earlier Institute of Archaeology, that in Liverpool founded by John

for its founding collection in return for Egyptian material from Hasan and Esna (information

passim).

264 CCEC 47, 2017

for archaeology – for so long a hobby of the upper classes – and the emergence of a new class of skilled, professional archaeology graduates from around the world”.56

This is reflected in the decision to exhibit the newly-acquired Cypriot material in 1939 along with objects from Vounous

building up a collection of antiquities from excavated contexts rather than casual purchases 57 Also significant is the comment by the Chancellor of the University of

London that the exhibition “is the first to be held in England of the results of an important excavation of purely British origin in Cyprus; and this fact is indeed of special significance in view of the attempts which have been, and are being, made to arouse interest in Great Britain in the early history and antiquities of Cyprus”.58

and of numerous archaeological projects in the Near East during the 1920s and 1930s, 59 If the Institute’s

establishment signalled the future direction of the discipline, informed and well-connected

in the evolution of archaeology, even if this is not always adequately reflected in official accounts or even recent historiography.60

This is exemplified in particular by figures such as Joan du Plat Taylor (1906-1983) who, living part of the year with her family in Cyprus from the 1920s onwards, developed

61 She went on to play a seminal role in the archaeology of the island through her voluntary

a time, as Inspector of Antiquities. Significantly, she was able to bring her experience of

funded excavations at the Cypro-Classical to Hellenistic necropoleis at Tsambres and Aphrendrika 62 In return, the Ashmolean received a share of some 240

56. Anon. 2012.Anon. 2012.

58. Anon 1939.

59.

of 1935, The Bible is true: the lessons of the 1925-1934 excavations in the Bible lands (London).

60. See Thornton 2015. See Thornton 2015. !!

62. Dray, Du Plat Taylor 1951, p. 25 for distribution list of tomb groups.Dray, Du Plat Taylor 1951, p. 25 for distribution list of tomb groups.


objects from various tomb-groups.63

Cambridge in 1947). Taylor also excavated the Late Bronze Age mining settlement of Karamallos in 1939 64 65 Throughout this time

66; Judith Dobell, who later married Andreas Stylianou and with whom she collaborated on a range of significant archaeological and historical

67

from Bellapais-Vounous in the years immediately after the excavation, becoming James Stewart’s second wife after the Second World War.68 Stewart’s first wife Eleanor also made

Vounous, including to its main publication which bears her name as co-author.69 Along with the under-sung achievements of the

Cypriot archaeological and historical scholarship, which is so notable today, can be seen to begin at the dawn of modern practice on the island.70

The British Museum

modest sum of £50 for two tomb groups in 1939, a figure small enough to wonder whether this was simply to cover the costs of transportation and sundry expenses.71 During this

purchases but very rarely excavation material.72 In this respect, the acquisition of the Vounous tomb groups was by far the most important addition to the Cypriot collection

played a part, there was also a growing interest in archaeological contextualisation, and

67. Powell 2013, p. 58 and Powell 2013, p. 58 and passim; Stylianou, Stylianou 1995.

68. Powell 2013 Powell 2013 passim.

Trowellblazers (http://trowelblazers.com/articles

references to this acquisition are minimal.

72. Kiely, Kiely, forthcoming.

266 CCEC 47, 2017

in filling gaps in the existing sequences, as opposed to large scale acquisitions for their

during this period of renewed excavation, even if its Director between 1931 and 1936, Sir

of Antiquities in 1935 (and indeed in archaeological developments throughout the British 73 He was however a leading numismatist who had produced the seminal

A history of Cyprus (published between 1940 and 1952) was directly inspired by his

island twice, in 1934 and 1938. While not quite an armchair scholar of olden days, his archaeological pursuits – if they can be called that – were very much that of the library

Department of Antiquities, as sources for his history of the island. Hill had joined the museum in 1893, and he and his colleagues were a bridge between the older generation

such as Arthur Hamilton Smith (1860-1941) and Henry Beauchamp Walters (1867-1944).

their museum careers and contributed to the text of Excavations in Cyprus (as well as producing numerous scholarly catalogues which included the more important items in the Cypriot collection).74 However, although very broad in their range of scholarly activities,

Roman Antiquities, while Smith became Director of the British School at Rome following 75

significant contributions to the study of Cypriot archaeology through extensive publication of its now very large and highly representative collections; this was mainly in the form of scholarly catalogues arranged by material, the last of which was Pryce’s corpus of limestone sculpture in 1931.76 These older studies, among which must also be included the relevant sections of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorumof 1925 (Smith) and 1926 (Smith, Pryce), respectively, were valuable additions to the

73. Robinson 1950; Roueché 2001 Robinson 1950; Roueché 2001 passim.

74. Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, 341-347.Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, 341-347.

75. Kenyon 2004. Kenyon 2004.

(Cypriot and Etruscan sculpture).


of artefacts and putting objects in somewhat narrow typological and chronological series

all of these publications eschewed the contextual information – however imperfect – presented in 19th-century publications such as Ohnefalsch-Richter’s Kypros of 1893 or

Excavations in Cyprus of 1900 or which was preserved in surviving field notes generated during the Turner Bequest excavations that would have to wait for decades for full publication.77

The physical display of these items matched how they were published – indeed the catalogues were sometimes intended as guides to the galleries – and arranged according

Fig. 2were often displayed in smaller groups according to archaeological site (especially major

rooms (though their context was seldom emphasised).78 Other items from Cyprus were

‘Terracotta’, and here too they were often grouped according to their findspot. Cases 1 to 5 of the latter gallery were devoted to figurines from Cyprus ranging ‘from the earliest and most primitive’ (Fig. 3a(Fig. 3b); they were followed in this sequence by Archaic-period figurines from Rhodes

with Roman material and statuettes of a ‘florid and careless style’ from Centuripe in Sicily at the end of what is clearly not just a historical but an evolutionary sequence.79

Kleinkunst also featured numerous small items from Cyprus which were displayed by theme alongside objects from across the

77. Listed in Tatton-Brown 2001b. Listed in Tatton-Brown 2001b.

differs little however from those of the 1890s.

Domestic Archives

!!

268 CCEC 47, 2017

Figure 3a-b. British Museum Terracotta room, Cases 1 and 5.

Figure 2. British Museum First Vase Room, c. 1964, looking north. Some Mycenaean vases from Cyprus can be seen in the case on the left of the picture.


major shift away older display schemes represented by the pottery and terracotta rooms just mentioned, emphasising instead social and economic life.80

As for sculpture, some of the statues in Pryce’s catalogue, especially from Idalion,

other Semitic antiquities’ – within the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Asiatic Antiquities (previously the Department of Oriental Antiquities once presided over by

of the gallery (no. 24 on the published plan) consisted of Cypriot antiquities which were exhibited chiefly to show the “mingling of oriental and western ideas of art’ and the ‘influences of surrounding cultures on the island”.81 The reader was also informed that

82 Yet this poorly-documented display – no photographs appear to be preserved in the museum archives – seems to have been dismantled before 1920, probably during World War I when much of the collection was evacuated, while most of the Cypriot objects were formally transferred to the Depart of

in the subsequent 1928 edition.83

Antiquities, recommended the creation of a gallery of Cypriot gallery, possibly in response to Pryce’s ongoing research, though it is not clear from surviving records if this proposal was actually carried through.84 Other pieces of Cypriot sculpture were dispersed through

votive statues from Tamassos which could be seen in the “Archaic Room” (now Room 13

Fig. 4displays, which were moreover occasionally updated in line with new discoveries, but its

within its own island context or specific chronological narrative.

81. Anon. 1899, p. 51.Anon. 1899, p. 51.

82. At the present time, a tomb monument with a Phoenician inscription from Kition collected At the present time, a tomb monument with a Phoenician inscription from Kition collected CIS I,

444; Yon 2004, p. 183 no. 1070).

83. Smith 1920, p.102.Smith 1920, p.102.

regularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

270 CCEC 47, 2017

In retrospect, despite its shortcomings, Pryce’s sculpture catalogue stands on the

has persisted to this day.85 Although he was hardly complimentary about any of the items

nations strayed at intervals” – it nonetheless indicates a greater interest in the sculpture of the island in its own terms (and certainly for its historical and cultural value).86 Attitudes to Cyprus were also changing in British academia. In his 1937 portrait of ancient Cyprus, Stanley Casson – an ardent Hellenophile who interests spanned the ancient, Byzantine

87 – stressed the general importance of Cyprus as the

“everything Cypriote is mediocre”.88 This had been a common judgement of the island’s material culture since the rapid decline of the ‘Phoenician model’ which had spurred earlier interest in the island; this had not been fully compensated for by the discovery

85. Hermary 1990; Counts 2001; see also comments of Papantoniou 2012, p. 25, p. 310-311. Hermary 1990; Counts 2001; see also comments of Papantoniou 2012, p. 25, p. 310-311.

86. Pryce 1931, p. 6.Pryce 1931, p. 6.

88. Casson 1937, p. v. This sentiment was found in successive editions of the Casson 1937, p. v. This sentiment was found in successive editions of the Handbook of Cyprus issued between 1901 and 1909 – J. Hutchinson and C. Cobham (p. 15 of the 1903 edition) – and in the revised version of 1930 – R. Storrs and B. O’Brien (p. 65) – the dismissive comments made in the latter text are a barely edited repetition of those in the earlier edition.

Figure 4. British Museum Archaic room.


past.89

due to political reasons, as the authorities deployed a more Hellenic characterisation of

that this policy was reversed in favour of an ‘indigenist’ model following the political crisis of 1931, it arguably had less impact on academic views in the longer term. Casson’s more progressive approach was informed by his interest, in particular, in the relationship

distinctive nature of Cypriot art and culture to an innate conservatism and local conditions

early popular account from a British source. While Cyprus remained somewhat marginal

come, a substantial scientific foundation now existed to support more sophisticated and focused approaches to the archaeology on the island.

Part II. A Brave New World

scholars from many disciplines ended up on war service. Some (such as Casson) lost

circumstances which transformed their careers.90 Numerous museums (including the 91 while even

evacuated collections did not always return unscathed due to the confusion of hasty 92 The years that

followed the end of conflict were also characterised by severe economic and social challenges. Yet while progress in repairing war damage was extremely slow, both central and local government gradually began to intervene in a range of areas pertaining to archaeology and museums, particularly in terms of funding – especially for smaller museums. This allowed the creation of more paid positions but also established and raised (or even defined for the first time) a range of professional standards. If the Museums Act

272 CCEC 47, 2017

(1845) Public Libraries and Museums Act (1964) signalled changes in policy and attitude that had been afoot (albeit slowly) since the end of the war.93

antiquities – including from Cyprus – by sponsoring excavation when partage was still

frequently donated their collections), they also began to refresh the traditional ‘universal history’ approach to displaying their ancient holdings. There was a significant shift away

also a factor here), and towards better quality display, interpretation and education. There was certainly a much greater emphasis on local interests – including archaeology,

reconstruction.94 These various shifts, to which we might add a growing public interest in archaeology facilitated by the media and popular publications, encouraged the creation of

in attitudes to the traditional artistic and educational canon led to a decline in the notion of universal values of classical cultures; in museum terms, this was increasingly seen

exclusionary. This is an attitude which commonly affects collections from Cyprus which 95

The enormous expansion of the publically-funded university sector in the years

student numbers and a need for greater professionalization of archaeological research and teaching (another legacy of individuals such as the Wheelers).96 This allowed greater specialisation in principle, though at the same time traditional subject areas rooted in old world cultures (such as the Classics and Egyptian or Near Eastern studies) continued to dominate the teaching curriculum for non-British archaeology until comparatively recently; smaller disciplines such as Cypriot archaeology were still pursued largely

93. Lewis 1989, chapter 8; these trends are surveyed in a recent major review of UK museums Lewis 1989, chapter 8; these trends are surveyed in a recent major review of UK museums

et al. 2011.

museological theory). It is also of central relevance in understanding the past and current status of Cypriot collections in UK museum collections given that, as noted above, many are curated,


dynamism and reach of leading scholars that the discipline has gradually increased its prominence and influence.97

Fieldwork and research at the end of Empire

One of the first post-war British excavation projects in Cyprus was the expedition to

that the stated aim of chief excavators, John Iliffe98 99 (St. Andrews), were to investigate the extent and topography of the ancient settlement and define the location and nature of the great sanctuary of Aphrodite; this was very

100

and were substantially focused on Cyprus – the expedition also hoped to find Cypriot Syllabic inscriptions, though ideally in datable contexts so as to refine their chronology. Another factor seems to have been the need to replace the significant losses to Liverpool

search for tombs in later seasons following the discovery of some rich examples during the first year.101 Interestingly, in their introduction to the first preliminary account of

Droop and Peet, another possible motivation for the campaign during a period of major physical and psychological rejuvenation of the city of Liverpool after a traumatic period.102 The excavators consequently sent significant quantities of finds – especially the sanctuary spolia in the so-called Persian siege mound and the cemeteries of the ancient settlement – to the sponsoring institutions.103 In addition to the two main organisers, these

97. See comments of Sherratt 2015, p. 71. The tendency by scholars and academic programmes See comments of Sherratt 2015, p. 71. The tendency by scholars and academic programmes to marginalise Cyprus has been matched by an equally strong invasionist mentality (including

98. Trained as a classical archaeologist in Cambridge and at the British School at Athens, Iliffe Trained as a classical archaeologist in Cambridge and at the British School at Athens, Iliffe

he had played an important role. His years in Liverpool from 1948 to 1958 and his premature

Johns 1961; Donaldson 2015)"!!

101. Catling 1979, p. 272.Catling 1979, p. 272.

East”.

103. Liverpool: Liverpool: passim;

passim, and individual volumes of the series Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern.

274 CCEC 47, 2017

of the finds.104 The material allocated to St. Andrews was subsequently transferred to the 105

James Stewart had spent much of the war in a prisoner of war camp following his capture during fighting on Crete. This had stalled his various archaeological plans for

Age while in captivity.106 He might originally have been destined to settle down within a British academic environment, though tentative plans to establish a centre for Cypriot

of hostilities came to nothing.107 However his wartime experiences and gloomy prospects for Europe in the years that followed effected a change of heart.108 In the absence of any

He built up its museum collections, including from Cyprus, through a variety of means – some distinctly of the old school, such as the extensive use of local dealers which greatly

consequences of such practices, quite apart from legal and ethical objections109 – and thereby laying the foundations for the academic study of Cyprus and the Near East in that country.110 Returning to Cyprus in 1955, he continued his excavations on similar lines as before, with campaigns sponsored by individuals and academic institutions which received

Nicosia-Ayia Paraskevi111

well as items from Ayia Paraskevi) on behalf of the Logie Collection at the University

passimp. 11; Cambridge loan, p. 12-13); Davies 1985, p. 83.

passim.

106. Powell 2013, p. 60-85; Davey 2013, p. 203-204.Powell 2013, p. 60-85; Davey 2013, p. 203-204.

et al. 1999, p. viii. However, both Dr Lucilla Burn

successive Directors since the 1920s and which also eventually resulted in the long-term loan of a considerable amount of material to the University of Sydney in 1947 (see Burn 2016, p.192-193).

109. Powell 2013, p. 111-112, p. 167. Powell 2013, p. 111-112, p. 167.

111. Peltenburg 1981, 12; see Hennessy 1988, p. 9.Peltenburg 1981, 12; see Hennessy 1988, p. 9.


of Canterbury at Kent which she had founded in memory of her husband, James Logie, in 1957.112

Pigadhes directed by Joan du Plat Taylor also reflect the trend for greater involvement by universities, as well as the increasingly international

113 The 1949 season was organised and funded by the 114

in 1935.115 Apart from the fact that these institutions received a share of the finds, we also see the emergence of more proactive public funding, especially in the role of the

the British foreign archaeological schools in a regular and consistent manner from this time onwards).116 Taylor’s long and fruitful association with the Institute of Archaeology in London, where she served as Librarian (and occasional acting Director) from 1945 until her retirement in 1970, resulted in additions to its collection from excavations she conducted between the 1930s (see above) and 1950s.117 She played a crucial role

Pigadhes was problem-orientated, as she wanted to excavate a settlement site rather than tombs which dominated the archaeological record, but also one that served to train students in modern stratigraphic and contextual methods as advocated by the Wheelers.

One of Taylor’s major protégés was Hector Catling who excavated with her at Pigadhes

created – had a crucial impact on the development of Bronze Age topographic studies in particular, but also of later periods.118 His seminal publications during his early years

1960, were succeeded by several equally influential fascicules in the Cambridge Ancient

112. Washbourne 2000, p. 330-350. Washbourne 2000, p. 330-350.

113. Du Plat Taylor 1957, p. 1,Du Plat Taylor 1957, p. 1, from the excavations on p. 1; Davey 2013, p. 208-209.

with sherds remain unregistered in the storerooms (information courtesy of Dr Anja Ulbrich).

Minutes, 8 June 1935; see Anson and Huband 2000.

116. Wheeler 1970, p. 16-22. Wheeler 1970, p. 16-22.

118. Spawforth 1992; Cadogan 2004. Spawforth 1992; Cadogan 2004.

276 CCEC 47, 2017

History surveying the prehistory of the island.119 During his relatively short career at the Ashmolean before moving to the British School at Athens in 1971, Catling was also able to expand the collection considerably. The Department of Antiquities permitted him to export some 3500 provenanced sherds and other items ranging from the Neolithic to the Roman period deriving from the Cyprus Survey. This gave the Ashmolean the largest study collection of provenanced sherds outside the island and ensured that the display reflected a much longer chronological range than most British collections formed in the 19th

1930s and 1940s).120 The Ashmolean also added to its Cypriot collection in traditional ways, through gifts and bequests (most notably from the collector James Bomford).121

the didactic and research purposes of many of the displays in the Ashmolean at this period – now a distant memory due to the large-scale reconstruction of its antiquities galleries in

as an academic discipline in its own right. Catling continued to publish on Cypriot subjects,

world, including Crete.122 His publication of the tombs excavated by the Liverpool-St.

123

later to become Director of Antiquities of Cyprus, to study Classics at University College

his long career has maintained strong relations with the museums and universities of the UK that have an interest in the archaeology of Cyprus.124 Reflecting the colonial context, other distinguished Cypriot archaeologists of this generation also studied in the United Kingdom around this time, establishing strong personal and institutional

119. Catling 1963; 1964; also chapters in Catling 1963; 1964; also chapters in Cambridge Ancient History

120. Ulbrich 2012. Ulbrich 2012.

121. Brown, Catling 1980, p. 91. Brown, Catling 1980, p. 91.

123. Catling 1979; see Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, p. xiii note *. Catling 1979; see Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, p. xiii note *.

124. Karageorghis 2007, p. 16-33, p. 38-40; see also Karageorghis 2009. Karageorghis 2007, p. 16-33, p. 38-40; see also Karageorghis 2009.


later 125

fundamental.126 We must also mention the distinguished epigraphist, numismatist and

127 The academic geographies of these and other

ambition and achievement of scholars from Cyprus which transcended both national and imperial boundaries just as much as the subject itself.

The political and military conditions of the later 1950s interrupted the archaeological

the Palaepaphos project which ceased in the mid-1950s).128 Yet in the longer term the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus ensured continuity as much as change, with no animosity towards scholars from the former colonial power or any move towards introversion or political partisanship. Indeed, Cypriot archaeology, under the direction of

129 Partage of archaeological finds was finally abolished in 1964, but this no longer deterred foreign excavators whose aims were now research-led and closely tied to the rapid expansion of archaeology as a discipline in the university sector rather than a means to expand museum collections. At the same time, museums with a strong tradition of archaeological research and/or connections with Cyprus, such as the Ashmolean or the

contemporary developments.

British Archaeology in Independent Cyprus

The first British excavation of the post-independence period, at the Saranda Colones site in Paphos, was sponsored by the British School at Athens and led by the former

130

Byzantine archaeology, in which Cyprus played a major part from his time as Director of Antiquities down to the end of his life.131 He also oversaw the publication of the episcopal

128. Davis 1989, p. 165.Davis 1989, p. 165.

129. Karageorghis 2007, esp. p. 77-99.Karageorghis 2007, esp. p. 77-99.

131. Herrin Herrin et al. 2001, see especially his bibliography on p. 181-183.

278 CCEC 47, 2017

precinct at Kourion which had been excavated by the University of Pennsylvania in the 1930s and 1940s; this appeared in 2007 just after his death.132

sites. The exploration of the Ceramic Neolithic settlement of Philia Drakos A from

University) developed from a search for sites that would help elucidate the early metallurgy of the island following his PhD research.133

Vrysi (1969-73), co-directed by P.S.

of Drakos and prehistoric cultural sequences more generally.134 Edinburgh University, to

of Kataliontas-Kourvellos in 1972.135 Significantly perhaps, alongside the university and research-board sponsors of the Vrysi project were the archaeology departments of

136 137

in Oxford.138 Interest in these early sites stemmed in particular from the discipline of Near Eastern archaeology which was (and is) very prominent at universities such as Birmingham, but also from contemporary concerns of prehistoric archaeologists emerging from older culture-history traditions to embrace a broader range of methodological and

by successive prehistoric expeditions.139

Karageorghis’ generous and enlightened policy of finding new sites for foreign excavators displaced by the tragic events of 1974 also resulted in a fortuitous concentration of at least formally British archaeological projects around the Lemba-Kissonerga area, and western Cyprus more generally, that has continued with tremendous success to this day. The Ktima Lowlands area had been identified as being of great archaeological

and touristic development as a result of the partition of the island.140 This long-standing problem of Cypriot archaeology had also of course influenced the decision to excavate at Vrysi in the late 1960s. The long-term excavations at Lemba-Lakkous, directed by Peltenburg (by now based at the University of Edinburgh where he remained until

133. Information courtesy of the late Eddie Peltenburg. See preliminary reports in Information courtesy of the late Eddie Peltenburg. See preliminary reports in BCH 90, 92, 93, 94 (1966-1969), passim.

134. Peltenburg 1983. Peltenburg 1983.

136. E. Peltenburg 1981, p. 9-11.E. Peltenburg 1981, p. 9-11.

138. Brown, Catling 1975, p. 85.Brown, Catling 1975, p. 85.

139. See Knapp 2012, p. 23. See Knapp 2012, p. 23.

140. Hadjisavvas 2004. Hadjisavvas 2004.


retirement) between 1976 and 1983,141 followed by those around Kissonerga (especially at Mosphilia (1979-92)142 and at Mylouthkia (1976-96)143, targeted sites that were both chronologically early in date and non-funerary in nature. The nature of the Lemba and Kissonerga excavations, and their associated projects (including survey), also reflected the changing intellectual foundations of the subject, especially of prehistoric sites. Area-focused projects, using a range of increasingly multi-disciplinary methods and approaches began to replace older site-centred excavations. In this respect these were

Project and the Canadian Palaipaphos Survey Project (1979-91), themselves influenced

East during the 1960s and 1970s.144

have been nothing short of revolutionary for our understanding of the prehistory of the

Vathyrkakas between the Lemba Archaeological Research Centre and the Department of Antiquities in 1991 and 1994-1997 (Fig. 5), not only contributed enormously to our understanding of this much-abused site and its landscape, but initiated a broader programme of investigations of the nearby settlement site of Laona which will be published in the near future by Dr Diane Bolger, Dr Lindy Crewe, and others.145 The most recent element, in terms of excavation, of this long-term ‘British’ focus on the history of the Ktima Lowlands is represented by excavations directed since 2007 by Crewe at

Skalia (Fig. 6).146 This is the first settlement of this date that has been explored in western Cyprus which has uncovered

between the various sites in this area studied over many years by what justifiably can be called the ‘Edinburgh School’ since the late 1960s.

Peltenburg promoted the study of ancient Cyprus at the University of Edinburgh, one of the few places in the United Kingdom where the archaeology of the island could be studied in any depth by undergraduates as well as being a major centre for post-graduate and post-doctoral research. A major conference on early Cyprus was hosted in 1988 to

– whose catalogue of this exhibition provides one of the best general overviews of the

141. Peltenburg Peltenburg et. al. 1985.

142. Peltenburg Peltenburg et al. 1998.

143. Peltenburg 2003. Peltenburg 2003.

144. See, e.g., papers by Todd, Swiny, Rupp in Iacovou 2004.See, e.g., papers by Todd, Swiny, Rupp in Iacovou 2004.

146. Crewe 2013; 2015. Crewe 2013; 2015.

280 CCEC 47, 2017

history of excavation in 19th century Cyprus.147 In 1991, Peltenburg included the Cypriot collection within his catalogue of the Near Eastern antiquities of the Burrell Collection in

148 Apart from being an expert on Cypriot archaeology – Peltenburg’s doctoral

publishing the relevant material from a number of important Cypriot sites (such as

non-insular approach to the archaeology of the island149 as well as in the contributions by colleagues and students to Peltenburg’s festschrift edited by Dr Diane Bolger and

150 Bolger has been a research fellow at Edinburgh from 2002 and Bamboula

the Near East).151

and the Levant for her doctoral thesis completed under Peltenburg’s supervision in 1991.152

of Levant1988, publishing a seminal article on the corresponding Cypriot material within its Syro-Palestinian context few years later.153

who studied archaeology in Bournemouth and Bradford Universities before completing her PhD at Edinburgh in 1999 on the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods; she is currently one of the few professionally-trained archaeologists (especially from the island itself)

154 Sophia Antoniadou initially trained in Athens and specialised on the Late Bronze Age in her 2004 PhD but has also addressed broader

archaeology.155

published as a monograph in 2006, represents a fundamental contribution to the sub-ject156

undergraduate archaeologists but also supervised numerous graduate students (including Dr Daisy Knox whose PhD on prehistoric terracottas of 2012 represents a major and in-

148. Peltenburg 1991, nos 101-110 Peltenburg 1991, nos 101-110 passim.

149. Caubet, Thomas 2016. Caubet, Thomas 2016.

153. Phillip 1991. Phillip 1991.

154. et al. 2015.

155. Antoniadou 2005; Antoniadou, Pace 2007; also Antoniadou, Knapp 1998. Antoniadou 2005; Antoniadou, Pace 2007; also Antoniadou, Knapp 1998.

156. Crewe 2007. Crewe 2007.


novative contribution to this subject).157

of Director at the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute. Her predecessor

focusing on glyptic use in the 4th and 3rd

Laona project and certainly reflect the broader interests of the Lemba Archaeological project to understand sites within their landscape.158

insights on the cemetery component at Kissonerga-Ammoudhia which is contemporary with Skalia.159 -

160 Eddie’s

approach to the Chalcolithic and Philia periods, is an expert in wide range of prehistoric pottery of Cyprus, C14 dating, computer applications and theoretical issues.161

Other British Projects and Institutions

Vournes began in 1982 (after a trial season in 1981) under the auspices of the

interests between Cyprus and Crete.162

England, the British School at Athens became co-sponsor and the excavations resumed as a joint enterprise in 1985, continuing until 1993 with occasional tests and study seasons thereafter. The site has produced important buildings of LC I and II as well as the remains of a Cypro-Archaic period shrine in the ruins of the older structure.163 The importance of these excavations is all the greater for our being able to compare evidence from this

Tsaroukkas was excavated while the broader river valley and off-shore areas were subjected to intensive survey.164 Readers of the first part of this article will recall that the University of Reading has been home to a small collection of Cypriot antiquities since its foundation in the early 20th century,

157. Knox 2013; also 2017. Knox 2013; also 2017.

160. Papaconstantinou 2012; Papaconstantinou 2015. Papaconstantinou 2012; Papaconstantinou 2015.

et al. 2015.

163. Cadogan 1996; 2011 (both with previous refs); for the IA sanctuary, see Ulbrich 2012b. Cadogan 1996; 2011 (both with previous refs); for the IA sanctuary, see Ulbrich 2012b.

164. Results summarized in Results summarized in et al. 2014.

282 CCEC 47, 2017

Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities series.165

University College LondonThe constituent parts of the University of London continued to play a distinguished

at the Institute of Archaeology on Bronze Age Cypriot pottery found in Egypt in 1965, later combining a professional diplomatic career with archaeological research – the latter continuing to a very active degree to this day (see infra).166

Nicolas Coldstream (1927-2008) was one of the few individuals in a UK university (or

College London from 1960 was followed by a personal chair as Professor of Aegean Archaeology in 1975, after which he was appointed Yates Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology at University College London in 1983 (a position once held by Charles

contributions to the study of relations between the Aegean and Cyprus in antiquity.

research in Cypriot archaeology has continued at University College London which, moreover, has maintained the tradition of welcoming students from the island, many of

and Dr Lina Kassianidou at the University of Cyprus, and Dr Despina Pilides, the current 167

the Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, and was an Honorary Research

doctoral students have included Dr Lesley Bushnell whose seminal 2013 thesis on Cypriot juglets in their Near Eastern context has recently been published.168

et al. 2015.

(Webb et al.importance to the study of archaeology in Cyprus in the 19th and 20th centuries.

of Coldstream’s legacy outlined on p. 13-15 also shows the highly interconnected world of Cypriot scholarship.

168. Bushnell Bushnell 2016.


King’s College LondonKing’s College in London has long played a very distinguished role in the study of

Hellenic and Byzantine studies. In recent years, Dr Ellen Adams has taught one of the few dedicated courses on ancient Cyprus in the UK (encompassing museum display as well as archaeology), while Dr Tassos Papacostas teaches the Byzantine to Renaissance archaeology of the island.169 Heritage Gazetteer of Cyprus

170, this project (with Dr Stuart Dunn and Prof. Charlotte Roueché)171 aims in the longer term to provide a comprehensive on-line survey of the historical geography of the island.

OxfordOxford University continued to be home to – or has produced – many scholars who

have concerned themselves with the archaeology of the island, either directly through their main focus of study or in addition to their other interests – Aegean, Levantine

Levantine context, especially on economic and technological matters.172

he had done his military service there in the 1950s and seems to have been inspired by its

Levantine perspective.173

Levant, which he helped to established, has continued to be an important platform for ancient Cypriot studies from an island and Near Eastern perspective (but also extending into Byzantine and later periods). Among his very many distinguished graduate students was Nicola Schreiber whose seminal thesis

169.

171. I have already mentioned her historiographical study of the Department of Antiquities. I have already mentioned her historiographical study of the Department of Antiquities.

Cambridge Ancient History (2000), p. 570-587.

et al. 2014. The present author owes much to the guidance and inspiration of

173. Dauphin 2005. Dauphin 2005.

284 CCEC 47, 2017

on Cypro-Phoenician pottery was published as a monograph in 2003.174

stemmed an important publication on Cypriot seals but also a monograph on the Cyprus-Archaic period published in 1992.175 Among his many interests, Boardman included various aspects of ancient Cyprus176, as well as supervising students in this and related

Anthony Snodgrass whose long career has produced significant insights on Cyprus177).

178

2012 doctoral thesis on the Bronze to Iron transition in Cyprus represents a fundamental

Kokkinokremosand Athanasia Kanta).179

180

GlasgowAnother major centre of Cypriot archaeological research in the United Kingdom is

subsequently moved – along with its instigator – to the Department of Archaeology in

Archaeology).181 Knapp’s extensive and intellectually wide-ranging contributions to the study of the prehistoric archaeology of Cyprus, and especially its theoretical

and the co-editing of the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and the Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology

174. Schreiber 2003.Schreiber 2003.

175. Reyes 1992; 2001. Reyes 1992; 2001.

et al. 2000, esp. p. 403-410 passim.

177. Summarised in Snodgrass 1988. Summarised in Snodgrass 1988.

178. Lemos, Hatcher 1991.Lemos, Hatcher 1991.

et al. 2014.

et al. 2016.

et al. 2001;


informed by current interests in connectivity, materiality and hybridity (areas which also feature in the numerous volumes that Knapp has edited).182

focused on areas such as the maritime aspects of the island’s past, especially transport containers.183

a refreshingly wide range of social historical topics and approaches focused on more recent periods (from Ottoman to modern) as well as antiquity.184

the archaeology of colonialism, ethnicity, community engagement and story-telling as a method of archaeological narration. He is also overseeing the publication of the results

2000) in which he participated as survey director.185

Kassianidou and Dr Jay Knoller, subsequently established the Trodoos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project (TAESP) whose results were published in 2007.186 Dr Erin

the voices of local communities within areas of interest to archaeologists (particularly the 187

Across the United Kingdom Also arising from SCSP which first discovered the site, the Late Bronze Age rural

settlement of Arediou-Vouppes (Lithosouros) has been explored since 2005 (following a survey the previous year) by Dr Louise Steel of the University of Wales (Trinity St David) in order to elucidate a type of site rarely excavated.188 An expert in the Bronze to Iron transition through her doctoral research with Nicholas Coldstream at UCL, and later

of Cyprus in addition to numerous studies on Cyprus and the Levant; her broader-scale

which coverage of Cyprus is extensive, reflects the shifts in focus from individual areas 189 In common with

182. http://www.ajaonline.org/author/1241.

183. Demestica, Knapp 2016. Demestica, Knapp 2016.

184.

forthcoming

et al. 2013.

187.

188. Steel 2009; 2012. Steel 2009; 2012.

286 CCEC 47, 2017

of the University of East Anglia,.190

in Cyprus today, her career has spanned her native Australia, the Levant, Cyprus (with Kokkinoyia and Pamboules and various research

publications on the Cypriot Neolithic and Chalcolithic) and the United Kingdom where

module on this subject in her teaching programme.191

Collections and Displays

development in recent years has been the greater prominence of ancient Cyprus among the general public through museum displays, exhibitions and publications for a general audience. Despite the steady accumulation of Cypriot material in museums in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries, few British museums featured major displays of Cypriot artefacts, much less dedicated galleries that highlighted the island’s distinctive history and cultural identity. As we noted earlier, many items from Cyprus were on display in

and donations from private individuals down into the 20th century, were displayed at all.

contextual information – they were of limited relevance to a museum largely focused on the history of design and technology. As a consequence most were transferred to the

192 A relatively small group of choice items remained on display

191. Information courtesy of Dr Ersin Hussein.Information courtesy of Dr Ersin Hussein.

192. Among this material were various Cypriot items from 19Among this material were various Cypriot items from 19th-century collections acquired by the South Kensington institution between 1883 and 1935 – items purchased from Cesnola in

16.1-8), the latter including items unearthed at Bellapais-Vounous before the commencement of

(1980,11-27.1-4). The lamps had already been published by Don Bailey along with an important


in various galleries where they can be seen today arranged by material (such as pottery or glass), nowadays these items add an important component to the range and texture of

specific mission to inspire creativity.193

this time (but predicated largely on its role in university teaching and research rather than

throughout the post-war years but hindered by the daunting challenges of large-scale

galleries were not fully re-instated until the end of that decade following a significant

from the beginning of the war down to the 1970s.194 Yet the tendencies during this time to

Fig. 2galleries had to wait until financial conditions permitted the large-scale refurbishment of

display schemes and attitudes to the collection in general which can be found in museums throughout the United Kingdom. This included a growing awareness of the need to provide more dedicated space for what were previously regarded as the ‘minor’ cultures of the

to more towards a more relativistic and therefore more balanced understanding of ancient

a Cypriot display as early as 1947, while his successor Denys Haynes also advocated the creation of permanent galleries for Cypriot and Etruscan antiquities.195

(including that of Cyprus) elsewhere in the museum. He also arranged for the reissue of Excavations in Cyprus in 1969, noting in the preface of the new edition that the volume still represented the only source for these major excavations and therefore remained

194. Ashmole 1994, chapter IX; Caygill 1981, p. 55-56; Wilson 2001, chapter 7 Ashmole 1994, chapter IX; Caygill 1981, p. 55-56; Wilson 2001, chapter 7 passim, esp.

195. See See Reportsarchives).

288 CCEC 47, 2017

of value to scholarship in a period which witnessed major developments in excavation and publication in this subject. This was prescient, because the following decades saw a

personnel but very much in collaboration with international scholars. In particular one should mention two individuals. Dr Donald Bailey had published the lamp collection of

various groups of material from the island in the 1960s and 1970s (while also updating older catalogues which included Cypriot material, particularly lamps).196

Tatton-Brown (then Wilson) joined the museum staff in 1974 as the formal curator of 197 One

early Cypriot glass was featured.198

wait until 1987 but, prior to this major development, the museum had mounted a major temporary exhibition in 1979-1980 entitled Cyprus BC in collaboration with the Department

199 This

200 201

Chalcolithic Cyprus and the Near East, the proceedings of which were edited by Julian Reade, was also organised to coincide with this exhibition, given that so many artefacts of this period were exhibited in London for the first time.202 This also is a reminder of

contain very few items of pre-Bronze Age date, and those of the museums in Cyprus which reflect the extraordinary discoveries of Neolithic and Chalcolithic antiquities from

196. See T. Kiely, “In memoriam. Donald Bailey”, See T. Kiely, “In memoriam. Donald Bailey”, CCEC 42, 2016, p. 15-18; see Bailey 1975-1996.

CCEC 42, 2005, Hommage à Veronica Tatton-Brown.

198. Harden 1981. Harden 1981.

199. Tatton-Brown 1979.Tatton-Brown 1979.

volume in the Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities (1983). His many contributions to the archaeology of

202. Reade 1981. Reade 1981.


Lemba Archaeology Project to expand the chronological range of the collection.203

scale displays of Cypriot antiquities by institutions with extensive collections from the island.204 The idea of a permanent and dedicated gallery for the Cypriot collection in the

permanent display of Cypriot antiquities and art outside of the island itself. Tatton-Brown

new gallery.205

have allowed the collection to tell a wide range of stores across the galleries. In addition to the main displays mentioned above, material from Cyprus is currently exhibited in

example of this iconic type of sculpture and where the Chatsworth Apollo could be seen

items in what remains one of the most accessible of the galleries, one especially popular with school groups.206 Donald Bailey, meanwhile, arranged the upper gallery of this room as a study display for terracottas, glass and lamps, where various examples from the

The Ancient Levant gallery (Room 55) also features much Cypriot material that was

207207 The gallery is also home to the Cypro-Phoenician silver bowl from Amathus which had

Lakkous Embelia).

204. Wilson 2002, p. 328; Karageorghis 2004, p. 54-67.Wilson 2002, p. 328; Karageorghis 2004, p. 54-67.

205. Tatton-Brown 1987; 1997. Tatton-Brown 1987; 1997.

207. Tubb 1998, p. 71.Tubb 1998, p. 71.

290 CCEC 47, 2017

Figure 5. Eddie Peltenburg with students at Souskiou. Image courtesy of Dr Lindy Crewe.

Figure 6. Community engagement. Constructing a replica Chalcolithic roundhouse at Kissonerga by members of the Skalia team and the local children.

Image courtesy of Dr Lindy Crewe.


Figure 7. A.G. Leventis Gallery of Ancient Cyprus,

Figure 8. Selection of objects from the Cypriot collection of the University of Leeds now on display at the Leeds City Museum and Art Gallery.

292 CCEC 47, 2017

208

the Cesnola collection is now exhibited in the European ceramics gallery alongside the Royal Doulton ware imitation that was directly inspired by it in the 1870s.209 Alongside is a replica of one of the gold bracelets with lion-headed terminals from the ‘Curium

210 This nicely illustrates the extraordinary versatility of Cypriot antiquities to contribute to a wide range of displays and cater for many interests and tastes, including beyond antiquity itself.

catalogue as well.211

Lamb in the CVA

extent and importance of the collection could be seen in a single volume. This display was refreshed in 2007, under the Keepership of Dr Lucilla Burn (who also oversaw the creation of a temporary display of Cypriot mediaeval ceramics in 2012). 2007 also saw

the Institute of Archaeology in London.212 Although a collegiate space which plays an important role in teaching (including for museum and heritage studies), the gallery is open to the public as part of University College London’s commitment to advancing the public understanding of archaeology.213

prominent double-floored gallery as part of a comprehensive museum redevelopment which opened in 2009.214 While the material is arranged in broadly chronological order,

208. Barnett 1977. Its history, and that of the bronze shield boss found in the same tomb which Barnett 1977. Its history, and that of the bronze shield boss found in the same tomb which

private collections assembled in the 19th century.

211. Karageorghis Karageorghis et al. 1999.

212. Karageorghis 2004.Karageorghis 2004.

214. https://www.ashmolean.org/ancient-cyprushttps://www.ashmolean.org/ancient-cyprus


archaeology’. The layout of the galleries in the new Ashmolean also emphasise contacts across regions and periods – based on the theme ‘Crossing cultures crossing times’215 – showing how different regions of the world interacted with each other at various stages in antiquity and attempting to represent a more inter-connected ancient world. A long-term

a visual and cultural bridge between the Aegean and Near Eastern galleries; these were 216 Ongoing support by

Anja Ulbrich) who, in addition to researching and publishing the collection, has developed an outreach programmes with Cypriot communities around the United Kingdom.217

family as a memorial to the late Constantinos Leventis. The refreshed gallery features numerous items not on display for almost a century – such as numerous many limestone statues from Idalion originally exhibited in the Department of Oriental Antiquities (see above) (Fig. 7) – but also presents the collection in a more direct manner; there is greater

rather than the more specialist language found in traditional labelling. As with the other

UK, facilitated in particular by collaboration with the education division of the High Commission of Cyprus in the United Kingdom.218

I have already mentioned the efforts of Bailey and Tatton-Brown to publish parts of the

as Lucilla Burn’s and Reynold Higgins’ corpus of Hellenistic terracottas which included many items from Cyprus.219

numerous important studies of specific groups of material in the collection, but in 2005 it was decided to create a comprehensive digital database and online platform for all the

215. Brown, Wodehouse 2015. Brown, Wodehouse 2015.

217. https://www.ashmolean.org/people/anja-ulbrich.https://www.ashmolean.org/people/anja-ulbrich.

successive High Commissioners of the Republic of Cyprus in the UK, for their support and

219. Burn, Higgins 2001.Burn, Higgins 2001.

294 CCEC 47, 2017

sites, and will continue in the immediate future. The online database is introduced and Ancient Cyprus Online Research Catalogue which is

envisaged as an expanding resource to encompass new material (including archives).220

recent appointment of Dr Anastasia Chrysophilopoulou) in Cambridge, again with the

Some civic collections

a larger-scale redevelopment, features a sizeable number and diverse range of Cypriot artefacts, many from the small but important private collection of Claude Delaval Cobham who had local connections and whose nephew donated the older Cobham’s assemblage in 1918.221

Egypt and the Near East. While many UK museums have exhibited at least part of their Cypriot holdings in various ways over the years, the greater prominence accorded to

element in the founding collection of 1885, subsequent developments had focused on other areas, mainly natural history, ethnography and especially fine and decorative arts.222 Hyde’s benefactions in the 1930s had contributed important new material, including from Vounous as we have seen, and led to the creation of a nascent archaeology department; but it was only after 1951 when the local authority began to provide funds for new acquisitions (including through the support of excavations) that archaeology became a major element in the museum.223 This initiated something of a local tradition of involvement with the archaeology of Cyprus that continued into the 1970s; perhaps significantly, it was chosen as the recipient of a large quantity of Cypriot material distributed by the Wellcome Collection in 1980 (see below).224

Roman items, in one of a suite of galleries that also includes Egypt and the Near East in a

220. Kiely 2009-2011.Kiely 2009-2011.

221. facilitated study of the collection which, apart from ancient material, includes an important but

ware from Cobham’s collection. On his career, see

222. Davies 1985.Davies 1985.

223. Davies 1985, p. 73ff. Davies 1985, p. 73ff.

share from the Wellcome collection: see Symons 1985, p. 180-181; also Arda et al. 2005, p. 45-47.


conventional ancient world presentation (and alongside the wider range of displays only possible in such a rich and eclectic museum...).225

distinctive nature of Cypriot artefacts), though without a specific focus on the island itself whose archaeological identity is submerged within a rubric defined by Classical,

are now being studied in depth by Anna Reeve for her doctoral thesis; she has already created a fascinating web blog highlighting many aspects of its collection history rooted in the local history of the Leeds area and surrounding region. The connections of the individuals revealed through this research indicate that UK museum collections are

in getting the small collection of Cypriot antiquities at the University of Leeds, much of

museum (Fig. 8).226 Her interests extend beyond this city to Cypriot collections in other parts of the north of England in general. In this context should be noted Dr Sally Waite at the University of Newcastle. Her attractive recent publication on the collection at the

material formed in the earlier 20th century, represents one way of ensuring publicity and accessibility for such collections rooted in local institutions with their diverse needs and histories.227

home to one of the surviving portions of the collection of Lady Annie Brassey), has included numerous Cypriot pots in her recent redisplay of the ceramic holdings of this museum.228 Some items from Brassey’s collection are also exhibited to illustrate her travels and interest in collecting, reflecting an interest in local personalities and their

about the significant role of women in the emergence of Cypriot archaeology, Brassey’s status as one of the few female collectors (and even as a patron of excavations in Kourion)

artefacts through public outreach.229 At the same time, such notable exceptions also underscores the somewhat varied

and, at times, ambiguous treatment of Cypriot material in many UK museums which has

226. Reeve 2015. Reeve 2015.

227. Waite 2014. Waite 2014.

228. Taylor 2001; see Symons 1984, esp. p. 1-3.Taylor 2001; see Symons 1984, esp. p. 1-3.

296 CCEC 47, 2017

by Dr John Prag (and which, moreover, was presided over by a magnificent large-scale 230

the largely thematic displays in first phase of the very large scale redevelopment of the

material at all, despite the long archaeological associations between Cyprus and Scotland through Robert Hamilton Lang and others, or the important collections held by other

231 The only ancient cultures (apart from local archaeology) provided with a separate gallery is Egypt, a refurbished version of which will open in 2019. This reflects the sorts of decisions made by curators and heritage managers in response to perceived public interests and educational needs (such as the National Curriculum). Ongoing financial restrictions have also delayed the

in Liverpool, where some of its important Cypriot holdings (including finds from the Liverpool-St. Andrews expedition) will eventually be displayed. At the same time, its

holdings, especially those from the Liverpool-St. Andrews (whose excavation archives are also held by this institution) and will be included in this project, as well as tomb groups from Stewart’s excavations at Bellapais-Vounous.232

Unstable CollectionsAt the same time, museums during the 20th century started to rationalise collections

which, although broadly following the rubric of the universal museum, had often been

items along with many more ancient Egyptian artefacts, including many from the collection of Henry Rider Haggard acquired from his widow as recently as the 1920s

(see above).233 Numerous public school museums, some endowed with objects from 19th-

who supplied Haileybury College with items from his collection234), were neglected or


disbanded over the course of the 20th century. The most recent example of this trend was the controversial sale of most of the collection of Charterhouse School in 2002.235

Private collections continued to be dispersed as their original owners (or their heirs) no longer wanted to hold on to the artefacts assembled in previous generations.236 Economic

death duties. In the first part of this study we mentioned the fate of the Second Pitt Rivers collection, much of which was dispersed stealthily from the 1950s onwards, items from

collections.237 The most spectacular example of the disintegration of a private collection is surely that of Sir Henry Wellcome. His death in 1936 put an end to an obsessive process of accumulation of an almost bewildering range of material (ethnography, antiquities, art,

ever assembled, exceptional even by the standards of the 18th and 19th centuries.238 This

239 In this regard, the formation

awash with Cypriot antiquities due to the troubled political conditions of the island) – was highly unusual for private individual. In the tradition of the collector-scholar, a selection

a richly illustrated catalogue and study; a less satisfactory parallel with 19th-century practice was its sale by auction and subsequent dispersal in 2001.240 By this time, most public museums were fully compliant with the 1970 UNESCO convention on cultural property (but only ratified by the UK in 2002).241 Quite apart from economic restraints

242

235. Sotheby’s London, 5 November 2002; Lipmann 2003. Sotheby’s London, 5 November 2002; Lipmann 2003.

237. Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 329-330.Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 329-330.

238. Larson 2009, esp. p. 271-280.

242. This topic deserves more scholarly attention, especially in the light of recent looting and This topic deserves more scholarly attention, especially in the light of recent looting and

298 CCEC 47, 2017

Whither Cypriot archaeology in the United Kingdom (and beyond)?

Some comments

This paper has not been able to comprehensively survey this large field, especially the

the time of writing. Yet, due to the dynamic nature of the younger generation of scholars and curators, the future will no doubt be rich and diverse. The subject nonetheless faces a range of challenges: the relative decline of archaeology as an undergraduate subject in British universities; a crisis in funding for archaeological teaching and research in many third level institutions which affects smaller subjects more profoundly than mainstream ones; and, especially, the severe financial problems faced by many museums, small and large, since the global economic crisis in 2008.

There are also broader cultural reasons why Cypriot specialists need to redouble their efforts to promote their subject, namely the shift in both intellectual and public attitudes towards archaeology and how museums in particular display the past (and for whom). In terms of academic developments, while Cypriot archaeology is taught and researched

subjects it tends to exist within the rubric of larger and more ‘mainstream’ subjects which

been transformed from a series of sometimes quite narrowly-defined regional/cultural or chronological specialisms into a much more dynamic, holistic and inter-connected field

been studied and displayed). Ironically, while such approaches place far greater emphasis on the contribution of previously neglected or marginalised cultures or regions such as

diffusionist assumptions about the spread of technological and cultural ideas), the explicit cross-cultural analysis and questioning of older definitions of cultural entities demanded by modern scholarship often reject the traditional classificatory and didactic schemes which underlay the conventional ‘survey course’ (which might help to highlight the role

about university student fees, including the relative value of particular courses and indeed whether studying highly specialist subjects at tertiary level (and especially by students

the potential threats to smaller humanities subjects (and especially relatively expensive ones such as archaeology).

Sam Hardy is notable in this regard (Hardy 2010a; see also com/cv).


At the same time, we should not assume that the future health of the discipline and profile of Cypriot archaeology resides solely in the academy. Arguably, the greater potential for expansion of public understanding of Cypriot archaeology lies in our museums. In this regard, greater collaboration between research specialists and museum curators is highly desirable to more fully exploit the potential of smaller collections but also to encourage greater cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices. To begin with, Cypriot museum collections and their associated histories are rich but only partially exploited fields for specialist research and would repay much closer attention from the

greatly expand archaeological corpora for the purpose of typological study in particular.

revising conventional narratives of archaeology as a practice within its broader social and political contexts (especially during the British colonial period). Yet in terms of public display, changes in priorities and fashions of display have tended to reduce the coverage

serving local narratives, or at least those which present a smaller or more simplified

reflected by audience research). Added to this is the ongoing perception that classical archaeology is somehow difficult or even elitist.243

discussion about how accessible many museums are in reality244, though the classical world is more popular and more accessible than some museum professionals sometimes

obscure both good practice and good material. While dedicated galleries and displays of ancient Cyprus continue to be important,

they are not the only option – or indeed always possible – for every museum possessing Cypriot antiquities where a range of approaches needs to be pursued to encourage their display. There is in fact a wide variety of ways of presenting the rich cultural heritage of ancient Cyprus found in museum collections beyond traditional historical or geographical layouts. The highly distinctive material culture of especially prehistoric to Iron Age Cyprus, embodying as it does the very essence of Kyprios character, has a major potential in its own right to facilitate a wide range of museum presentation. Standing

represents one of a number of alternative images of ‘antiquity’ to what prevails in the public mind. Cypriot antiquities of all periods, including more immediately familiar artefacts of Hellenistic and Roman type from the island (which often serve to illustrate

243. Donnelan 2011. Donnelan 2011.

244. Papers in Lang Papers in Lang et al. 2006, especially C. Lang, “The public access debate”, p. 29-38.

300 CCEC 47, 2017

civilisation – especially trade and cultural contacts or manufacturing techniques, but also creativity and playfulness and the expression of local material identities. This is especially important for modern audiences with their much wider appreciation for world cultures – through the media, travel and growing multi-culturalism – and contemporary art than that found among previous generations of museum visitors.

In any case, antiquities are not the preserve of archaeologists and historians and,

recently displayed several Cypriot prehistoric juglets with their highly expressive shapes

Odundo which in turn responds to vessels from traditional African cultures.245 The contemporary Cypriot artist and cultural heritage consultant Dr Stella Karageorghi, who

period, is also interested in the use of antiquities both as a spur for creativity and in school education.246

landscape, archaeology and identity.247

Hussein (mentioned above) on a project entitled 33° 3’ 45’’ East which explores Cypriot geology and landscape and its impact on the formation of identity.

conversation pieces for a wide range of didactic programmes at all ages and educational levels. traditional roles of museum alongside facilitating additional community needs – Cypriot artefacts can be used by curators for a very broad range of display types, regardless of the specific focus of their museum.

Public museums aim to reach the widest possible audiences, but displays of Cypriot antiquities have a great potential to serve the specific interests and needs of diaspora communities. The United Kingdom is home to some 300,000 people of Cypriot origin or descent from across the island and its various communities. Through community engagement and education, museum collections provide a vital focal point for celebrating Cypriot heritage and identity in a way that transcends the constraints of recent political problems, especially for younger audiences and/or second- or third-generation Cypriots, while highlighting the on-going challenges faced by the custodians of the island’s

the island – though the military, business and long-term residence. This connection has

"

247. https://www.yorgospetrou.com.https://www.yorgospetrou.com.


of the diaspora community, can play an important role in advocacy of heritage projects (especially related to conservation and education, of which the Leventis and Severis

the island every year as tourists, representing a large and only partially tapped audience for displays of Cypriot heritage in United Kingdom museums. Apart from highlighting the rich history of Cyprus before or after their visits, such displays can also serve to educate the general public on the importance of heritage protection and conservation, including of the natural environment, while also reminding them that the history and character of Cyprus must not be seen just in the light of 20th-century history.

Ultimately, archaeology has the unique ability to contribute to a more profound understanding of the longer-term history of the human presence on the island, including its impact on the landscape and the realities of diversity and co-existence even in a very small area such as Cyprus.248 While this is true of the discipline as a whole – in the

Numerous museums across the United Kingdom (and throughout the world) possess parts

greater use of this rich resource for understanding and enjoying the heritage of the island, especially for the benefit of the wider public and the Cypriot community. The antiquities of Cyprus in the United Kingdom are, along with its people, a major ambassador for the island and will continue to be cherished by those interested in our shared human heritage.

British Museum, Department of Greece and Rome

BIBLIOGRAPHY

248. See now Dietzel 2014. See now Dietzel 2014.

Anon. 1899, A guide to the exhibition galleries of the British Museum (Bloomsbury), London.

Anon. 1924, Palestine pavilion handbook and tourist guide, London.

Anon. 1939, “Exhibition of Cyprus antiquities”, Nature 143,

Anon. 2012, “UCL Institute of Archaeology celebrates 75 years” (

institute-of-archaeology-ucl)

ANSON (D.), HUBAND (B.), 2000, Cypriote pottery in New Zealand collectionsXX:19, Jonsered.

ANTONIADOU (S.), 2005, “The impact of trade on the society of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age: towards a contextual approach”, in J.

Archaeological perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, Oxford, p. 66-77.

ANTONIADOU (S.), KNAPP (A.B.), 1998, “Politics and the cultural heritage of Cyprus”, in

Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean, London, p. xxxx.

ANTONIADOU (S.), PACE (A.) eds, 2007, Medi-terranean Crossroads, Athens.

302 CCEC 47, 2017

ARDA (B.) et al., 2005, The collection of Cypriote antiquities in the Hunterian Museum,

Sävedalen.

ASHMOLE (B.), 1994, An autobiography, Oxford.

ÅSTRÖM (P.), 1989, Katydhata. A Bronze Age site in Cyprus

BAILEY

OpAth

BAILEY (D.), 1975-1996, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum,London.

BARNETT (R.), 1977, “The Amathus shield-boss rediscovered and the Amathus bowl reconsidered”, RDAC, p. 157-169.

BECK (J.), 2011, “L’occupation néolithique de Kataliontas-Kourvellos. État de la question”, CCEC 41, p. 79-84.

BOLGER (D.), MAGUIRE (L.) eds., 2010, The development of pre-state communities in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg, Oxford.

BROWN (A.), CATLING (H.), 1975, Ancient Cyprus, Oxford.

BROWN (A.), Catling (H.), 1980, “Additions to the Cypriot collections in the Ashmolean

OpAth XIII, p. 91-137.

BROWN (C.), Wodehouse (K.) eds, 2015, The Ashmolean Museum: Crossing cultures, crossing times, Oxford.

BURN (L.), 2016, The Fitzwilliam Museum. A history, Cambridge.

BURN (L.), Higgins (R.), 2001, Catalogue of Greek terracottas in the British Museum,

BUSHNELL (L.), 2016, Precious Commodities: The Socio-economic Implications of the Distribution of Juglets in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, Oxford.

BOLGER (D.), 2003, Gender in ancient Cyprus: Narratives of social change on a Mediterranean island

CADOGAN

E. Herscher (eds), Late Bronze Age settlement in Cyprus. Function and relationship

CADOGAN

genesis of the Cyprus Survey”, in Iacovou

Proceedings of the Fourth Cypriological Congress, Nicosia, p. 397-404.

CARR (L.), 2012, Tessa Verney Wheeler. Women and archaeology before World War Two, Oxford.

CASSON (S.), 1937, Ancient Cyprus. It’s art and archaeology, London.

CATLING (H.), 1963, “Patterns of Settlement in Bronze Age Cyprus”, OpAth III, p. 129-169

CATLING (H.), 1964, Cypriot bronzework in the Mycenaean world, Oxford.

CATLING (H.), 1979, “The St. Andrews-

1950-1954”, RDAC, p. 270-275.

CATLING (H.), KARAGEORGHIS

ABSA 55, p. 108-127.

CATLING (H.), DIKIGOROPOULOUS (A.), “The Kornos Cave: an early Byzantine site in Cyprus”, Levant 2, p. 37-62.

CAUBET (A.), THOMAS

Edgar J. Peltenburg”, CCEC 46, p. 9-14.

CAYGILL The story of the British Museum, London.

CHRYSOPHILOPOULOU (A.), 2016, “Re-examining the history of Cypriot antiquities in the

Ancient Cyprus today. Museum collections and new research, Uppsala, p. 13-20.

COOK

Roman Antiquities. Selected acquisitions, 1980-1992”, JHS 114, p. 243-247.

COOK (B.) (ed.), 1979, Cypriote art in the British Museum, London.

COOK (B.), 2004, “Haynes, Denys Eyre ODNB https://doi.

org/10.1093/ref:odnb/55011

COOK The British Empire Exhibition. Official guide, London.

COUNTS (D.), 2001, “Prolegomena to the Study of Cypriot Sculpture”, CCEC 31, p. 129-181.

CREWE (L.), 2007, Early Enkomi. Regionalism, trade and society at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, Oxford.


CREWE (L.), 2014, “A reappearing Early Bronze Age in western Cyprus”, in Webb 2014, p. 137-150.

CREWE

2200 BC: A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world?, Halle.

DAUPHIN

(1937-2004): In homage”, PEQ 137/2, p. 93-97.

DAVEY (C.), 2013, “James Stewart and Walter Beasley: Australia, Cyprus and the Australian Institute of Archaeology”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 201-210.

DAVIES (S.), 1985, By the gains of industry. Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery 1885-1985, Birmingham.

DAVIS (T.), 2004, Shifting sands. The rise and fall of Biblical archaeology, Oxford.

DAVIES (T.), Stewart (C.), 2014, “A Brief History of Byzantine Archaeological Research on Cyprus”, in C. Stewart, T. Davis, A. Carr (eds), Cyprus and the Balance of Empires. Art and archaeology from Justinian I to the Coeur de Lion, Boston, p. 17-28.

DAVIS (T.), 1989, “A history of American archaeology in Cyprus”, The Biblical Archaeologist 52/4, p. 163-169.

DEMESTICA (S.), KNAPP (A.B.), 2016, Mediterranean connections: maritime transport containers and seaborne trade in the Bronze and early Iron Ages, London.

DEMESTICA (S.), KNAPP (A.B.) eds., 2016, Maritime transport containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean,

DIETZEL (I.), 2014, The ecology of co-existence and conflict in Cyprus. Exploring the religion, nature, and culture in a Mediterranean island, Berlin.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1940, The excavations at Vounous-Bellapais in Cyprus, 1931-2, Oxford.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1936, “The excavations at Erimi, RDAC, p. 1-87.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1953, Khirokitia. Final report on the excavation of a Neolithic settlement in Cyprus on behalf of the Department of Antiquities, 1936-1946, Oxford.

DIKAIOS (P.), 1961, Sotira, Philadelphia.

DONALDSON (J.), 2015, “The J.H. Iliffe

Era Palestine”, Nova. The Journal of Friends of Antiquity, July 2015, p. 7-10 (www.friendsofantiquity.org.au).

DONNELAN The role of collections of classical antiquities in UK regional museums: visitors, networks, social contexts, Unpublished PhD thesis, University

DORLING (T.), 1924, “Sea power and outposts of The dominions

and dependencies of the Empire, London, p. 333-419.

DRAY (D.), DU PLAT TAYLOR (J.), 1951,

and Hellenistic cemeteries in Cyprus”, RDAC

DU PLAT TAYLOR (J.), 1957, Myrtou-Pighades. A Late Bronze Age sanctuary in Cyprus, Oxford.

DU PLAT TAYLOR (J.), 1980, “Excavations at Ayios Philon, the ancient Carpasia. Part I: The Classical to Roman periods”, RDAC, p. 152-216.

DU PLAT TAYLOR (J.), MEGAW (P.), 1981, “Excavations at Ayios Philon, the ancient Carpasia. Part II: The early Christian buildings”, RDAC, p. 209-250.

FITTON

2009, p. v-viii.

FRANKEL (D.), 1983, Early and Middle Bronze Age material in the Ashmolean Museum,

FRYXELL

mania, and temporal enchantment in Interwar Britain”, Twentieth Century British History 28/4, p. 516-542.

FUCHS (R.), HERBERT

Harrison and the representational buildings

Architectural History 43, p. 281-333.

GALANAKIS (Y.), WILKINSON (T.), BENNETT (J.) eds, 2014, Athyrmata. Critical essays on the archaeology of the eastern Mediterranean in honour of E. Susan Sherratt, Oxford.

GELIN L’archéologie en Syrie et au Liban à l’époque du mandat, Paris.

304 CCEC 47, 2017

GEORGHALLIDES Cyprus and the governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs: the causes of the 1931 crisis, Nicosia.

GEORGIOU

naturally fortified Late Cypriot settlements”, Cyprus, An island

society. Society and social relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian period, Oxford, p. 65-83.

GIBSON (S.), 1999, “British archaeological

1948”, PEQ 131/2, p. 115-143.

GILL (D.), 2011, Sifting the soil of Greece. The early years of the British School at Athens (1886-1919), London.

GIVEN

Imperialist archaeology and the manipulation of ethnic identity”, JMA 11, p. 3-29.

GIVEN forthcoming, “Kourion’s Amathus

In the Ancient Kourion Area: Penn Museum’s Legacy and Recent Research in Cyprus, Philadelphia, forthcoming.

GIVEN (M.), KNAPP (A.B.) et al., 2001, The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project: Social Approaches to Regional Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles.

GIVEN (M.), KNAPP (A.B.) et al., 2013, Troodos archaeological and environmental survey project, Levant Supplementary Series 14-15, London.

GJERSTAD (E.), 1980, Ages and days in Cyprus,

GÖRANSSON (K.), 2012, “The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. The Cypriot collections in

the SCE”, CCEC 42, p. 399-421.

GORING (E.), 1983, Late Cypriot goldwork, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Bedford College, University of London.

GORING (E.), 1988, A mischievous pastime. Digging in Cyprus in the Nineteenth century, Edinburgh.

GRAHAM (L.), 2012, “The necropolis at Kissonerga-Ammoudhia: new ceramic

Cyprus. An island culture: Society and social

relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian period, Oxford, p. 38-47.

GRAHAM (L.), 2013, “The trouble with typologies: Stewart’s pottery classifications and regional styles”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 133-140.

GREENHALGH (P.), 1988, Ephemeral vistas: The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and World’s Fairs, 1851-1939,

GUNNIS (R.), 1936/1947, Historic Cyprus. A guide to its towns and villages, monasteries and castles, London.

HADJISAVVAS (S.), 2004, “Surveying after

Antiquities Survey Branch since 1960”, in Iacovou 2004, p. 37-41

HARDEN (D.), 1981, Catalogue of Greek and Roman glass in the British Museum, . Core- and rod-formed vessels and pendants and Mycenaean cast objects, London.

HARDY (S.), 2010a, Interrogating archaeological ethics in conflict zones: Cultural heritage work in Cyprus, PhD thesis, University

HARDY (S.), 2010b, Human rights archaeology. Cultural heritage in conflict

HAWKES (J.), 1982, Adventurer in archaeology: the biography of Sir Mortimer Wheeler, London.

HENNESSY (B.) et al., 1988, Ayia Paraskevi and Vasilia. Excavations by J.R.B. Stewart

HERMARY (A.), 1990, “Histoire des études sur la sculpture chypriote”, CCEC 14, p. 7-28.

HERMARY (A.), 2006, “Le projet de fouilles à Amathonte de l’Oriental Institute de Chicago (1930)”, CCEC 36, p. 195-217.

HERRIN (J.) et al. (eds), 2001, Mosaic. Festschrift for A.H.S Megaw, London.

HILL How to observe in archaeology. Suggestions for travellers in the Near East and Middle East, London, p. 54-58.

HILL A history of Cyprus. . The Ottoman province. The British colony. 1571-1948, Cambridge.

HIRSCHFELD


IACOVOU Archaeological field survey in Cyprus. Past history, future potentials, London.

IACOVOU Cyprus and the Aegean in the early Iron Age. The legacy of Nicola Coldstream, Nicosia.

ILIFFE (J.), 1951, “Excavations at Aphrodite’s sanctuary of Paphos”, Liverpool Bulletin 1, p. 25-35.

JENKINS

Museums Journal 86/2, p. 67-69.

JENKINS (I.), 1986b, Greek and Roman Life, London.

JENKINS (I.), 1992, Archaeologists and aesthetes in the sculpture galleries of the British Museum, London.

JOHNS (C.N.), 1961, “J.H. Iliffe”, PEQ, p. 77-78.

JOUKOWSKY

Breaking ground: Women in old world archaeology

KARAGEORGHIS The A.G. Leventis Foundation and the collections of Cypriote antiquities in foreign museums, Athens, p. 54-67.

KARAGEORGHIS A lifetime in the archaeology of Cyprus

KARAGEORGHIS

logy in the Bloomsbury area”, in Kiely 2009, p. 1-6.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), VASILIKA (E.), WILSON (P.), 1999, The art of ancient Cyprus in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Cambridge.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), KANTA

et al., 2014, Pyla-Kokkinokremos. A 13th century BC fortified settlement in Cyprus. Excavations 2010-2011Uppsala.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), RAPTOU (E.) et al., 2014, Necropoleis at Palaepaphos from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Cypro-Archaic period, Nicosia.

KEARNS (C.), 2013, “‘On a clear day the

environmental thought in the archaeology of Cyprus”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 121-132.

KENYON

Arthur Hamilton (1860-1941)”, ODNB

KLING (B.), MUHLY (J.) et al., 2007, Joan du Plat Taylor’s Excavations at the Late Bronze Age Mining Settlement at Apliki Karamallos, Cyprus

KIELY (T.) ed., 2009, Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum. Essays in honour of Veronica Tatton-Brown, London. Corrected Online edition: http://britishmuseum.org/research/publications/research_publications_series/2009/ancient_cyprus.aspx

KIELY (T.) ed., 2009-2011, Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum Online Research Catalogue

KIELY (T.), 2011, “Kourion”, in T. Kiely (ed.), Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum Online

www.britishmuseum.org

KIELY (T.), forthcoming, “Ancient Cyprus in

Kyprios character. History, archaeology and numismatics of ancient Cyprus

KIELY (T.), MERRILLEES (R.), 2012, “The archaeological activities of Samuel Brown,

acquaintances in 19th century Cyprus”, CCEC 42, p. 245-272.

KIELY (T.), ULBRICH (A.), 2012, “Britain and the archaeology of Cyprus. I. The long 19th century”, CCEC 42, p. 305-356.

KNAPP (A.B.), 2012, The archaeology of Cyprus: From earliest prehistory throughout the Bronze Age, Cambridge.

KNAPP (A.B.), WEBB (J.), MCCARTHY (A.) eds, 2013, J.R.B. Stewart. An archaeological legacy

KNIGHT (D.), SABEY (A.), 1984, Lion roars at Wembley: British Empire Exhibition, 1924-5, London.

KNOX

vessels at Early Cypriot Bellapais Vounous”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 47-58.

KNOX

in T. Insoll (ed.), The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines, Oxford, p. 755-776.

LANG (C.), REEVE (J.), POLLARD The responsive museum. Working with audiences in the twentieth-first centuryBurlington.

LARSON An infinity of things: How Henry Wellcome collected the world, London.

306 CCEC 47, 2017

LAWRENCE The British Empire Exhibition. Official guide, London.

LAWRENCE The British Empire Exhibition. Official catalogue, London.

LEMOS (I.), HATCHER

vases in Cyprus”, OJA 10/2, p. 197-208.

LERIOU (N.), 2007, “The Hellenization of Cyprus: Tracing its beginnings (An updated

(eds), Patrimoines culturels en Méditerranée orientale : recherche scientifique et enjeux identitaires. 1er atelier (29 novembre 2007): Chypre, une stratigraphie de l’identité. Rencontres scientifiques en ligne de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, p. 1-33.

LESKO

LEWIS For instruction and recreation. A centenary history of the Museums Association, London.

LIPMANN (A.), 2003, “The treason of the The Spectator, 3 October 2003, p.

MACDONALD (C.) et al. (eds), 2015, The Great Islands. Studies of Crete and Cyprus presented to Gerald Cadogan, Athens.

MAGUIRE (L.), 2009, Cypriot Pottery and its circulation in the Levant

MAIER

Hogarth: Digging at Aphrodite’s sanctuary at Palaipaphos”, CCEC 27, p. 127-156.

MAIER (F.), KARAGEORGHIS Paphos. History and Archaeology, Nicosia.

MANNING (S.), DE MITA

Tsaroukkas”, in Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity, Nicosia, p. 103-141

MANNING (S.) et al., 2014, “Becoming urban: Investigating the anatomy of the Late

JMA!#$%!&"!'('#.

MARKIDES (D.), 2006, “Cyprus 1878-1925: Ambiguities and uncertainties”, in

Britain in Cyprus. Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878-2006

MARSHALL Catalogue of the finger-rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the British Museum, London.

MARSHALL Catalogue of jewellery, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum, London.

MASSON

1978)”, RDAC, p. 1-6

MCCARTHY (A.), 2013, “Living with the legacy of death: recent results from the multi-period site of Prasteio Mesorotsos”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 73-80.

MCCARTHY (A.), 2014, “Landscape resources and site longevity: Prasteio Mesorotsos and the Dhiarizos valley in prehistory”, in Webb 2014, p. 97-108.

MEE (C.), STEEL (L.), 1998, The Cypriote collections in the University of Liverpool and the Williamson Art Gallery and Museum,

MEGAW (P.), 1988, “The British School at Athens and Cyprus”, RDAC (part 2), p. 281-286.

MEGAW (P.), 2007, Kourion: Excavations in the Episcopal Precinct, Washington.

MENDOZA (N.), 2017, The Mendoza review: an independent review of museums in Englandpublicat ions/ the-mendoza-review-an-

MERRILLEES (R.), 1968, The Cypriote Bronze Age pottery found in EgyptLund.

MERRILLEES (R.), 1983, “Professor James R. Stewart: a biographical lecture”, in C. Hope, J. Zimmer (eds), Catalogue of ancient Middle Eastern pottery from Palestine, Cyprus and Egypt in the Faculty of Art Gallery RMIT June 1983 and essays in Australian contributions to the archaeology of the ancient Near East,

MERRILLEES

Australian classical connection”, ABSA 94, p. 457-473

MERRILLEES (R.), 2003, On opium, pots and places. Selected papers. An honorary volume for Robert S. Merrillees167, Sävedalen.

MERRILLEES (R.), 2005, “Towards a fuller history CCEC 35, p. 191-214.


MERRILLEES (R.), 2013a, “Professor J.R. Stewart – archaeologist, numismatist and soldier of Cyprus”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. 185-194.

MERRILLEES (R.), 2013b, “Eleanor Stewart remembered”, in Knapp et al. 2013, p. ix-xii.

MERRILLEES

chemist and collector of Cypriote antiquities th century

A.D.”, CCEC 44, p. 401-429.

MICHAELIDES

The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4, Oxford, p. 138-139.

MICHAELIDES (D.) ed., 2013, Epigraphy, numis-matics, prosopography and history of ancient Cyprus. Papers in honour of Ino Nicolaou,

MITFORD (T.), ILIFFE (J.), 1951, “Excavations

Antiquaries Journal 31/1-2, p. 51-66.

MOOREY (R.), 1991, A century of Biblical archaeology, Cambridge.

MOOREY (R.), 1992, “British women in Near Eastern archaeology. Kathleen Kenyon and the pioneers”, PEQ 124, p. 91-100.

MORGAN (T.), 2011, Sweet and bitter island. A history of the British in Cyprus, London.

MORRIS (C.) ed., 1995, Klados. Essays in honour of J.N. Coldstream, BICS Supplement 63, London.

MORRIS (D.), 1985, The art of ancient Cyprus, Oxford.

MORRIS (R.), SYMONS

style vases from Cyprus in the Birmingham RDAC, p. 185-191.

MORTON (P.), 2003, Hybrid modernities: Architecture and representation at the 1931 Colonial Exposition, Paris, Cambridge

MYRES (J.), 1914a, Handbook of the Cesnola collection of antiquities from Cyprus, New

MYRES (J.), 1914b, “Cyprus”, in A. Herbertson and O. Howarth (eds), The Oxford survey of the British Empire. . The British isles and Mediterranean possessions. Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, London, p. 530-544.

MYRES (J.), 1946, “Stanley Casson: 1889-1944”, ABSA 41, p. 1-4.

NICOLAOU (I.), 1990, “

”, Archaeologia Cypria 2, p. 3-8.

NICOLAOU

RDAC, p. 226-229.

PAPACONSTANTINOU (D.), 2012, “Settlement planning and architecture”, in Peltenburg 2012, p. 129-160.

PAPACONSTANTINOU (D.), 2015, “Domestic et

al. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Neolithic Europe, Oxford.

PAPANTONIOU Religion and social transformations in Cyprus: From the Cypriot basileis to the Hellenistic strategosBoston.

PELTENBURG (E.), 1981, Cypriot antiquities in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Birmingham.

PELTENBURG (E.), 1983, Vrysi: A subterranean settlement in Cyprus. Excavations at Ayios Epiktitos Vrysi, 1969-73, London.

PELTENBURG (E.), 1989, Early society in Cyprus, Edinburgh.

PELTENBURG (E.), 1991, The Burrell Collection. Western Asiatic antiquities, Edinburgh.

PELTENBURG (E.) ed., 2003, The colonisation and settlement of Cyprus. Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia 1976-1996LXX:4, Sävedalen.

PELTENBURG (E.) ed., 2007, The Chalcolithic cemetery of Souskiou-Vathyrkakas, Cyprus. Investigations from four missions from 1950 to 1997, Nicosia.

PELTENBURG (E.) ed., 2012, ARCANE II, Cyprus, Turnhout.

PELTENBURG

carbon”, in Peltenburg 2012, p. 313-338.

PELTENBURG (E.) et al., 1985, Excavations at Lemba Lakkous, 1976-1983

PELTENBURG (E.) et al., 1998, Excavations at Kissonerga-Mosphilia, 1979-1992LXX:2, Jonsered.

PICKUP (S.) et al., 2015, Cypriote antiquities in Reading. The Ure Museum at the University of Reading and the Reading Museum (Reading Borough Council)

308 CCEC 47, 2017

PHILLIP

Levantine world: Conservatism, innovation and social change”, JMA 4/1, p. 59-107.

PHILIP

2016)”, Levant 48/3, p. 217-219.

PILIDES (D.), 2008, “ ‘Welcome, Sir, to Cyprus’: The local response to American archaeological research”, Near Eastern Archaeology, 71, no. 1/2, p. 6-15.

PILIDES (D.), 2009, George Jeffery. His diaries and the ancient monuments of Cyprus, Nicosia.

PILIDES

to systematic excavation”, in D. Pilides, N. Papadimitriou (eds), Ancient Cyprus. Cultures in dialogue, Nicosia, p. 22-23.

POWELL (J.), 2013, Love’s Obsession. The Lives and Archaeology of Jim and Eve Stewart, Kent Town.

PRYCE Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. . Cypriote and Etruscan, London.

READE (J.) ed., 1981, Chalcolithic Cyprus and western AsiaPaper No. 26, London.

REEVE Ancient Cypriot art in Leeds. Exploring the origins and history of ancient Cypriot collections in Leeds

REEVE (A.), 2015, The University of Leeds ancient Cypriot collection: An overview, Leeds.

REYES (A.), 1994, Archaic Cyprus. A study of the textual and archaeological evidence, Oxford.

REYES (A.), 2001, The stamp-seals of ancient Cyprus, Oxford.

ROBINSON

1867-1948”, PBA 26, p. 241-250.

ROUECHÉ

in A. Cameron (ed.), Cambridge Ancient History

ROUECHÉ (C.), 2001, “The prehistory of the Department of Antiquities”, in J. Herrin,

Mosaic: Festschrift for Peter Megaw, London, p. 155-156.

SCHAEFFER Missions en Chypre. 1932-1935, Paris.

SCHAEFFER Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l’Asie occidentale (IIIe et IIe millénaires), Oxford.

SCHOFIELD (J.), CARMEN (J.), BELFORD (P.), 2011, “A history of archaeology in great Britain”, in J. Schofield et al. (eds), Archaeological practice in Great Britain. A heritage handbook

SCHREIBER (N.), 2003, The Cypro-Phoenician pottery of the Iron Age, Leiden.

SEATON-WILLIAMS (V.), DU PLAT-TAYLOR (J.), 1938, Classification of pottery in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia.

! )*"+%! #,,,%!Archaeological field survey of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlement sites in Kyrenia district, north Cyprus, Oxford.

! )*"+!et al., 2015, “Protecting the cultural heritage of Cyprus: International laws and concerns”, JEMAH 3/2, p. 141-148.

SHAKESPEAR

Bt”, Nature 150, p. 684-685.

SHERRATT (E.S.), 2015, “Cyprus and the Near East: Cultural contacts (1200-750 BC)”, in A. Babbi et al. (eds), The Mediterranean mirror. Cultural contacts in the Mediterranean sea between 1200 and 750 B.C.

SMITH (A.H.), 1920, A guide to the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum, London.

SMITH (P.), 2009, A “splendid idiosyncrasy”. Prehistory at Cambridge 1915-1950, Oxford.

SNODGRASS (A.), 1988, Cyprus and early Greek history, Nicosia.

SPAWFORTH (A.), 1992, “Hector Catling: A memoir”, in J. Sanders (ed.), Philolakon. Laconian studies in honour of Hector Catling

STEEL (L.), 2009, “Exploring regional settlement on Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age: The rural hinterland”, in I. Hein (ed.), The formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C. Studies in regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Age

STEEL (L.), 2012, “Revisiting Arediou”, Bulletin of the Council for British Research in the Levant!$%!&"!-'(54.


STEEL (L.), 2004, Cyprus before History. From the earliest settlers to the end of the Bronze Age, London.

STEEL (L.), 2013, Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, London.

STEPHEN (D.), 2013, The empire of progress. West Africans, Indians, and Britons at the British Empire Exhibition, 1924-25, London.

STEWART (E.), STEWART (J.), 1950, Vounous 1937-38, Lund.

STORRS (R.), O’BRIEN (B.), 1930, The handbook of Cyprus, London.

STYLIANOU (A.), STYLIANOU (J.), 1995, Painted memoirs of A. and J.A. Stylianou, Nicosia.

SYMONS (D.), 1984, Cypriote antiquities in Wolverhampton Art Gallery and Museums,

SYMONS (D.), 1985, “Some Cypriot vases in Britain”, RDAC, p. 180-184.

SYMONS

1965)”, CCEC 7, p. 3-9.

TATTON-BROWN Cyprus BC. 7000 years of history, London.

TATTON-BROWN Ancient Cyprus, London.

TATTON-BROWN Cyprus in the 19th century A.D. Fact, fancy and fiction, Oxford.

TATTON-BROWN

in Cyprus: original manuscripts and

Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 168-183.

TAYLOR (L.), 2001, “Lady Brassey, 1870-1886: traveller, writer, collector, educator, woman of means and the fate of her Cypriote artefacts”, in Tatton-Brown 2001a, p. 239-247.

THORNTON

history of archaeology. Placing archaeology

(eds), Historiographical approaches to past archaeological research, Berlin, p. 69-94.

TSETSKHLADZE (G.), PRAG (J.), SNODGRASS (A.), Periplous. Papers on Classical art and archaeology presented to Sir John Boardman, London.

TSIELEPI (S.), BIENKOWSKI (P.), 1988, Cypriot pottery in Liverpool Museum. An interim list, Liverpool.

TUBB (J.), 1998, The Canaanites, London, 1998.

ULBRICH (A.), 2012a, “The Cypriot collection

N. Papademetriou (eds), Ancient Cyprus. Cultures in dialogue, Nicosia, p. 26-27.

ULBRICH (A.), 2012b, “Hellenistic evidence Vournes”, in

Hellenistic Cyprus, Keryx

VARNAVA (A.), 2009, British imperialism in Cyprus. 1878-1915. The inconsequential possession. Studies in Imperialism,

VERMEULE (C.), KARAGEORGHIS

Mycenaean pictorial vase painting,

von HARTEN (M.), MARSTON Man of Wolverhampton: The life and times of Sir Charles Marston, Daglingworth.

von RÜDEN (C.) et al., 2016, Feasting, craft and depositional practice in Late Bronze Age Palaepaphos. The well fillings at Evreti, Rahden.

WAITE (S.), 2014, Acquiring antiquity: Greek and Cypriot pottery from the Harrogate Collection, Harrogate.

WALTERS (H.B.), 1899, Catalogue of the bronzes, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan, in the British Museum, London.

WALTERS (H.B.), 1903, Catalogue of the terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman antiquities, British Museum, London.

WALTERS (H.B.), 1912, Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan vases in the British Museum.

. Cypriot, Italian and Etruscan pottery, London.

WALTERS (H.B.), 1914, Catalogue of the Greek and Roman lamps in the British Museum, London.

WALTERS (H.B.), 1926, Catalogue of the engraved gems and cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum, London.

WASHBOURNE (R.), 2000, Out of the Mouths of Pots. Towards an Interpretation of the Symbolic Meaning of Cypriot Bronze Age Funerary Artefacts including Examples in the University of Canterbury’s Logie Collection,

WATKINS (T.), 1979, “Kataliontas-Kourvellos: The analysis of the surface-collected data”, in

et al. (eds), Studies presented

310 CCEC 47, 2017

in memory of Porphyrios Dikaios, Nicosia, 1979, p. 12-20.

WEBB (J.), 2001, Cypriote Antiquities in the Nicholson Museum at the University of Sydney

WEBB (J.) ed., 2014, Structure, measurement and meaning: Studies on prehistoric Cyprus in honour of David FrankelUppsala.

WEBB (J.), FRANKEL

and archaeological practice: A Cypriot case study”, JMA 8/2, p. 93-112.

WEBB (J.) et al., 2009, The Bronze Age Cemeteries at Karmi Palealona and Lapatsa in Cyprus. Excavations by J.R.B. Stewart,

WHEELER The British Academy 1949-1968, Oxford.

WHITEHOUSE (H.), 1986, The British School at Athens. The first hundred years, London.

WILKES (J.), 1992, “Kathleen Kenyon and Roman Britain”, PEQ 124, p. 101-108.

WILSON (D.), 2002, The British Museum, London.

XYPOLIA Mare Nostrum to!Insula Nostra: British colonial Cyprus and the Italian imperial threat”, The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 105/3, p. 287-296.

YON Kition-Bamboula . Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions, Paris.

ZAVAGNO (L.), 2017, Cyprus between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages (ca. 600-800). An island in transition, London.


VARIA

A NEW VOLUME OF THE CATALOGUE

OF THE WESTERN ASIATIC SEALS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM


Résumé. La publication définitive en 2016 du dernier fascicule du catalogue raisonné des sceaux-cylindres dans les collections du département du Moyen Orient du British Museum représente un accomplissement exceptionnel de la part de ses auteurs, Dominique Collon et feu Edith Porada. Consacré à la glyptique du Proche-Orient du deuxième millénaire av. J.-C., il comporte un chapitre sur les cylindres attribués à Chypre, dont aucun n’a de provenance. La mise en ligne sur le site du British Museum des données qui s’y rapportent permet une corrélation entre les deux sources de renseignements, sans toutefois résoudre, voire éclairer, l’origine des sceaux prétendument chypriotes.

The appearance of the volume under review ! brings to a successful conclusion the major project undertaken by the Department of the Middle East (ME), formerly the Department of the Ancient Near East (ANE), and before that the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities (WA(A)), to publish all the cylinder seals from their own holdings in the British Museum (BM). The first volume to appear was written by D.J. Wiseman under the title Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum I. Cylinder Seals. Uruk – Early Dynastic Periods, and published in 1962. In the preface R.D. Barnett, Keeper of the Department, explained that rather than await the completion of the whole catalogue of the glyptic collection in the Department, it had been decided to produce it in the form of fascicles. Collon points out that this volume did not include all the relevant seals, with 105 having been left out and at least 32 added since 1962, and expresses the hope that this catalogue may eventually be re-issued with the omissions and errors rectified (p. 151 n. 1). The second volume in the series was compiled by Collon herself under the title, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder

1. Edith PORADA †, Dominique COLLON, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals IV. The Second Millennium BC. Beyond Babylon, The British Museum, London, 2016, p. i-vii, 1-254. ISBN 978 0 7141 1130 8.

312 CCEC 47, 2017

Seals II. Akkadian – Post Akkadian. Ur III Periods, and published in 1982. She was also the author of the catalogues, Cylinder Seals III and V," which came out in 1986 and 2001 respectively, under the same general heading, and in 2005 Parvine H. Merrillees produced Cylinder Seals VI devoted to the Pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid periods.# Though the Department in which the seals are housed changed its name twice since 1962, the catalogue titles did not. At least ME’s “Big” inventory numbering has remained continuous, though the same registration number can be held by two or more objects across the BM’s collections. To differentiate between those objects in the BM with the same registration number, the relevant Departmental abbreviation is used as a prefix.

Cylinder Seals IV was meant to be written by Edith Porada, who was commissioned to do it around 1980 but never finished before she died in 1994. By then she had completed parts of only three chapters. Despite extensive searches no trace could be found of the rest of her notes, including the whole section on “Cypriot Seals”, though she had already started illustrating and describing in print some of the “Cypriote” pieces in ME,$ and Collon had to compile almost all of the incomplete or missing catalogue entries from scratch. No-one could have been better qualified for the task. Herself a leading expert on ancient Near Eastern glyptics as well as author of earlier BM catalogues and numerous other works on seals, she did her doctorate in New York under Porada’s supervision and retained a lifelong professional and personal relationship with her mentor. This influence underpins the volume under review, and as a tribute to Porada, the book and all its chapters are co-authored by her and Collon. The corpus of cylinders recorded has been organised according to the categories made current by Porada through her authoritative studies over many decades and adapted for the purpose of this catalogue, namely, Old Assyrian, Classic Syrian, Kassite, Mitannian, Middle Assyrian, Iranian and Cypriot.% There is also a chapter for “Seals Not Otherwise Classified”. Collon does not attempt to explain all the precise technical and historical implications of these terms but grateful users will need to wrestle with their practical meaning, especially as few of the cylinders came from controlled excavations and many have no reliable provenances. The challenges facing researchers have been nicely set out by Joanna S. Smith in the volume she wrote in and edited on Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages. & The sub-title, “Beyond Babylon”, of Cylinder Seals IV, which clearly echoes the title of the 2nd millennium B.C. exhibition held in 2008-2009 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, is less geographical or historical than classificatory in implication as it signifies the omission of the Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian specimens already published in Cylinder Seals III. '

2. Collon 1986, 2001.

3. Merrillees 2005.

4. See Porada 1992 and below.

5. See Porada 1980, 1993.

6. Smith 2002b, p. 4-7.

7. Collon 1986.

R.S. MERRILLEES, WESTERN ASIATIC SEALS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 313

This is not the place to trace the evolution of the cylinder seal catalogue project from its beginning and the improvements which have been made along the way, but Cylinder Seals IV, the final volume, reflects the latest empirical and scientific refinements that have been progressively introduced while preserving some of the earlier features. For example, in the first of the catalogues Wiseman used no prefix for the seals’ inventory numbers, though they were identified as BM numbers in the “List of Seals by B.M. Numbers”,( nor did he include any of their WA(A) registration numbers, but subsequently Collon added “BM” to the “Big” inventory numbers of those published in Cylinder Seals II and III before modifying this prefix to “BM WA” in Cylinder Seals V. The inventory numbers in Parvine H. Merrillees’ catalogue, Cylinder Seals VI, are preceded by “ANE”, whereas Collon has reverted to the “BM” prefix for the inventory numbers in Cylinder Seals IV. At the same time, more attention is, quite rightly, given to the sources of acquisition, admirably set out in the list of “Excavators, collectors and donors”,) as this is essential to help pinpoint not only the likely places of discovery, when a reliable provenance is missing, but also authenticity. Faking has a long and disreputable history in the glyptics business, as Collon herself candidly admits elsewhere,!* and it requires a full compilation and assessment of all the pertinent facts, historical, iconographic and technical, to form a valid and verifiable opinion about the genuineness of an allegedly antique cylinder seal. It is interesting to note that in the volume under review Porada and Collon have detected no specimens they consider of uncertain authenticity, unlike, for example, Kenna, who itemised a number he thought of dubious character in the Cyprus Museum.!!

And the most important innovation has been the use of scientific means to analyse and determine the chemical and geological make-up of the materials used in the manufacture of these objects. Wiseman’s catalogue contained a pioneering effort to depart from the time-honoured method of describing material by informed visual guesswork, through basing the identifications on visual comparisons with a type series prepared by Mr H. Barker of the BM’s Research Laboratory. However the report promised by Barker on his X-ray diffraction study of the seals in this volume never appeared. Twenty years later Collon in Cylinders Seals II included a short report by Mavis Bimson and Margaret Sax of the BM Research Laboratory on their scientific examination of the materials of the seals,!" and this practice has continued up to the present. The volume under review contains another valuable report, this time by Margaret Sax alone from the BM’s renamed Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, on “The Materials of Cylinder Seals of the Second Millennium BC” (p. 161-170). In it she has identified and discussed the materials used for the seals, as well as reviewing the techniques of engraving, but

8. Wiseman 1962, p. xi-xii.

9. Cylinder Seals IV, p. 173-175.

10. Collon 2005a, p. 94-96.Collon 2005a, p. 94-96.

11. Kenna 1972, p. 650 N.B.Kenna 1972, p. 650 N.B.

12. Collon 1982, p. 12-14.Collon 1982, p. 12-14.

314 CCEC 47, 2017

stopped short of commenting in detail on their geological sources, to which she devotes one short general paragraph (p. 170). In this regard it is worth noting that though Sax has not specified the geographical derivation of the hematite used for making the cylinders in this catalogue (p. 166, 170), Porada and Collon state, without quoting their authority, that analysis has shown that the hematite used in the “Cypriote” seals differs from that used on the Asiatic mainland, and that “all the ‘Cypriot’ seals that have been analysed in the British Museum differ from those made from the imported hematite used for Old Babylonian seals, for instance” (p. 141). This, of course, begs the question of where the material was extracted. In fact the authors’ assertion was based on an unpublished BM scientific report by M.R. Cowell which claimed that distinct groups of hematite, perhaps representing distinct sources, may be distinguished through trace elements.!# One of these groups was possibly derived from two sources and used in North Syria and Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millennium B.C. and for Cypriote seals in the late 2nd millennium B.C. All this requires verification.

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this development for the future of glyptic studies that have hitherto been dominated by an art historical approach which has favoured image over substance and allowed factoids to be created about the origins of individual cylinder seals. This welcome initiative not only led Parvine H. Merrillees to have the mineralogy of the ancient Near Eastern seals in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, scientifically analysed by Ralph Segnit, who identified the materials and gave graphs of the results of the X-ray diffraction and energy dispersive spectrometry,!$ but inspired the reviewer, Joyner and Xenophontos to have the materials of the seals, cylinder and stamp, attributed to Cyprus in the BM’s Department of Greece and Rome (GR), scientifically examined.!% This work and the BM’s ME Cylinder Seals I-VI have set an example, and precedent, that all other studies of this kind should emulate. Nowhere do these findings have more significance than in the case of the cylinder seals attributed to Cyprus, to which the rest of this review is specifically addressed, as these were amongst Porada’s favourites.!& As previously mentioned, the assemblage in ME does not represent the totality of “Cypriote” seals in the BM. There are a substantial number in GR which have been published separately by V.E.G. Kenna in Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 3. Catalogue of the Cypriote Seals of the Bronze Age in the British Museum,!' supplemented by Joyner et al. 2006. These two works did not include any of the “Cypriote” cylinder seals in ME (and Cylinder Seals IV) which came into the latter’s collection, rather than GR, more by chance than design, as part of lots of antiquities more Near Eastern than Classical in composition. Indeed one cylinder seal of hematite

13. Moorey 1999, p. 84.Moorey 1999, p. 84.

14. Merrillees 2001, p. 73-95.Merrillees 2001, p. 73-95.

15. Joyner Joyner et al. 2006.

16. Cylinder Seals IV, p. 141 n. 1.

17. Kenna 1971.Kenna 1971.


(129589; 1945,1013.133), purchased in 1945 with a number of others from the Southesk Collection (see below), was transferred from WAA to GR the same year because of its ostensibly Aegean features. Said to be from Golgoi in Cyprus, it appears to have been in the11th Earl of Southesk’s possession by 1896 and has been omitted from Cylinder Seals IV and Kenna’s works on Late Cypriote seals in the BM.!(

Unlike the terms Assyrian, Kassites and Mitanni, which refer to national entities in the Bronze Age, and Syrian, which has cultural connotations in this context, Cyprus denotes only a landmass, that is, the island itself. As such it has no ethnic or political implications, only geographical. That begs a number of questions. Was a cylinder attributed to Cyprus necessarily found in the island? In the absence of an authenticated findspot, even any provenance at all, no answer can be given to this question. Was a seal assigned this identity made in Cyprus? Since no glyptic or lapidary workshop has so far been discovered in the island before 1200 B.C.,!) it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty that cylinder seals were being produced in the Late Cypriote IB – II period, that is the 15th to 13th centuries B.C. If seals were being manufactured in the island in the Late Bronze Age, who were the craftsmen, indigenous or foreign? The cylinder was, after all, a newcomer to the cultural repertory of Cyprus and is most likely to have come originally from or via Syria, or, as Catling has succinctly if disparagingly put it, “The normal L.C. cylinder is a lamentable affair of the crudest cutting, deriving ultimately from Mesopotamian origins...”."* Given the lack of contemporaneous graphic and textual data for this kind of industrial activity in the island, we are reduced to speculation about the origins of the artisans responsible. In the light of these imponderables we are forced to conclude the use of “Cyprus” or “Cypriote” as a designation is purely stylistic and applied to a group of seals which allegedly do not fit into the well defined categories of glyptic production, like Assyrian, Kassite, Mitanni or Syrian, which can be associated with a polity or cultural zone. While those indisputably foreign made cylinder seals with Cypro-Minoan inscriptions, like ME 104467; 1912,0228.7 and GR 1897,0401.744 (see below), must have had the characters added later, there is no certainty that even the putative Cypro-Minoan signs on cylinder seals attributed to Cypriote workshops, like the exceptional hematite specimen without provenance, first published by Boardman,"! were engraved at the same time as the rest of the motifs. This not only makes the cylinders attributed to Cyprus a heterogeneous lot but overlooks the contribution that material, techniques and chronology can make to determining the place and role of glyptics in Late Bronze Age Cypriote industry and society.

18. Kenna 1971, 1972; Joyner Kenna 1971, 1972; Joyner et al. 2006, p. 139; Arachne Website, University of Köln, individual object serial number 164889 (accessed on 06/08/2017); BM Website, with bibliography.

19. Merrillees 2006.Merrillees 2006.

20. Catling 1964, p. 47.Catling 1964, p. 47.

21. 1970, pl. 206, p. 106; Olivier, Vandenabeele 2000, p. 214 no. 26; Christie’s Auction Sale 1970, pl. 206, p. 106; Olivier, Vandenabeele 2000, p. 214 no. 26; Christie’s Auction Sale Catalogue “Ancient Jewelry”, 6 December 2007, New York, Lot no. 392.

316 CCEC 47, 2017

Collon does not address these thorny issues, contenting herself with the observation that “many of the [‘Cypriot’] seals form groups that are distinctive both in style and subject matter” (p. 141). Despite her debt to Porada’s pioneering work, she does not use the classification in Porada’s seminal article of 1948 in the American Journal of Archaeology,"" (though she drew on it in her catalogue of the cylinder seals in the Pierides Collection, Larnaca),"# the system devised by Kenna in 1972 for the Swedish Cyprus Expedition or Salje’s stylistic subdivisions."$ In fact Porada wrote in 1992 that she was going to introduce major changes to her 1948 terminology but decided not to do so because of the confusion it would cause since the old terminology was in such general use. Instead she proposed adding new groups with specific names of sites where the best examples were found, with a view to achieving “an understanding of the nature of Cypriote cylinder seals beyond the classification of stylistic groups”."% Several of her illustrations in this article were taken from the collection of “Cypriote” cylinders in ME. This may have been one of the reasons she appears to have made little progress in cataloguing the specimens attributed to Cyprus in this Department. Porada had evidently come to the realisation that attribution on stylistic grounds alone, without reliable provenance, yielded flawed historical results. In Cylinder Seals IV Collon has even managed for the most part to avoid the amorphous stylistic terms of Elaborate, Derivative and Common favoured by Webb,"& and let the parallels do the analysis for her. However it is evident from the order in which her catalogue entries are arranged, which follows neither the ME “Big” inventory numbers nor the WA(A)/ANE/ME registration numbers, that she has generally placed the cylinders in the Elaborate, Derivative and Common Style sequence (see below), which happens to co-incide grosso modo with the transition from hematite to chloritite in the materials used for the seals.

Not a single one of the cylinder seals attributed to Cyprus in Cylinders Seals IV came from controlled excavations in Cyprus or anywhere else for that matter – the only one that may have, turned up in Syria! "' – and none has a verifiable provenance. They are therefore all stray finds, and have been assigned to the island on purely stylistic criteria which, being subjective, can lead to differing views about their origins. With a view to amplifying the information concerning certain of the 23 seals in Porada’s and Collon’s catalogue and others in ME which have at one time or another been attributed to Cyprus or associated with Cypriote features, I have drawn on additional databases, including the outstanding Collection on-line in the BM’s Website under Research (accessed on 04/08/2017). It may come as a surprise to Collon, as it did to the reviewer, that all the

22. Porada 1948.Porada 1948.

23. Collon 1990b.Collon 1990b.

24. Kenna 1972; Salje 1990.Kenna 1972; Salje 1990.

25. Porada 1992, p. 360.Porada 1992, p. 360.

26. 1999, p. 262-283; 2002.1999, p. 262-283; 2002.

27. 115966; 1922,0511.99 (see below).115966; 1922,0511.99 (see below).


cylinders listed by her can be located on the Internet, entering, without any prefix, in the Advanced Search Options under the heading Museum Number or Reference, the ME inventory number or the Departmental registration number, in the format used by Collon in her catalogue entries and by me in this review. These on-line “cards” have the added benefit and attraction of allowing the seals and their impressions mostly to be seen enlarged and in colour. What is immediately revealing is that there are a number of differences – and discrepancies – between Cylinder Seals IV and the on-line entries, for example, where the volume often uses the term “acquired”, the BM Website more factually has “purchased”. For ease of further reference I have arranged the cylinder seals according to their ME “Big” inventory numbers in ascending numerical order, followed by their ME registration numbers without prefix.

89122; 1884,0630.1 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 34-35 CLS 10. This hematite cylinder seal was evidently not acquired directly from W.D. Cutter but, according to the BM Website, was purchased by Oscar Charles Raphael (1874-1941) from Cutter, and presented by Raphael, a British banker and collector, especially of Egyptian antiquities (Bierbrier 2012, p. 457), to the BM in 1884. William Doherty Cutter – or Cutler – (1847-1929) was a British furniture and antiquities dealer active in Great Russell Street, London, between 1868 and 1886. The cylinder was said to be from “Cyprus (?)”, but Porada and Collon suggest that “this seems to be a proposed stylistic attribution rather than a provenance”. They have classified it as a Classic Syrian cylinder seal of the 18th and 17th centuries B.C.

89312; 1841,0726.115. Kenna assigned to Cyprus a hematite cylinder seal under the number WAA 89312 and classified it as Type VI.3, that is, Cypriote Main Development (Kenna 1972, p. 652). According to the BM Website, there are two items with the registration number 1841,0726.115, a Greek coin in the Department of Coins and Medals and an Old Babylonian hematite cylinder seal in ME which has nothing to do with Cyprus (Cylinder Seals III, p. 181 no. 472.) It seems most likely that Kenna got the ME inventory number wrong and meant 89313 (see below).

89313; 1877,0612.2 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 142 CYP1. This hematite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus is said to have been acquired from Mr Burgoyne, while according to the BM Website, it was purchased in 1877 from Burgoyne, Burbidges and Co., a British company of manufacturing chemists in London. In addition to the bibliography given by Porada and Collon, it is mentioned by Kenna as representative of the main line of development in Cypriote glyptic (Kenna 1972, p. 629) and illustrated in Porada 1992, p. 379 fig. 13, p. 365, 375, where it is attributed to Cyprus, and in Collon 1997, Colour Plate I, fourth row, second from right, p. 8, 25, 231 No. 1/23. It has been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 243, 328) to her Cypriote Group.

89315; 1841,0726.109 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 118-119 MiE47. According to Kiely and Ulrich ("*!"+, -., #!!, /., #"0, this Mitannian Elaborate cylinder seal of hematite “registered in 1841 is said to be from Cyprus but this provenance is unverifiable and probably wrong” . The BM Website gives it two possible provenances, Cyprus and Iraq (South). It was purchased from Claude Scott Stewart (Cylinder Seals IV, p. 118) or Steuart (BM Website) in 1841. Claude Scott Stewart is listed as a member of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society around this time. A Greek silver coin minted in Motya, Sicily, which was also purchased in 1841, has the same registration number.

89320; 1880,0531.69 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 49 CLS56. Porada and Collon cite Cypriote parallels for the animal headed figures on this Classic Syrian hematite cylinder seal of the 18th and 17th centuries B.C., which was acquired in 1880 from the Rev. Greville John Chester (1830-1892),

318 CCEC 47, 2017

British clergyman and collector (Bierbrier 2012, p. 119-120. ). The BM Website describes it as “Cypriot (?)” and places its place of production in “Asia (?)”.

89336; 1884,0630.4 = Cylinder Seals IV, pp. 37 CLS 18. According to Porada and Collon, this hematite cylinder seal of the Classic Syrian style of the 18th and 17th centuries B.C. was “acquired from W. D. Cutter; said to be from ‘Cyprus (?)’ but this seems to be a proposed stylistic attribution rather than a provenance”.

89338; 1884,0630.5 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 39-40 CLS 26. According to Porada and Collon, this hematite cylinder seal of the Classic Syrian style of the 18th and 17th centuries B.C. was “acquired [purchased] from W. D. Cutter; said to be from ‘Cyprus (?)’ but this seems to be a proposed stylistic attribution rather than a provenance”.

89493; 1877,0612.1 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 146 CYP10. Porada and Collon attribute this chloritite cylinder seal to Cyprus and state that it was acquired from Mr Burgoyne, while according to the BM Website, it was purchased in 1877 from Burgoyne, Burbidges and Co., as in the case of 89313; 1877,0612.2.

89508; 1871,0209.1 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 147-148 CYP16. This chloritite cylinder attributed to Cyprus was purchased from Mr P. Albert of New Oxford Street, London, in 1871, and said to be from Cyprus. It has also been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 278, 322) to her Cypriote Group.

89512; 1885,0618.64 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 145 CYP7. This hematite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was purchased from the Rev. Greville John Chester in 1885. It has also been assigned to Cyprus by Porada and Salje (Porada 1987, p. 80 n. 8; Salje 1990, p. 278, 331). The Jemdat Nasr cylinder seal catalogued by Wiseman in Cylinder Seals I (Wiseman 1962, pl. 9.a, p. 9), under 89512, is a mistake for 89517.

89717; 1983,0101.272 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 146-147 CYP12. According to the BM Website, this chloritite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus came from the “old collections, apparently previously unregistered. Most probably acquired before 1884 from Rassam in Babylonia or early Assyrian excavations, but possibly of wholly indeterminate origin”. Porada and Collon state that it was acquired before 1900.

89739; 1983,0101.287 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 147 CYP15. According to the BM Website, this chloritite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus came from the same source as 89717; 1983,0101.272. Porada and Collon state that it was acquired before 1900. It has also been assigned by Salje to her Cypriote Group (1990, p. 243 [not BM 89735], p. 327).

89740; 1884,1212.3 = Cylinder Seals IV, p.148 CYP18. This chloritite cylinder attributed to Cyprus was purchased from Rollin and Feuardent in London in 1884 and has also been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 243, 320) to her Cypriote Group.

89741; 1884,1212.2 = Cylinder Seals IV, p.148 CYP20. This chloritite cylinder was also attributed to Cyprus and purchased from Rollin and Feuardent in London in 1884. It has also been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 278, 324) to her Cypriote Group.

89834; 1884,1212.1 = Cylinder Seals IV, p.148 CYP19. This chloritite cylinder attributed to Cyprus was purchased from Rollin and Feuardent in London in 1884. It is described as “Cappadocian (?)” on the BM Website but has been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 243, 321) to her Cypriote Group.

101973; 1905,1111.24. Wiseman (1959, p. 53) identified this hematite cylinder seal as “Cypriot”, which the BM Website has queried, suggesting that it may have been produced in Asia, but Salje (1990, p. 243, 308) has put it in her Syrian Group (Salje 1990, p. 243, 308). It is not listed in Cylinder Seals IV or any of the other Cylinder Seal volumes. It was purchased in 1905 from Élias Géjou, a French antiquities dealer who was active in Paris between 1894 and 1939.


104463; 1912,0228.3 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 148 CYP17. This chloritite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was presented in 1912 by Dr Frank Corner, following consideration by the BM Trustees on 29 November 1911. Salje (1990, p. 244, 288) has assigned it to her North Mesopotamian/ Syrian Group.

104465; 1912,0228.5 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 157 B4. This chloritite cylinder seal was attributed Cylinder Seals

IV, p. 157 B4. It has been described on the BM Website as Mitannian (late). It was presented in 1912 by Dr Frank Corner, following consideration by the BM Trustees on 29 November 1911.

104467; 1912,0228.7. This reworked Old Babylonian cylinder seal of lapis lazuli has already been published in Cylinder Seals III, p. 106-107 no. 174,28 but is included here because of its Cypro-Minoan inscription, which was added later. It was acquired by WAA in 1912 but no provenance or source has been given. It was not included in the list compiled by Olivier and Vandenabeele of seals inscribed with the Cypro-Minoan syllabary (Olivier, Vandenabeele 2000,

BM another recut lapis lazuli Old Babylonian cylinder seal engraved with a Cypro-Minoan inscription (GR 1897,0401.744).29 It came from the BM’s excavations in 1896 at Enkomi Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus “outside of tombs”.

115966; 1922,0511.99 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 148 CYP21. This chloritite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was said to have been acquired by Sir Leonard Woolley at Geria-t-ibn’Aia near Manbij/Membidj by the Euphrates in north Syria, while the BM Website states that it was excavated by him at this site. It was acquired by the BM in 1922 and has also been assigned by Salje (1990, p. 244, 324) to her Cypriote Group. Another chloritite cylinder seal (115970; 1922,0511.103) Cylinder Seals IV, p. 153 S.8) also came from the same place and source but like CYP21 is said by the BM Website to have been excavated by Woolley at this site. It has left been left unclassified by Porada and Collon but attributed to a North Syrian workshop on the BM Website.

129576; 1945,1013.120 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 143 CYP3. This chloritite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was purchased in 1945 from Charles Alexander Carnegie, 11th Earl of Southesk, and came originally from the Lawrence-Cesnola Collection (Lot 293 or 299) in 1892. It has also

129590; 1945,1013.134 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 116 MiE37. This hematite cylinder seal, which has been classified as Mitannian Elaborate in Cylinder Seals IV, p. 116, was independently reproduced by Porada in the context of her remarks on Cypriote cylinders published in 1992.30 It was purchased from the 11th Earl of Southesk, who obtained it at Sotheby’s sale of collection of antiquities of R.P. Greg of Coles, Buntingford, Hertfordshire (Lot 27) in 1895. Salje (1990, p. 244, 315 has assigned it to her Syrian Group.

129591; 1945,1013.135 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 145-146 CYP9. This hematite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was also purchased from the 11th Earl of Southesk, who obtained it from the Greg Collection (Lot 27) in 1895. It has also been illustrated by Porada, who considered it Cypriote (Porada 1986, pl. assigned by Salje (1990, p. 244, 332) to her Cypro-Aegean Group.

28. BM Website, with bibliography; said to be of both lapis lazuli and hematite [BM Website, with bibliography; said to be of both lapis lazuli and hematite [sic].

29. Olivier, Vandenabeele 2000, p. 213 no. 2; Collon 2005b, p. 72 no. 316, p. 73 no. 316; Joyner Olivier, Vandenabeele 2000, p. 213 no. 2; Collon 2005b, p. 72 no. 316, p. 73 no. 316; Joyner et al. 2006, p. 133, with bibliography; BM Website, with bibliography.

320 CCEC 47, 2017

133026; 1962,1212.1 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 142-143 CYP2. This hematite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was purchased from Spink and Sons Ltd. in 1962. It has also been illustrated by Porada, who considered it Cypriote,31 and attributed by Salje (1990, p. 278, 329) to her Cypriote Group.

134771; 1966,0218.32 = Cylinder Seals IV, p. 143-144 CYP4. This hematite cylinder seal attributed to Cyprus was amongst other items purchased in 1966 from the estate of the late Captain E.G. Spencer-Churchill (1876-1964; Bierbrier 2012, p. 521). It has also been independently published by Collon, who described it as typical of the Cypriote Elaborate Style (Collon 1990a, p. 50

32 The date given it by Collon of the 14th century B.C. is art historical, since it has no archaeological context or even provenance.

It cannot be said in all honesty that this catalogue strengthens the arguments in a favour of a Cypriote origin for all the cylinder seals attributed to the island in Cylinder Seals IV or for that matter any other published work. While no-one disputes the proposition that the chloritite cylinders of the so-called “Common Style”, here Cylinder Seals IV, p. 147-149 CYP 16-22, were most probably made in Cyprus, there is less certainty about the centre(s) of production of the so-called “Derivative” class of seals, to which two hematite and six chloritite specimens in ME ## belong. As for the “Elaborate” group, which are mostly of hematite but also chloritite,#$ there are differing opinions about their places of manufacture, and given the number of parallels cited by Porada and Collon for the engravings on these seals with ones from Ras Shamra on the north Syrian coast, an Asiatic mainland source for some or all of them should not be excluded. More research is required on the materials and techniques with which they were made before definitive conclusions can be reached. In general the lack of sure provenance and absence of contextual dates for the so-called Cypriote seals in Cylinder Seals IV render the process of attribution to the island insecure and should caution researchers against dogmatic assertions based on art historical grounds alone. That said, we are all deeply in Collon’s debt for the time, effort and specialised knowledge she has devoted to this substantial work, which is the culmination of a lifetime’s achievements in glyptic studies and a resource of unlimited potential for future research.

33. Cylinder Seals IV, p. 145-147 CYP 8-15.

34. Cylinder Seals IV, p. 142-145 CYP 1-7.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIERBRIER (M.L.), 2012, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 4th rev. ed., London.

BOARDMAN (J.), 1970, Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical, London.

CATLING (H.W.), 1964, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, Oxford.

COLLON (D.), 1982, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum.Cylinder Seals II: Akkadian-Post Akkadian – Ur III Periods, London.

COLLON (D.), 1986, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals III. Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods, London.

COLLON (D.), 1990a, Interpreting the Past. Near Eastern Seals, British Museum, London.

COLLON (D.), 1990b, “Cylinder Seals in the Pierides Collection”, RDAC, p. 65-68.

COLLON (D.), 1997, “Ancient Near Eastern Seals”, in D. Collon (ed.), 7000 Years of Seals, London, p. 11-30.

COLLON (D.), 2001, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals V: Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, London.

COLLON (D.), 2005a, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London.

COLLON (D.), 2005b, “Aspects of Bronze Age Trade”, in A. Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East, London, p. 47-51.

JOYNER (L.), MERRILLEES (R.S.), XENOPHONTOS (C.), 2006, “The Materials of the Cypriote Bronze Age Cylinder and Stamp Seals in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, the British Museum, London”, RDAC, p. 127-154.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1971, Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 3. Catalogue of the Cypriote Seals of the Bronze Age in the British Museum, Göteborg.

KENNA (V.E.G.), 1972, “Glyptic”, in The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV. Part 1D, Lund, p. 623-674.

KIELY (T.), ULBRICH (A.), 2012, “Britain and the Archaeology of Cyprus I. The Long 19th Century”, CCEC 42, p. 305-356.

MERRILLEES (P.H.), 2001, Ancient Near Eastern Glyptic in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, Jonsered.

MERRILLEES (P.H.), 2005, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals VI. Pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid Periods, London.

MERRILLEES (R.S.), 2006, “A seal-Cutter’s Workshop at Enkomi and Its Implications for the Nationality of Late Cypriot Bronze Age Glyptics”, in A.M. Maier, P. de Miroschedji (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake (Indiana), p. 235-245.

MOOREY (P.R.S.), 1999, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence, Winona Lake (Indiana).

OLIVIER (J.-P.), VANDENABEELE (F.), 2000, “Les sceaux et scellés inscrits en syllabaire chypro-minoen et en syllabaire chypriote ‘classique’ ”, in I. Pini (ed.), Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel. Beiheft 6. Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion, Berlin, p. 203-217.

PORADA (E.), 1948, “The Cylinder Seals of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age”, AJA 52, p. 178-198.

PORADA (E.), 1980, “Introduction”, in E. Porada (ed.), Ancient Art in Seals. Essays by Pierre Amiet, Nimet Özgüç and John Boardman, Princeton, p. 3-30.

PORADA (E.), 1986, “Late Cypriote Cylinder Seals Between East and West”, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological

322 CCEC 47, 2017

Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and Occident’ Nicosia, 8-14 September 1985, Nicosia, p. 289-299.

PORADA (E.), 1987, “A Remarkable Cylinder Seal from Amathus”, RDAC, p. 79-80.

PORADA (E.), 1992, “Remarks on Cypriote Cylinders”, in P. Åström (ed.), Acta Cypria. Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22-24 August 1991, Part 3, Jonsered, p. 360-381.

PORADA (E.), 1993, “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium B.C.”, The Art Bulletin 75, p. 563-582.

SALJE (B.), 1990, Der ‘Common Style’ der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in der späten Bronzezeit, Mayence.

SAX (M.), 1986, “The Materials of the Seals”, in Collon 1986, p. 4-11.

SMITH (J.S.), 2002a, Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Age, Boston.

SMITH (J.S.), 2002b, “Problems and Prospects in the Study of Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages”, in Smith 2002a, p. 1-47.

WEBB (J.M.), 1999, Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age, Jonsered.

WEBB (J.M.), 2002, “Device, Image, and Coercion: The Role of Glyptic in the Political Economy of Late Bronze Age Cyprus”, in Smith 2002a, p. 111-154.

WISEMAN (D.), 1959, Cylinder Seals of Western Asia, London.

WISEMAN (D.), 1962, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum I. Cylinder Seals. Uruk – Early Dynastic Periods, London.


Claire BALANDIER

!"#$"%$"&'()*+(,-"*."H. Lebrun, et à D. Michaelides

Abstract. The founding of the New Paphos harbour at the end of the 4th century B.C. and its description by the author of Stadiasmus has been widely discussed. The majority of researchers agree on its location in the south part of the ancient city, under the present port of Paphos. Recent observations outside the northwest gate suggest that the harbour was completed by other harbour installations in this sector of the Hellenistic city, in front of the west rempart. They may have been careenage docks intended to maintain or fit out the military fleet. Some of the fortified harbour installations may have been undertaken during the 2nd century B.C. when Paphos became the seat of the Lagide strategos or after 145 B.C. when the Ptolemaic fleet was gathered there. They seem to have been in use until the end of the Hellenistic period. The decision to suppress them under a thick rubble fill while proceeding to reconstruct the south harbour may have been due to their gradual silting by sediment deposits and, especially, the effects of one of the late 1st century B.C. earthquakes. From then on, these docks served as a ditch in front of the reconstructed walls with its new towers at the beginning of the Empire.

Parmi les ports de Chypre dont l’existence est postérieure à la description du pseudo-Skylax, le port de Paphos ne cesse de susciter des interrogations. Que la ville portuaire de Paphos ait été fondée par Nicoclès, le dernier roi paphiote, ou par le satrape d’Égypte, Ptolémée, après la mort du dernier Kinyrade en 311/310 et avant que l’île passe sous le contrôle d’Antigone le Borgne en 306 av. J.-C., importe peu pour notre propos. Les auteurs anciens n’apportent gu!"#$ %&'()*"+,-'*(.$ /$ .*($ .01#-$ 2$ .'$ Strabon ne fait que mentionner le port, l’auteur anonyme du Stadiasmus est le seul à préciser que Paphos est dotée d’3$/0"123.".3-14*"12/3".2/."5*0.$4$15$6#$.*(-$7'#($8#.$%'.9*.'-'*(.$(,-0"#88#.$%#.$8'#0:$/$*))"'"$0($9*"-$9"*-;<;$%#.$=#(-.$%*+'(,(-.$-*0-$,0-,(-$>0#$.,$.'-0,-'*($.-",-;<'>0#$>0'$.#+78#(-$,=*'"$'(?'-;$8#$.*0=#",'($?@A9"'*-#$?*++#$8#$.,-",9#$%&B<A9-#$/$A$;-,78'"$0($

1. Stadiasmus sive Periplus Maris Magni, § 297 : 3$$45

UN AUTRE DISPOSITIF PORTUAIRE À PAPHOS ?

Nouvelles observations sur le secteur du rempart et de la porte Nord-Ouest

324 CCEC 47, 2017

9*"-$,+;(,<;$2. Ce port et la description, laconique mais non moins importante, donnée de celui-ci par l’auteur du Stadiasmus ont fait couler beaucoup d’encre. La plupart des chercheurs s’accordent, cependant, sur son emplacement au sud de la ville ancienne, sous le port actuel de Paphos. Des observations récentes effectuées à l’extérieur de la porte Nord-Ouest me conduisent à penser que ce port était complété par d’autres aménagements portuaires dans ce secteur de la ville hellénistique.

Historiographie de la recherche : d’un port à l’autre

Plusieurs chercheurs se sont essayés à identifier les vestiges antiques du port en conduisant des prospections sous-marines et ont proposé différentes restitutions du dispositif portuaire. Celui-ci aurait donc été constitué de trois bassins, en tout cas à la fin de l’époque hellénistique ou au début de l’Empire selon la période à laquelle on place la rédaction du Stadiasmus Maris Magni$3. Les premières prospections sous-marines effectuées en 1959 par l’armée britannique, puis en 1961, n’ont jamais donné lieu à une publication$4. Logiquement, la Mission du Centre polonais d’archéologie méditerranéenne de l’Université de Varsovie, dès sa création, s’est intéressée au port : dès 1965, W.A. Daszewski avait lui-même plongé pour observer les vestiges antiques du port qui n’avaient pas encore été recouverts par le brise-lames moderne ; aussi ses descriptions sont-elles inestimables$5. Les nouvelles recherches sous-marines effectuées au début des années 1990 par R. Hohlfelder et J.R. Leonard ont confirmé les observations du chercheur polonais : ils concluaient que les vestiges de la digue étroite qu’il avait repérés en avant de la digue orientale semblaient effectivement appartenir à la construction la plus ancienne et que celle-ci pouvait bien dater de l’époque hellénistique$6. En fait, ces quais n’ont pas été datés de façon absolue: on peut seulement dire que la baie naturelle était utilisée car des tessons de céramique attique à vernis noir ont été trouvés dans le port$7. Les seules fouilles conduites dans le bassin portuaire, dans la zone aujourd’hui comblée à l’est du port actuel, ont été effectuées par D. Michaelides, pour le Département des Antiquités de Chypre, en 1981. Il a « ainsi mis au jour deux portions de quais, qu’il a datées de l’époque hellénistique et de l’époque romaine avancée. Le mur hellénistique se trouvait à 150 m environ de la ligne de côte actuelle »$8. Les môles oriental et occidental semblent

3. Daszewski 1981 ; R.L. Hohlfelder, « The Paphos ancient harbour exploration, 1991 », RDAC 1992, p. 255-256, et 3$C(?'#(-$D,9@*.$7#(#,-@$-@#$E#,2$C$.0"=#A$*)$-@#$.07+#"<#%$.-"0?-0"#.$4F dans Karageorghis, Michaelides 1995, p. 191-206 ; Hohlfelder, Leonard 1993 : Hohlfelder 1996.

4. Le rapport succinct conservé aux Archives du Département des Antiquités de Chypre n’apporte guère d’informations précises sur le port antique, cf. Theodoulou 2006, p. 129.

5. Daszewski 1987, p. 174, note 39 : il précise les dimensions de deux brise-lames vus antérieurement par K. Nikolaou ; Balandier 2014a, p. 193.

6. Hohlfelder, Leonard 1993, p. 371.

7.

8. Balandier 2014a, p. 186, cf. Hohlfelder, Leonard 1993, p. 371, et Vitas 2010, p. 270.

CL. BALANDIER, UN AUTRE DISPOSITIF PORTUAIRE À PAPHOS ? 325

avoir constitué l’aboutissement des deux extrémités du mur d’enceinte, enserrant ainsi le port à l’intérieur des murs de la ville : il s’agissait donc bien d’un limen kleistos.

W.A. Daszewski ne s’était pas contenté de rechercher le port antique de Paphos dans les eaux du port actuel et, reprenant une idée émise par des observateurs antérieurs, il avait également envisagé l’existence d’un bassin portuaire au nord-ouest de la ville$9. À la suite de premières observations effectuées par ce dernier, une reconnaissance sous-marine a été faite en 1973 au large du rempart occidental, à la hauteur de la porte Nord-Ouest, par H. Lebrun, alors membre de la Mission archéologique polonaise de l’Université de Varsovie. Les résultats de cette recherche sont demeurés inédits, mais le chercheur avait conclu à l’existence d’3$/0"2/53'6*"123./'-3*7"('0("'/8/0"92/.*".3:("(2;;'-3*$4$10. Ce dernier observa des blocs immergés mesurant 1 ! 0,60 ! 0,30 m qu’il avait estimé appartenir à un mur perpendiculaire à la côte, « perhaps a jetty for ships to moor at »$11. Cette hypothèse n’a apparemment pas été jugée suffisamment fondée pour être approfondie ensuite par les chercheurs travaillant sur Paphos. Ceci s’explique en partie parce que le port actuel, où des vestiges anciens sont encore partiellement visibles, concentrait toute leur attention, et probablement aussi parce que l’on n’imaginait pas qu’un port ait pu être établi, d’une part, face aux vents dominants$12 et, d’autre part, au pied même du rempart occidental, dans le secteur de la porte Nord-Ouest 13. Pourtant, la réalité du terrain semble montrer le contraire. De nouvelles observations conduites sur le site, liées à mon étude de l’enceinte urbaine de Paphos, effectuées d’abord au cours

9. G. Jeffery, A Description of the Historic Monuments of Cyprus. Studies in the archaeology and architecture of the island, Nicosie, 1918, p. 401: « On the west side the city wall may be traced by actual remains or by cuttings in the rock levels for nearly its whole length. On the face towards the north-west bay of the sea are traces of gateways with rock-cut steps supposed to have formed sally ports into the water –if, as must also be supposed, the present marshy ground, was once below the water level » ; voir aussi Daszewski 1981.

l’eau, ils ne semblent pas en place et les vestiges du mur observés par H. Lebrun sont aujourd’hui

municipale mitoyenne a recouvert une partie du fond marin, beaucoup plus visible il y a quelques années.

this port, or rather haven, could have been used only during southerly and easterly winds ». Selon les indications de la station météorologique locale, de mai à

et surtout du nord-ouest et de l’est en hiver, exceptionnellement du sud, mais avec des vagues qui

although its original extent inland is not known, it certainly did not reach the ramp of the North-Western gate, as has been supposed so far, for a spring of sweet water is to be found in the plain close-by, and there were posterns cut at the base of the city wall ».

326 CCEC 47, 2017

de ma recherche doctorale à la fin des années 1990$14, puis en 2011 avec J.-Cl. Bessac et approfondi ces dernières années, m’ont convaincue du réalisme de la proposition de nos aînés, aussi cet article leur est-il dédié, même si, on va le voir, les aménagements portuaires que je pense avoir identifiés ne sont pas ceux vus en plongée par H. Lebrun, mais pourraient leur avoir été complémentaires. Je n’aurais pu faire ces observations et

Fig. 1n’avaient été dégagés dans les années 1980, à la demande du Département des Antiquités, par D. Michaelides$2$?’est pourquoi il m’est agréable de les lui dédier également.

J.-Cl. Bessac a émis l’hypothèse que ce fossé en avant du rempart occidental, dans sa partie la plus septentrionale, ;-,'-$#($),'-$0(#$.*"-#$%#$7,..'($9*0"$?,8#$.!?@#$15 auquel aurait donné accès un chenal, alimenté par la mer depuis une passe dont l’existence expliquerait le décrochement vers l’est effectué par le rempart maritime. Cette hypothèse me semble pouvoir être confirmée et complétée par les nouvelles observations de terrain que j’ai effectuées depuis la présentation de cette proposition au colloque d’Avignon en 2012 : elles me conduisent à penser que c’est un véritable dispositif portuaire qui a été conçu dans ce secteur de la ville, dont les dimensions ont été déterminées, bien entendu, par les conditions topographiques, mais aussi par la taille des bateaux qui avaient à y circuler. Ainsi, comme nous l’avions observé avec J.-Cl. Bessac, la présence même d’un passage voûté de 6 m de large et 4 m de haut maximum, sous la rampe d’accès à la porte sud-

Fig. 2-3dimensions, il me semble plausible de penser que cette ouverture a bien ;-;$9",-'>0;#$9*0"$),'"#$?'"?08#"$%#.$#+7,"?,-'*(.$,0$9'#%$%0$"#+9,"-5$Quelles précisions peut-on apporter sur ces aménagements rupestres, probables composantes d’un dispositif portuaire ?

L’observation attentive de la paroi occidentale du fossé permet de déceler des anomalies dans sa configuration. Ainsi, au moins à deux endroits non perturbés par l’exploitation tardive de la pierre, on constate une entaille dans la roche, délimitée par des fronts de taille régularisés à environ 43 et 65 m au sud de la rampe d’accès à la porte Nord-Ouest. Ces entailles, effectuées sur toute la hauteur de la roche, sont aujourd’hui obstruées. Il s’agit vraisemblablement de passages qui ouvraient vers l’Ouest, en direction de la mer, qui ont ensuite été bouchés. Il y a une dizaine d’années, j’avais observé l’ouverture la

Fig. 4sans stratigraphie nette, elle a une largeur de 4,20 m. Récemment, j’ai constaté l’existence d’une autre ouverture, une quinzaine de mètres plus au Nord. Plus importante, puisqu’elle mesure 7,60 m de large, cette ouverture a, quant à elle, été barrée volontairement par

Fig. 5

avoir également servi d’assise à un mur. Ainsi, c’est l’ensemble du fossé situé en avant du

14. Balandier 1999a, p. 443-495 ; Balandier 1999b, p. 243-250.


rempart occidental qui pourrait avoir été protégé par un avant-mur, sorte de proteichisma protégeant cet espace face à la mer et interrompu par au moins deux passages$16 faisant communiquer celui-ci avec la mer, probablement par l’intermédiaire d’un chenal. Il serait nécessaire d’effectuer des sondages à travers les bouchons de ces ouvertures pour pouvoir les dater, ainsi que des carottages à l’ouest de celles-ci afin de$=;"')'#"$*0$'()'"+#"$8&@A9*-@!.#$%#$8&#:'.-#(?#$%#$8#0"$?*++0('?,-'*($,=#?$8,$+#"5

Par ailleurs, si l’on observe plus attentivement le fossé creusé en avant du rempart, en dépit des extractions tardives de la roche qui ont modifié son aspect original, on constate qu’il est assez régulier : sa largeur, d’est en ouest, est d’environ 27 m. Du nord au sud

Fig. 6-7premier, délimité au nord par le retour du rempart ouest vers la mer et, au sud, par le pont

Fig. 2 et 6Fig. 6-7

rupestre, une saillie du soubassement du rempart, à l’ouest du fossé et du soubassement

que c’est en face de la saillie rocheuse du soubassement du rempart occidental et de part et d’autre de la saillie du soubassement à l’ouest du fossé que se trouvent les deux ouvertures à travers le proteichismaprès de 70 m. Il est alors divisé en deux passages en raison de la présence de la roche mère qui n’a pas été nivelée à cet endroit, subsistant sur 1,50 m d’épaisseur et dont les parois taillées délimitent ainsi deux passages à l’est et à l’ouest, de 11 m chacun. Ces deux

86 m de long, le fossé étant délimité au sud par le retour est/ouest du rempart occidental. Il est plus difficile de préciser la limite occidentale du fossé dans ce secteur et s’il était également percé d’une ouverture. Ce pourrait être le cas, mais seule une fouille ou, du moins, un dégagement de surface, permettrait de le préciser.

Fonction de ces bassins : second limen kleistos, neôrion$*0$naupegia$?Ainsi, plutôt qu’un seul fossé, on observe donc en fait une succession de quatre

espaces de 27 à 35 m de large et, successivement du nord au sud, d’environ 86 m, 32 m, 70 m et 86 m de long. Quelle pourrait avoir été la fonction de cet ensemble de bassins fortifiés ? Les dimensions des deux espaces situés aux deux extrémités de cet ensemble de quatre bassins, supérieures à 85 m, sont à rapprocher de celles des néôria doubles de la phase 3 des aménagements du Pirée à la fin du IVe siècle av. J.-C. et devenus plus nombreux encore à la phase suivante 17. Certes, aucune rampe de halage, aucun hangar

16. Dans la partie plus méridionale la roche s’affaisse, et elle est recouverte d’une épaisse couche de colluvionnement sans que l’on puisse savoir, sans fouille, quand la roche a été retaillée puis recouverte de terre.

17. Lovén 2011, vol. 1 : Il s’agit d’un type de néôrion permettant de ranger deux trirèmes l’une derrière l’autre. Ces néôria doubles ont été multipliées dans la phase 4 du port de Mounichie. Il serait intéressant de comparer également ces aménagements avec ceux du port de Thasos : or, si

328 CCEC 47, 2017

n’est identifiable à Paphos, mais ces comparaisons permettent d’affirmer que des bateaux de dimensions similaires auraient pu y tenir, arrimés le long du fossé, au pied du rempart. De même, les dimensions des passages, celui le plus au nord à l’ouest du fossé, ainsi que celui sous le pont rupestre, respectivement de 7,60 et 6 m, s’avèrent compatibles avec le passage de bateaux importants : ainsi, au Pirée, l’entraxe des néôria de Zéa est de 6,50 m, et celle des néôria de Mounichie de 6,25 m 18. Ces dimensions sont compatibles également

celui-ci n’est pas mentionné parmi les 36 néôria inventoriés par B. Lovén, c’est probablement un oubli car le port thasien était bien doté de néôria

18. Rappelons que les néôria mis au jour dans le port phénicien par la mission archéologique française de Kition et datées du début du IVe s. av. J.-C. auraient repris le modèle athénien et qu’ils

Figure 1. Le fossé au pied du rempart occidental. Vue vers l’est.

Figure 2. La rampe Nord et le pont rupestre. Vue vers l’est.


avec la largeur de 11 m que l’on retrouve dans le fossé, d’abord au sud de la porte Nord-Ouest, au point où celui-ci se resserre par une saillie du soubassement du rempart, et ensuite à l’est et à l’ouest de la portion de roche qui subsiste au milieu du fossé. Celle-ci, qui forme approximativement un cube de 1,50 m de côté,$,$;-;$visiblement conservée à dessein pour distinguer ces deux passages de 11 m de large, probablement pour faciliter la circulation d’embarcations entrant ou sortant des bassins.

avaient$ 3$ 0(#$ 8*(<0#0"$%#$GH$ /$GI$+$9*0"$0(#$ 8,"<#0"$%#$HFHJ$+$+,:'+0+$4$ KL5$M*(F$3$N#.$@,(<,".$%0$9*"-$?@A9"*O9@;('?'#($%#$P'-'*(5$6,+9,<(#.$QRRSOQRRT$KL'..'*($)",(U,'.#$%#$P'-'*($V,+7*08, $4F$Syria

Figure 3. Arche rupestre sous la rampe d’accès à la porte Nord-Ouest. Vue vers le sud.

Figure 4. Les deux passes obturées taillées à travers la roche à l’ouest du fossé. Au premier plan, vestiges du rempart occidental. Vue vers l’ouest.

330 CCEC 47, 2017

Peut-on donc considérer que ces aménagements aient pu servir à l’établissement d’une base navale 19$W La succession des quatre bassins, leurs dimensions et celles des passages pourraient y faire penser. Le passage le plus au sud taillé dans la paroi ouest du fossé aurait pu donc servir /$8,$?'"?08,-'*( d’embarcations plus modestes ou être destiné à lutter contre l’ensablement et le colmatage du fossé en permettant à l’eau de circuler, comme cela a pu être observé ailleurs$20.

H. Lebrun avait pu se prolonger jusqu’à la porte Nord-Ouest, mettant en avant la présence d’une source d’eau douce et des galeries rupestres ouvrant sur le fossé. Il n’est pas question d’envisager que la ligne du rivage ait été repoussée jusqu’au pied du rempart ou qu’un mur l’ait canalisé jusque-là. L’observation de la topographie montre que, dans le secteur de la porte Nord-Ouest, la roche qui délimite le fossé à l’ouest est située à une altitude plus haute que celle du niveau de la mer. Elle constituait donc un obstacle entre la mer et ce fossé. Cependant, on a vu que, en deux endroits au moins, la roche était nettement taillée pour permettre, vraisemblablement, à l’eau de mer de pénétrer. Plus au sud, le retour du rempart occidental vers l’Est pour atteindre le sommet de la falaise pourrait avoir surplombé et délimité un chenal entre la mer et l’extrémité sud du fossé, comme l’a proposé J.-Cl. Bessac au colloque d’Avignon21. L’eau se serait ensuite répartie entre les quatre bassins que je pense avoir identifiés du sud au nord. Quant à la présence des poternes, elle ne semble pas incompatible avec l’existence d’un fossé en eaux. En effet, si plusieurs de ces galeries débouchent dans la partie inférieure du socle calcaire – donc dans l’eau si l’on suit notre hypothèse –, il s’agit de collecteurs destinés à l’évacuation des eaux usées. En revanche, celles qui ont été taillées pour desservir une poterne, n’étaient pas gênées par la présence de l’eau tant qu’elles demeuraient protégées par la mince paroi de pierre qui dissimulait chacune d’elles$22. Le jour$*X$?#.$9,"*'.$)0"#(-$

19. Des neôria au sens où l’entend B. Lovén qui considère que le terme de neôrion, souvent employé en littérature comme synonyme de neosoikos

neôria

naval bases », dans Blackman et al. 2014, p. 231-253.

20. Notamment à Phalassarna, en Crète, cf. M. I. Stephanakis, « Phalasarna, un port antique, Espaces

d’échanges en Méditerranée. Antiquité et Moyen Âge, Rennes, 2006, p. 41-75.

21. Bessac 2016, p. 117-119 : « au sud du bassin, parallèlement à la côte, il faudrait aussi supposer l’existence d’un puissant avant-mur construit à l’aplomb du long ressaut linéaire taillé

il existe des vestiges d’aménagements hydrauliques rupestres qui s’accorderaient avec la présence d’un port militaire ».

22. Sur ces poternes, voir Balandier 1999a, p. 460-461 ; Cl. Balandier, « Les techniques de VIIIe av. J.-C. au VIIe apr. J.-C. »,

CCEC


7"'.;#.F$9"*7,78#+#(-$),?#$/$0($%,(<#"$'++'(#(-F$?#.$<,8#"'#.$"09#.-"#., si elles ne sont pas postérieures à l’abandon des bassins, permirent probablement à des soldats de monter en urgence sur des embarcations ancrées dans l’un de ces bassins. Une flotte de guerre rapide et légère à manœuvrer, à laquelle recourir en cas d’urgence ou d’attaque par mer, pourrait avoir mouillé en ce point stratégique de la ville, telle une « flotte de garde »$23.

Il ne s’agit ici que de premières réflexions à la suite d’observations de terrain, et la recherche et les comparaisons nécessitent, bien entendu, d’être approfondies. Il faudrait, par exemple, conduire des analyses biologiques sur la paroi orientale du fossé pour savoir jusqu’à quelle hauteur de ses plus de 7 m d’élévation pouvait être monté le niveau de l’eau$24. Une fois la profondeur du fossé$%;-#"+'(;#, il sera possible de dire si celle-ci était ou non appropriée pour accueillir une flotte de guerre$25. On sait l’importance stratégique qu’a revêtue Chypre pour les Diadoques à la fin du IVe siècle, mais aussi aux siècles suivants, particulièrement pour les Lagides, notamment après qu’ils ont perdu le contrôle de la Syrie-Phénicie en 200/199 et de leurs bases navales en mer Égée en 145 av. J.-C.$26. Il semble cependant possible que, avant même que l’île accueille l’ensemble de leur flotte après l’évacuation forcée de celle-ci de Grèce, les Lagides aient entrepris de créer une base navale /$D,9@*.$dès le début de leur installation. Ainsi, si au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. la nouvelle Paphos n’était pas encore le siège de la flotte ptolémaïque, elle contribuait en revanche déjà à l’approvisionnement de celle-ci, au même titre que les autres villes

24. Certains gastéropodes marins sont un marqueur très utile de la ligne des eaux car leur trace

l’évolution du niveau de la mer. Pour une excellente explication du rôle des macrofaunes dans la détermination des niveaux marins antiques, cf. Goiran et al. 2011, p. 167 : 3$<'"12(-.-20"9/"0-5*'/"

$4525. Selon J. Rougé, La Marine dans l’Antiquité, Paris, 1975, les trières d’époque classique,

Cependant, les bateaux de guerre d’époque hellénistique avaient un tirant d’eau beaucoup plus important : une profondeur de 5 m a pu être déterminée pour l’aménagement du port de Claude, dans le delta du Tibre, les chenaux d’accès ayant été abandonnés lorsque le tirant d’eau était devenu inférieur à 3 m en raison de son ensablement, cf. Goiran et al. 2011.

26. Sur la période des Diadoques, cf. Cl. Balandier, 3$à la transition des époques classique et hellénistique: une ;volution du réseau défensif aux IVe et IIIe

.), From Evagoras I to the Ptolemies. The transition from the Classical to the Hellenistic Period in Cyprus, Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference, Department of Antiquities, Nicosia, 29-30 November 2002, Nicosie, p. 145-155, et Aupert, Balandier, sous presse, en attendant P. Aupert, Cl. Balandier, avec la collaboration de P. Leriche et al.,

et avoisinantes, École française d’Athènes, à paraître. Sur la politique défensive des Lagides, voir Cl. Balandier, -@#$Y*+,($Z+9'"#$KGrd c. BC-3rd RDAC 2001, p. 182-198, et Balandier 2011.

332 CCEC 47, 2017

portuaires chypriotes. En témoignent la présence d’un constructeur de bateau connu par une inscription incisée sur une jarre datée de la période hellénistique I, «

$ 4F$ #-$ ?#88e d’un architecte naval, Pyrgotélès, fils de Zoètos, que Ptolémée Philadelphe lui-m[+#$,$@*(*";$9,"$8&;"#?-'*($%#$.,$.-,-0# dans le sanctuaire d’Aphrodite de l’ancienne Paphos, pour la construction d’une triacontère et d’une eikosère 27. On sait

27. I. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, Prosopography of Ptolemaic CyprusP 49 p. 102, et P 74 p. 108. Bien que l’auteur indique que la période hellénistique I correspond aux années 325-150, elle date l’inscription incisée plus précisément du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.

Figure 5. Vestiges du mur barrant la passe nord taillée dans la roche à l’ouest du fossé. Vue vers l’ouest.

Figure 6. Identification des aménagements rupestres dans le fossé en avant du rempart occidental. Vue orientée au nord.


comment, sous le règne de ce souverain, a été créée une navarchie générale et permanente à la tête de laquelle était Kallicratès de Samos. Il poussa au développement de chantiers navals dans toutes les possessions lagides, à Chypre comme ailleurs 28. Ainsi, il est possible que les longs bassins identifiés au nord-ouest de la ville aient été creusés pour

28. Trois villes portuaires ont alors été fondées ou refondées sous le nom d’Arsinoé, ainsi que d’autres villes secondaires qui ont pu accueillir des chantiers navals et contribuer au renforcement

Figure 7. Identification des aménagements rupestres dans le fossé en avant du rempart occidental. Vue vers le sud.

Figure 8. Vestiges d’assises de boutisses à l’extrémité orientale du rempart sud. Vue vers le sud.

334 CCEC 47, 2017

accueillir un chantier naval venu compléter les installations portuaires créées par Nicoclès ou le premier Ptolémée à la fin du siècle précédent. Il est également envisageable que ces bassins aient permis d’abriter certains bâtiments dans cet espace à l’abri de la houle et des vents dominants dans le secteur de la ville qui y était le plus exposé et protégé par un avant-mur. Ils pouvaient être là l’objet de réparations dans ce qui pourrait être des bassins de radoub ou de carénage.

Tentative de datation relative de la période d’utilisation de ces aménagements portuaires

De quels éléments chronologiques dispose-t-on pour tenter de proposer une datation de ces aménagements rupestres ?

Visiblement, le fossé et le rempart, comme souvent, ont été conçus ensemble et participaient au même dispositif défensif. Les fouilles de dégagement effectuées au début des années 1980 avaient établi que ce fossé et le rempart flanquant la porte Nord-Ouest étaient hellénistiques 29, sans plus de précisions. Ceci n’est pas pour surprendre puisque, comme le souligne une récente étude sur les installations portuaires, 3$ \7A]$

$4 30. Cependant, à ce jour, aucune des rares portions préservées de l’enceinte de Paphos qui ont pu être l’objet d’un sondage stratigraphique n’a pu être datée antérieurement à 200 av. J.-C. 31. Toutefois, la technique de construction, recourant à des boutisses seules, visibles à l’aboutissement du rempart occidental sur le port méridional,

Fig. 8cette technique, comme celle du recours à des blocs modulaires,$,$;-;$?*(.'%;";#$?*++#$3$?,",?-;"'.-'>0#$%#$8&,"?@'-#?-0"#$%0$+'8'#0$%0$IIIe siècle av. J.-C. dont elle formerait un témoin précis » 32. On en connaît cependant des exemples un peu plus anciens en Syrie-Phénicie, comme à Chypre 33$2$8,$+[+#$+;-@*%#$%#$+'.#$#($^0="#$.#$"#-"*0=#$,0..'$7'#($%,(.$0(#$-*0"$%0$9*"-$>0#$%,(.$0(#$9*"-'*($%#$8&#(?#'(-#$0"7,'(#$/$D-*8;+,_.$KC``*a5$b"F$.'$D-*8;+,_.$,$;-;$9";?'.;+#(-$)*(%;#$9,"$D-*8;+;#$II Philadelphe, la construction du port et celle de l’enceinte de cette ville pourraient avoir été initiées par Ptolémée Ier$Ec-#" 34. La même technique de construction s’observe également dans les deux tours circulaires de l’acropole de Samarie, datées de la fin du IVe siècle av. J.-C. 35, mais cette datation demande à être vérifiée. La même datation a été proposée pour le port identifié à Latsi,

29. V. Karageorghis, « Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en en 1982 », BCH 107, 1983, p. 937 ; « Chronique [...] 1985 », BCH 110, 1986, p. 856.

et al. 2014, p. 210.

31. Balandier 1999 ; Balandier 2014 ; Balandier, à paraître.

32. Balandier 2014b, vol. 1, p. 181. P. Leriche avait déduit cela de son étude de l’enceinte d’Ibn Hani qui comportait deux phases, l’une lagide et l’autre séleucide, cf. Leriche 1987, p. 69.

33. Aupert, Balandier, sous presse, p. 252-256.


boutisses seules 36. Celle de la construction des môles du port d’Amathonte, pour lesquels on a recouru aux mêmes boutisses seules, est également haute, autour de 300 av. J.-C. 37. Ceci permet en tout cas de penser que la première phase de l’enceinte de Paphos, dont le tracé reste à préciser, pourrait donc dater du règne du premier ou du second souverain ptolémaïque 38. Il est donc possible que le périmètre fortifié de la ville hellénistique ait évolué au cours du temps et que, à l’origine, il ait été plus réduit, mais ait déjà protégé ses installations portuaires, constituant un limen kleistos au sud et protégeant les bassins de radoub ou les chantiers de constructions navales au nord.

Cependant, il n’est pas assuré que le creusement de ces bassins soit contemporain de la fortification du port méridional. En effet, deux sondages effectués dans la partie méridionale du rempart ouest et sur le rempart est 39, ont montré que ces portions de l’enceinte urbaine de la nouvelle Paphos ont été construites au plus tôt au début du IIe siècle av. J.-C. et probablement plutôt dans la deuxième moitié de ce siècle. Par conséquent, il est probable que le tracé de l’enceinte ait été modifié entre sa première phase, établie vraisemblablement sous l’un des deux premiers Ptolémées, et l’élargissement de son périmètre, au IIe siècle av. J.-C. Il serait bien entendu nécessaire d’effectuer un autre sondage, plus proche de la porte Nord-Ouest, là où des blocs de son parement externe sont encore en place, pour préciser la datation du rempart occidental. Cependant, dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances, et parce que la réalisation du socle de ce rempart et le creusement du fossé et des bassins au nord-ouest de la ville semblent contemporains, on peut estimer que ces derniers ont été réalisés au plus tôt lorsque le siège du strategos, représentant lagide dans l’île, a été déplacé de Salamine à Paphos et que cette ville a été promue capitale administrative des Ptolémées, ou bien lorsque Paphos est devenue le siège de la flotte lagide, évacuée de la mer Égée et que le strategos a désormais porté également, à partir de 142 av. J.-C., le titre d’amiral de cette flotte 40.

Abandon des bassins nord-ouest et réaménagement du port méridional à la fin du Ier siècle av. J.-C. ?

Qu’il ait été réalisé au début de l’époque hellénistique ou au cours du IIe s. av. J.-C. et qu’il ait été utilisé pour construire des navires, les réparer ou abriter une partie de la flotte

36. Theodoulou 2006, p. 109-113 ; E. Raptou, « La périphérie de Nea Paphos aux périodes hellénistique et romaine », dans Balandier 2016, p. 54.

38. On ne peut évacuer totalement la possibilité que ce mur de boutisses visible près du port, qui pourrait correspondre à la première phase de l’enceinte, ait été réalisé lors de l’occupation

39. Pour le sondage sur le rempart ouest, cf. Balandier 1999b ; sur le rempart est, Balandier, à paraître.

40. On a déjà noté que l’importance stratégique de Chypre pour les Lagides s’est accrue au IIe siècle av. J.-C., cf. Balandier 2011, et Vitas 2010, p. 264-265.

336 CCEC 47, 2017

lagide, cet ensemble de bassins ne semble guère avoir été utilisé après que Chypre fut passée sous contrôle romain. Ainsi, on observe dans le fossé, sous les tours romaines, un

Fig. 9de matériel hellénistique, semblable à celui qui a été clairement identifié sur la colline de Fabrika 41. Or, le mur de soutènement, ;"'<;$9*0"$+,'(-#('"$?#$"#+78,'$,0$(ord de cette colline, date du dernier quart du Ier siècle av. J.-C. au plus tôt 42. Par ailleurs, les fouilles qui ont récemment mis au jour le rempart oriental d’époque hellénistique, au sommet de la colline de Fabrika, montrent que celui-ci a été détruit par un violent tremblement de terre 43, peut-être celui survenu en 26 ou en 15 av. J.-C. C’est probablement à la suite de ce dernier séisme que tout le nord de la colline a été remblayé. Il est possible que le même remblai de pierraille mêlée de matériel hellénistique que l’on peut observer dans le fossé au pied du rempart occidental ait été établi à la même période 44. On constate effectivement que, sur la colline de Fabrika comme au nord-ouest de la ville, les constructions romaines ont été ;"'<;#.$.0" ce remblai et qu’elles ont apparemment utilisé les blocs de chacun des deux remparts, oriental et occidental. De même, dans le bassin en contrebas du rempart occidental, on voit très clairement que les tours romaines, mises au jour par le Département des Antiquités 45, ont été érigées en partie en réutilisant le socle rocheux du rempart hellénistique et leurs faces externes réalisées avec des blocs de gros modules, souvent recoupés, provenant apparemment de ce même rempart.

On peut conclure de ces observations que le quadruple bassin portuaire fortifié que je propose de restituer dans le fossé en avant du rempart occidental, de part et d’autre

du IIIe à la fin du Ier siècle av. J.-C., voire jusqu’au Ier

de la deuxième moitié du IIe /$8,$)'($%0$Ier siècle av. J.-C. Ensuite, il apparaît qu’on a procédé à la construction de tours par-dessus cette zone asséchée et remblayée comme le montre clairement le niveau de fondation des faces des tours romaines, constituées de blocs de remplois$ 2$ .0"$ 8,$Fig. 8, on voit

41. Ce remblai a scellé les niveaux hellénistiques au Nord de la colline de Fabrika : il a été

en dernier lieu Cl. Balandier et M. Guintrand coll., « Fabrika, un quartier résidentiel à Paphos ?

recherches de la MaƒaP », dans Balandier 2016, p. 125-127.

42. Ibid.

43. Balandier, à paraître.

44. Pour le remblai du fossé fouillé par D. Michaelides en avant du rempart occidental, près de la porte Nord-Ouest, voir V. Karageorghis, « Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1985 », BCH 110, 1986, p. 856 : « de la poterie hellénistique a été trouvée en quantité dans les remblais qui comblaient le fossé » ; pour celui qui a scellé les niveaux hellénistiques au nord de la colline de Fabrika, cf. note 36.

de la « période romaine I », cf. V. Karageorghis, « Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1982 », BCH 107, 1983, p. 937.


nettement le remblai sur lequel est fondée la tour T2, d’1,60 à 2 m au-dessus du niveau de circulation actuel au fond du fossé. Ces aménagements portuaires semblent avoir été considérés comme ne pouvant plus être remis en service après les tremblements de terre dont Paphos a été victime entre le dernier quart du Ier siècle av. J.-C. et la deuxième moitié du Ier siècle de notre ère. Les dernières années de leur existence, ils étaient d’ailleurs peut-être déjà utilisés seulement par des embarcations de faible tirant d’eau en raison du phénomène de colmatage 46, ce qui a pu conduire à la décision de les remblayer en partie. C’est peut-être au même moment que l’ouverture la plus large taillée dans la paroi ouest du fossé a été barrée : les trois assises encore en place sont constituées de blocs de taille pouvant provenir de l’avant-mur 47. Dès lors, à l’époque romaine, lorsque la base du rempart occidental est réutilisée, semble-t-il, comme soubassement d’un rempart romain, l’ancien bassin, partiellement remblayé, a servi de fossé, dont le fond était donc beaucoup moins profond que celui, en eaux, d’époque hellénistique. Ce fossé ne semble plus avoir été protégé par un proteichisma$2$'8$(&,=,'-$9,.$%#$=,8#0"$=;"'-,78#+#(-$%;)#(.'=#F$+,'.$

Ier s. av. J.-C. a connu ce

Ier s. av. J.-C. par submersion et hyper-sédimentation. Cf. Raban et al. 2009, p. 187-189 et p. 203.

47. On ne peut pas écarter la possibilité que ce mur, constitué de blocs de taille en remploi, ait été construit beaucoup plus récemment, notamment pour faciliter l’utilisation de la citerne moderne à

Figure 9. Épais remblai sous la fondation d’une tour (T2). Vue vers l’est.

338 CCEC 47, 2017

.#"=,'-$ /$ ";?09;"#"$ 8#.$ #,0:$ ;=,?0;#.$ 9,"$ 8#.$ ;(*"+#.$ ?*88#?-#0".$ -,'88;.$ /$ -",=#".$ 8#$

.*07,..#+#(-$"*?@#0:$%0$"#+9,"-5$C’est probablement à la suite de la décision de déclasser ces bassins que le port

méridional a été l’objet d’importants aménagements et reconstructions à l’époque romaine. Comparant les vestiges sous-marins de ces aménagements avec ceux de Caesarea Maritima, qui sont quasi contemporains, R. Hohlfelder a proposé de voir une même équipe de constructeurs ayant travaillé à la réalisation de ces deux ports : de son point de vue, les travaux portuaires effectués par Hérode à Césarée venaient d’être achevés lorsque survint le tremblement de terre qui détruisit Paphos en 15 av. J.-C. Selon lui, il n’est pas impossible que les ouvriers libérés du chantier portuaire hérodien se soient alors rendus à Chypre pour participer à la reconstruction du port méridional de Paphos 48. Son hypothèse est séduisante et je serais tentée d’y souscrire, cela d’autant plus qu’une inscription témoigne de ce que le roi de Judée a été honorée par le dèmos de Paphos 49. Hérode, connu pour ses actes d’évergétisme, a ainsi peut-être lui-même contribué à la réédification de Paphos. Il peut donc avoir incité les équipes qui avaient construit le port de Césarée à participer à la reconstruction de celui de Paphos, du moins celle du port sud, les aménagements portuaires du quartier nord-ouest de la ville ayant été alors abandonnés.

Conclusions

En attendant d’approfondir cette recherche sur ces dispositifs portuaires et l’histoire de la base navale de Paphos, liée à mon étude de l’enceinte urbaine, je peux résumer l’état de ma réflexion comme suit : si Nicoclès, le dernier souverain du royaume de Paphos, et le premier Ptolémée sont probablement les deux meilleurs candidats au titre de créateur du port de la nouvelle Paphos, à la fin du IVe siècle av. J.-C., le port en question semble bien être le port méridional, encore en partie utilisé aujourd’hui : il n’était probablement à l’origine qu’un mouillage naturel, peut-être légèrement aménagé avec des quais. Sans que je renonce totalement à l’hypothèse d’un projet portuaire des Antigonides, il me semble que c’est sous l’impulsion de Ptolémée$Ec-#", après qu’il leur a repris l’île, ou plus probablement sous celle de son successeur, Ptolémée II Philadelphe, que la ville et le port ont été fortifiés pour la première fois, dotant Paphos d’un véritable limen kleistos, ainsi que de chantiers navals si l’on en croit les données de l’épigraphie. Il est difficile de dire si les bassins que nous identifions au nord-ouest de la ville ont été creusés dès cette

IIe siècle av. J.-C., lorsque Paphos devient le nouveau siège du gouverneur lagide, soit après 142 av. J.-C., ce dernier devenant aussi

48. Hohlfelder 1996, p. 77-101. Pour la comparaison du port de Césarée avec celui de Paphos, voir aussi Raban et al. 2009, p. 163.

49. J.-B. Cayla, Les inscriptions de Paphos. Corpus des inscriptions alphabétiques de Palaipaphos, de Néa Paphos et de la chôra paphienne, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2003, n° 235, p. 397 sq.

Les inscriptions de Paphos. La cité chypriote sous la domination lagide et à l’époque impériale


stratégique considérable pour les Ptolémées. Quoi qu’il en soit, il pourrait s’agir de bassins de carénage destinés à l’entretien de la flotte militaire ou à la construction de certains de ses bâtiments. Ces aménagements portuaires fortifiés semblent avoir été en activité jusqu’à la fin de l’époque hellénistique. C’est peut-être leur colmatage progressif par des dépôts de sédimentation et, surtout, un des tremblements de terre de la fin du Ier siècle av. J.-C., qui ont pu conduire à la décision de les faire disparaître sous un épais remblai de pierrailles tandis qu’on procédait à la reconstruction du port méridional. Dès lors, ces bassins ont été utilisés comme fossé en avant des murs reconstruits et dotés de nouvelles tours au début de l’Empire. Il va de soi que seule la réalisation d’un relevé précis des éléments observés ainsi que des sondages en certains points de ces différents bassins permettront d’en préciser la morphologie, le fonctionnement ainsi que la chronologie.

Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, UMR 8210-AnHiMA, Mission archéologique française à Paphos

Crédit photographique

Figures 1-5,5-9 : clichés Cl. Balandier/MafaP 2017 ; Figure 6 : cliché Google Earth 2017.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

AUPERT (P.), BALANDIER

3$C+,-@*(-#$/$8,$)'($%0$"*A,0+#5$N,$='88#$.*0.$8#.$C(-'<*('%#.$#-$8#.$9"#+'#"s Lagides », dans

Les royaumes de Chypre à l’épreuve de l’Histoire : Transition et rupture de la fin de l’Âge du bronze au début de l’époque hellénistique, Colloque international l’École française d’Athènes à la Maison de Chypre, Athènes 19 au 22 mars 2015, BCH Supplément, p. 249-264.

BALANDIER Fortifications et défense des territoires à Chypre de l’époque chypro-archaïque aux invasions arabes (VIII

e siècle avant n. è.-VII

e siècle de n. è.), Université de Provence, thèse inédite.

BALANDIER

Pafos: A rescue excavation on the Western rampart 4F$RDAC, p. 243-250.

BALANDIER

et l’importance stratégique de l’île dans la politique lagide », dans A. Demetriou

Proceedings of the IVth International Cyprological Congress, Lefkosia 29 April- 3 May 2008, vol. 1, Nicosie, p. 367-376 et pl. 39-43.

BALANDIER 3$ d#.$ ,(?'#((#.$?,9'-,8#.$ %#$ "*A,0+#.$ ,0:$ (*0=#88#.$ ='88#.$9*"-0,'"#.$2$";)8#:'*(.$.0"$8&;=*80-'*($%0$";.#,0$0"7,'($%#$6@A9"#$/$ 8&;9*>0#$@#88;('.-'>0#$4F$dans Cl. Balandier, Chr. Chandezon ;%5 Institutions, sociétés et cultes de la

Méditerranée antique. Mélanges d’histoire ancienne rassemblés en l’honneur de Claude Vial, Bordeaux, p. 179-209.

BALANDIER La défense de la Syrie-Palestine des Achéménides aux Lagides. Histoire et archéologie des fortifications à l’Ouest du Jourdain de 532 à 199 av. J.-C., avec Appendices sur Jérusalem et les ouvrages fortifiés de Transjordanie et du Nord du Sinaï, Pendè, 2 vol.

BALANDIER Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote de l’antiquité à nos jours. Études archéologiques, historiques et patrimoniales, Actes du Colloque international, en collaboration avec le Département des Antiquités de Chypre, Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, 30 octobre-1er novembre 2012, Bordeaux.

340 CCEC 47, 2017

BALANDIER « L’enceinte urbaine et les installations portuaires de Nea Paphos à l’époque hellénistique : à la recherche des remparts perdus », dans Cl. Balandier,

éd. Nea Paphos et l’Ouest de Chypre. Actes du deuxième colloque international sur Nea Paphos, tenu à Paphos du 11 au 15 Octobre 2017, Bordeaux, à paraître.

BESSAC

des aménagements rupestres de Paphos », dans Balandier 2016, p. 105-120.

BLACKMAN (D.), RANKOV (B.), BAIKA (K.), GERDING (H.), PAKKANEN Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean

DASZEWSKI

and Auxiliary anchorages of Nea Paphos in light of underwater observations », Meander 6, p. 327-336.

DASZEWSKI

Ptolemy. Remarks on the early history of Nea Paphos », RDAC, p. 171-177.

GOIRAN (J.-PH.), SALOMON (S.), TRONCHÈRE (H.), DJERBI (H.), CARBONEL (P.), OBERLIN (CH.), OGNARD « Géoarchéologie des ports de Claude et de Trajan, Portus, delta du Tibre », MEFRA 123, p. 157-236.

HOHLFELDER

Harbor Builders: Lessons learned, lessons

Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after two millennia, Leyde, p. 77-101.

HOHLFELDER (R.L.), LEONARD

« Underwater explorations at Paphos, Cyprus. The 1991 preliminary survey », AASOR 51, p. 45-61.

KARAGEORGHIS (V.), MICHAELIDES

1995, Cyprus and the Sea. Proceedings of the International Symposium organized by the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and the Cyprus Ports Authority, Nicosia 25-26 September, 1993, Nicosie.

LEHMANN-HARTLEBEN « Die antiken Hafenanlagen im Östlichen Mittelmeer », Klio

LERICHE « Urbanisme défensif et occupation du territoire en Syrie hellé-

Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l’Asie Mineure et la Syrie hellénistiques et romaines, Strasbourg, p. 57-79.

LOVÉN The Ancient Harbours of the Piraeus. Vol. 1. The Zea Shipsheds and Slipways: Architecture and Topography, Athènes.

Nea Paphos III, Nea Paphos at the Hellenistic period, Varsovie.

(M.), GOODMAN (B.), GAL éd., 2009, The Harbour of Sebastos (Caesarea Maritima) in its Roman Mediterranean Context, Oxford.

THEODOULOU

! Thèse inédite, Université de Chypre, Nicosie.

VITAS « In research of Nea Paphos’ lighthouse: New and Old theories concerning its existence and location », dans

éd. Post-graduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference (POCA) 2007, Cambridge, p. 263-279.


COMPTES RENDUS

1. Giampaolo GRAZIADIO, The earliest Production of Aegean-type Pottery in Cyprus, with contributions by Elisabetta Pezzi, Maria Dikomitou-Eliadou and Artemis Georgiou, Pisa University Press, Pise, 2017, p. 193, 36 figures dans le texte, 4 figures en couleurs.

ISBN 978-88-6741-765-0

After the identification of a “Levanto-Mycenaean” (Furumark) or “Levanto-Helladic” (Sjöqvist) regional variant of LH IIIA and B pottery in Cyprus and on the Levantine coast in the ‘40s, scholarly debate strongly argued for a distinctive ceramic repertoire specifically produced in Greece mainland for the Eastern Mediterranean markets. In this vein, some scholars also suggested that such a pottery with a clear eastern connotation was likely to have been produced in Cyprus and the Levant by Mycenaean potters.1 The consequence of this avenue of enquiry was to state that Mycenaean colonies were established on the island since the 14th century (LH IIIA2 and especially LH IIIB), with the presence of potters specialized in the Mycenaean style production adapted to a local taste. In this research background, the volume by Giampaolo Graziadio offers an overall and insightful analysis of a specific group of three-handled jars (FS 46 and FS 47) that have traditionally been recognized in the general stylistic trends of the LH IIIA2 pottery.

1. E. Sjöqvist, Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Stockholm, 1940; F.H. Stubbings, Mycenaean pottery from the Levant, Cambridge, 1951.

The insightful evaluation of the entire evidence at disposal for this production, as well as the careful balancing of various elements with different informative potentials, allows Graziadio to detect a relevant short-lived phenomenon of adoption of Aegean elements in the island’s ceramic manufacture by the late 15th Century BC, well before the large scale appearance of Aegean types in the second half of the 13th Century BC. In a few words: a new premise for a debated phenomenon.

In fact, while the identification of a local production of Aegean-type ceramics in Cyprus in the 14th and early 13th centuries still remain complex, it has been possible to group a few cases from selected contexts (i.e. a LC IIC cup and a LH IIIA2-IIIB juglet from Kathydhata and a group from Ayia Paraskevi Tomb 6) that are likely examples of locally produced Aegean-types on the island earlier than the following larger scale production attested since the late 13th century. Finally, recent results of Neutron Activation Analysis appear to have considerably helped in outlining a more precise definition of the whole ‘Levanto-Helladic’ pottery. ‘Imported Aegean Levanto-Helladic shapes’ and ‘local Cypriot Levanto-Helladic shapes’ have been analytically distinguished

342 CCEC 47, 2017

by P. Mountjoy and H. Mommsen,2 thus highlighting a remarkable specificity in the two productions, with some shapes that appear rarely diffused in the Aegean and are likely to have been specifically produced for the export (i.e. the piriform jar FS 36, the pedestal bowls FS 301 and 309).

After having introduced the state of the art and current evidence for three-handled jars FS 46 and FS 47 in the archaeological debate (also outlining the wide variety of terminological issues concerned these shapes in the last decades’ studies) (Chapter 1), Graziadio analytically describes and widely discusses the major technological and typological aspects of the repertoire (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3), as well as the decorative syntax and decoration patterns and schemes (Chapter 4).

The cross-analysis of fabrics, surfaces finish and paints allows the identification of meaningful technological varieties within the three-handled jars repertoire. Specifically, while jars FS 46 appear close to pure Mycenaean ceramics as to the clay, surface finis and quality of paint (with smooth outer surface and lustrous paint), two groups of FS 47 can be better differentiated. A first group is similar to FS 46 described above, a second one is characterized by a matt slip and a coarser and sometimes gritty fabric, that – in some specific cases – was already compared by Paul Åström with the fabric of later White Painted Wheel-made III ware of the late 13th and 12th centuries BC. While supplementary and specific analyses are needed before coming to a clear assumption, Graziadio persuasively suggests that the jars FS 47 with matt painted decoration may be considered forerunners of the White Painted Wheel-made III ware.

2. P.A. Mountjoy, H. Mommsen, “Neutron Activa-tion Analysis of Aegean-Style IIIC pottery from 11 Cypriot and various Near Eastern sites”, Ägypten und Levante XXV, 2015, p. 421-508.

As to the typological classification, a further morphological distinction based on four shapes (Shape 46: a-b; Shape 47: a-b, respectively) is proposed by Graziadio, as a coherent addition to the traditional shape classification, which follows the Åström’s catalogue.3 Additionally, two figures, with drawings of three-handled jars grouped by shapes, opportunely illustrates the new classification proposal on p. 36-37. An interesting section of Chapter 3 is also dedicated to the origins of these ceramic shapes, distinguishing the production, chronology and contexts distribution of small piriform jars in the Mycenaean LH III A and B tradition, in the Minoan tradition (from LM III A deposits) as well as discussing the characteristics of so-called “Mycenaean/Minoan hybrid” piriform jars. This last group appears mostly diffused in the Dodecanese,4 following a longstanding relation between this area and Crete. Further examples from mainland Greece can be also documented, especially in Messenia, that can be more strictly paralleled with some Cypriot three-handled piriform jars of Shape 46:a.

As anticipated, Chapter 4 is dedicated to the analysis of the decorative patterns. While traditional Furumark’s classification of Mycenaean painting decoration is maintained to make single motifs identifiable, Graziadio successfully adopts a new system of “decorative schemes”, in order to group more complex decorative patterns with recurrent associations of distinct motifs. For each of the eight identified Decorative Schemes (1-8) several sub-variants are recognized (e.g. 1:A-1:E), opportunely illustrated by schematic line drawings. The

3. L. and P. Åström, The Swedish Cyprus Expedi-tion. Vol. IV. Part 1D. The Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Other Arts and Crafts. Relative and Absolute Chro-nology, Foreign Relations, Historical Conclusions, Lund, 1972.

4. P.A. Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Rahden, 1999.

COMPTES RENDUS 343

decorative syntax of the Cypriote three-handled jars is finally discussed in Chapter 4. Graziadio argues that the peculiar extension and location of the decoration on the analyzed Cypriot repertoire, presumably inspired by the syntax of LH IIIA1-LH IIIA2 early Mycenaean and “Mycenaean/Minoan hybrid” piriform jars, can be considered a specific local trait.

Two additional chapters are included in the volume, focusing relevant complementary aspects of the analyzed assemblage. In Chapter 5, Elisabetta Pezzi presents a detailed analysis of the find contexts. The author rightly emphasizes that a major preliminary limiting factor prevents us from an established chronology of the three-handled jars based on contextual data. In fact, any available information about the context is generally limited to basic data, as the published evidence is fully informative in a very few cases. Thus, in attempting a chronological overview of the three-handled jars based on find contexts, Pezzi rules out the examples from a vast majority of sites (e.g. Klavdhia Tremithos, Arpera, Katydhata, Maroni Tsaroukkas). The main focus is then devoted to the evidence of “Selected Groups”, “Mixed Mono-Phase Groups” and “Mixed Multi-Phase Groups” from Enkomi funerary contexts, following a distinction based on the degree of informative potentialities already successfully adopted by Graziadio and Pezzi.5 The available contextual evidence suggests that three-handled jars were largely considered valued objects at Enkomi and they were included in some of the highest

5. G. Graziadio, E. Pezzi, “The Late Bronze Age tombs at Enkomi (Cyprus): A case study”, in E. Borgna, P. Cassola Guida (eds), From the Aegean to the Adriatic. Social Organization, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in Postpalatial Times (12th-11th BC), Rome, 2009, p. 63-78; G. Graziadio, E. Pezzi, “Some consideration on the function of Mycenaean pottery found in the Enkomi tombs”, Pasiphae VII, 2013, p. 67-76.

rank built tomb deposits (e.g. British Tombs 12 and 66).

In the following Chapter 6, Maria Dikomitou-Eliadou and Artemis Georgiou discuss the preliminary results of the chemical characterization of a statistically relevant assemblage of FS 46/47 jars. The qualitative analysis was conducted with the use of portable X-ray fluorescence technology (pXRF) thanks to the collaboration of the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus. Such a qualitative method has been only recently introduced in the analysis of Cypriot ceramic datasets,6 revealing considerable potential. As to this study, pXRF was employed to characterize a reduced set of 30 samples, carefully selected considering specific macroscopic aspects, as shape, decorative pattern, fabric and surface treatment. Along with selected three-handled jars, additional ceramic types were also analyzed, in order to provide a better understanding of the morphological and compositional variability of the overall repertoire. The pXRF analysis and statistical calibration of the generated data, allowed the authors to identify two major clusters of samples (named Group A and Group B). It is interesting to note that, while Group B samples mainly come from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi, a clear compositional variability characterizes the samples from Enkomi, which appears divided between the two groups. As a preliminary data assessment, Dikomitou-Eliadou and Georgiou

6. A. Charalambous, M. Dikomitou-Eliadou, V. Kassianidou, “Appendix. A preliminary chemical study of Grey and Black Polished II (IV) pottery with the employment of pXRF”, in G. Georgiou, V. Karageorghis (eds), A Cypro-Archaic tomb at Xylotymbou and three Cypro-Classical tombs at Phlasou: From Exuberance to Recession, Uppsala, 2013, p. 59-63; D. Frankel, J.M. Webb, “Pottery production and distribution in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. An application of pXRF analysis”, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012, p. 1380-1387.

344 CCEC 47, 2017

Ce livre, dont la couverture s’orne du célèbre enclos circulaire de Vounous, traite d’un phénomène largement répandu dans l’antiquité, celui des « maquettes architecturales ». Le terme est impropre, comme l’admet l’auteur, car il ne s’agit pas d’objets destinés à préparer la réalisation d’architecture réelle, mais il n’en existe pas de plus satisfaisant. Béatrice Muller parachève là une réflexion commencée avec

sa thèse 1, et la direction d’un ouvrage collectif (2001) qui élargissait l‘enquête à la vaste zone comprise entre la Méditerranée et à l’Iran, et

1. Muller (B.), 2002, Les « maquettes architectu-rales » du Proche Orient ancien. Mésopotamie, Syrie, Palestine du IIIe millénaire au milieu du IIe millénaire avant J.-C., Beyrouth.

2. Béatrice MULLER, Maquettes antiques d’Orient. De l’image au symbole, Picard, Paris, 2016, 296 pages, XIII pl., 176 figures, index, glossaire. ISBN 978-2-7084-1012-1

suggest that the specimens belonging to Group B are likely to be imports to Cyprus and those pertaining to Group A can be differently considered locally produced.

It is worth to mention that this preliminary distinction is largely in accordance with the macroscopically analysis conducted by Graziadio in the following concluding chapters 7 and 8. In Chapter 7 a comprehensive catalogue is opportunely presented, with a detailed description for each of the 122 identified three-handled jars. The catalogue is organized into several sections, according to the site and museum collection. Basic descriptive information are provided for each entry, along with complete bibliographical references. In the final Chapter 8, an overall picture is drawn by taking into exam the entire body of evidence previously discussed, concerning the production and consumption of three-handled jars. Two major aspects of this multi-faceted phenomenon are highlighted on the complex relations pattern between the two areas during the LH IIIA period: the chronology of diffusion and the routes of connection of FS 46 and FS 47 between Cyprus and the Aegean. As to the chronological framework, both the few reliable finding contexts available and (most significantly) the careful analysis of the

morphological and decorative elements lead the author to conclude that the Cypriote three-handled jars may be opportunely dated back to a period ranging from the LH IIIA1 late to LH IIIA2. Interestingly, this evidence implies that their production during the 14th Century BC, largely precedes the appearance of other Aegean-type ceramics on the island (i.e. the White Painted Wheelmade III ware).

As to the second aspect mentioned above, a supplementary analysis of the relation routes between the Aegean and Cyprus is finally carried out, in order to identify the Aegean regions which were directly involved in these connections. The occurrence of specific secondary motifs under the handles (Decorative scheme 3:A, 3:B and 5:B) is particularly emphasized in the analysis of possible special connections with north-west Pelponnese. The key to possibly understand this connection framework is offered by an unique piriform jar in the Pierides Museum collection at Larnaca, which appears to represent both the surviving proof of a peculiar trait d’union and the evidence of a substantial influence of the ‘Mycenaean/Minoan hybrid’ production in the Aegean-type ceramics in Cyprus.

Luca BOMBARDIERI

COMPTES RENDUS 345

dans laquelle Chypre trouve sa place 2. L’auteur aborde désormais le sujet de manière globale, toutes cultures confondues, du point de vue morphologique, fonctionnel et historique. À la faveur de cette analyse, les productions de Chypre apparaissent spécialement importantes tant par leur nombre (vu la taille de l’île en regard de la totalité du domaine envisagé), que par l’originalité et la créativité des artisans.

Cette inventivité rend la culture matérielle de Chypre assez rebelle aux tentatives de classement du chercheur moderne. Les planches morphologiques récapitulatives en fin d’ouvrage tentent d’introduire de la clarté dans une réalité complexe, mais les maquettes chypriotes rangées dans une catégorie glissent insidieusement dans la catégorie voisine. Certes, les « maquettes ouvertes par-dessus » (pl. V) de la période chalcolithique (Kissonerga) et du Chypriote ancien (Vounous, Kalopsida, Kotchati) forment un groupe assez cohérent. Mais les « tours » chypro archaïques d’Idalion et de Kition (pl. III) se distinguent mal des «maisons à fenêtres multiples » (pl. VI) des mêmes sites. La division entre « édicules » (pl. I) et « tabernacles » (pl. II), habités ou non, s’applique inconfortablement au cas de Chypre. Le support en bronze Chypriote récent d’Enkomi préfigure assez bien les grandes maquettes d’Idalion de la période archaïque (ici Fig. 1) dans les «maisons à fenêtres multiples » (pl. VI). Mais dans cette catégorie sont aussi rangés les vases découpés (Kition), alors que ce mode de fabrication nous semble relever plutôt de la catégorie « édicule » (pl. I) où sont rangés les exemplaires levantins aménagés dans des panses de cruches.

2. Yon (M.), Caubet (A.), 2001, « La tradition des maquettes architecturales de Chypre », in B. Muller (éd.), Maquettes architecturales de l’Antiquité : regards croisés (Égypte, Proche-Orient, bassin égéen, du Néolithique à l’époque hellénistique), Strasbourg et Paris, p. 143-160.

Ces objections sont marginales, car l’essentiel du livre est ailleurs. La réflexion sur le phénomène de la miniaturisation, vue dans une perspective anthropologique et technique, en vient à interroger l’univers même de la construction, qui est reproduction du monde et acte divin ou royal. L’analyse technique se révèle particulièrement fructueuse pour évoquer l’artisan au travail et comprendre les aspirations du commanditaire et de la clientèle. Elle évacue la distinction plan circulaire / plan carré, qui est une fausse piste pour ces objets, comme le montre l’exemple des deux maquettes d’Idalion (Fig. 1), l’une de plan circulaire (ou sub-circulaire), l’autre de plan carré (ou sub-carré).

Un chapitre important mesure la difficulté d’apprécier le réalisme architectural de ces ma-quettes et de percevoir la fonction des bâtiments représentés. L’auteur s’attache prudemment à l’analyse des détails architecturaux qui livrent les informations assez véridiques sur l’appareil de maçonnerie, sur des formes d’encorbelle-ment et de toiture, des colombages, des auvents, des colonnes. La figuration des ouvertures (fenêtres, portes, trous de boulins), la présence d’escalier, est souvent révélatrice.

L’auteur constate que l’autre grande question – celle de l’usage et la fonction de ces maquettes – ne peut recevoir de réponse unique, et la possibilité de fonction double, pratique et symbolique, lui semble raison-nable. La dimension symbolique du décor la

Louvre N 3293 Louvre N 3294

Figure 1. Maquettes archaïques d’Idalion.

346 CCEC 47, 2017

Ce volume des “Milesische Forschungen”, qui contient un catalogue des 213 terres cuites chypriotes de Milet, déborde d’emblée ce seul objet, puisqu’il entend proposer une nouvelle classification des terres cuites chypriotes archaïques de l’est de l’Égée et de leurs ateliers de production. La table des matières très détaillée (9 pages !) révèle ce projet ambitieux, mais aussi une faiblesse dans l’organisation synthétique de l’ensemble.

L’introduction (chapitre 1) présente les objectifs et la méthode de l’étude. Le problème est de classer les terres cuites de Milet dans les catégories existantes, en tenant compte des avancées récentes de la recherche, notamment des travaux de Sabine Fourrier. Les terres cuites de Milet semblent majoritairement trouver leurs modèles dans les productions de l’est de Chypre, autour de Salamine. La description du corpus qui est rejetée à la fin du chapitre 5 aurait pu figurer dans l’introduction.

Le chapitre 2 traite de l’histoire de la recherche sur la plastique chypriote, depuis le XIXe siècle, quand les explorateurs cherchaient surtout des pièces de collections, sans se soucier du contexte des œuvres. C’est avec les fouilles suédoises (1927-1931) d’Einar Gjerstad que la

sculpture chypriote archaïque gagna une mise en ordre chronologique qu’à bien des égards on conserve encore aujourd’hui. À partir des sculptures d’Ayia Irini, il avait défini une évolution générale de la plastique chypriote, du modelage simple vers un rendu naturaliste du corps humain. Les découvertes de Samos permirent de remonter un peu la datation : les travaux de Gerhard Schmidt détaillèrent, en le conservant, le schéma d’ensemble de Gjerstad, bien que rapidement Andreas Stylianou ait souligné que bon nombre de détails s’expliquaient par des choix stylistiques bien plus que par une évolution chronologique générale. Les travaux de B. Lewe (1975), de M. Brönner (1990), puis de J. et V. Karageorghis apportèrent des révisions de la chronologie et des classements stylistiques, avant que l’étude de la plastique de calcaire par R. Senff ne renouvelle la terminologie en prenant ses distances avec le système Gjerstad. Mais, en 2007, c’est Sabine Fourrier qui étudia de façon systématique les ateliers de production locaux de Chypre, en montrant qu’ils correspondaient non seulement à une organisation culturelle de Chypre, mais aussi à l’expansion géographique des différents royaumes chypriotes archaïques.

3. Jan-Marc HENKE (avec une contribution de Cornelis W. NEEFT), Die zyprischen Terrakotten aus Milet. Neue Überlegungen zur Einordnung der archaischen zyprischen Terrakotten aus ostägäischen Fundkontexten und ihrer werkstattspezifischen Zuweisung, Milesische Forschungen 7, De Gruyter, Berlin et Boston, 2017, XV + 340 p., 79 pl. dont 3 en couleurs. ISBN 978-3-11-054381-0

conduit à proposer, entre autres explication, une fonction de « temple de poche » où se dérouleraient des scènes cultuelles, assez bien adaptée au cas de Chypre. Le chapitre chronologique et géographique sera particulièrement précieux. De même, il était intéressant de resituer le phénomène des maquettes dans l’histoire des croyances et des rites, depuis les principes fondateurs du

Néolithique, puis au travers des avatars des principes viril et féminin, associés chacun à un animal attribut.

Des annexes, dont un tableau des contextes connus, un excellent glossaire et une abondante bibliographie, font de cet ouvrage un instrument de travail très utile pour les spécialistes de l’histoire de Chypre et de l’Orient ancien.

Annie CAUBET

COMPTES RENDUS 347

Une page rassemble commodément les chronologies de Gjerstad et de Schmidt (p. 22).

Le chapitre 3 détaille le costume, la coiffure et l’attitude des terres cuites féminines et masculines, éléments qui auraient gagné à être mis en relation plus clairement avec les différents ateliers de production. Le chapitre 4 aborde les aspects techniques et la polychromie de la production chypriote. En huit pages, l’auteur rappelle, à la suite de S. Fourrier, que la technique est aussi une caractéristique d’atelier et ne saurait se plier à une évolution chronologique générale. À l’est de Chypre domine le moulage (et c’est l’origine de la plupart des figurines retrouvées en Égée orientale), tandis qu’à l’ouest les artisans ont préféré le modelage. Les différentes techniques correspondent à différents types : plaquettes, figures creuses faites avec des moules de plaquettes ou d’autres moules pour les détails, figures « mixtes » (modelées et moulées), figurines modelées.

Le chapitre 5 utilise les données contextuelles et stratigraphiques milésiennes pour préciser la chronologie des productions. Le sanctuaire extra urbain d’Aphrodite à Zeytintepe, dont la datation du bothros entre 700 et 630 (date de sa fermeture) fait l’objet d’une contribution par C. W. Neeft, et quelques contextes périphériques, permettent de brosser une image générale des terres cuites chypriotes de Milet. Les six cents fragments de figurines chypriotes, dont seules quatre ne proviennent pas de Zeytintepe, forment presque un quart des figurines de terre cuite du VIIe siècle ; la moitié est assez bien conservée pour entrer dans un classement typologique ou stylistique. Le catalogue comprend finalement 217 numéros, qui rassemblent parfois plusieurs fragments d’un même objet. 66% sont des représentations féminines, contre 18% masculines et 16% non identifiables.

Le chapitre 6 réunit les remarques sur le style et les techniques des terres cuites de style

salaminien selon Sabine Fourrier. L’auteur évoque d’abord les critères d’identification du style salaminien, et plus largement des styles régionaux à Chypre, avant de se concentrer sur le style des terres cuites d’Arsos, qui se développe selon trois tendances, puis celui des terres cuites d’Achna, et enfin le style proprement salaminien.

Le chapitre 7 s’intéresse à la production chypriote des contextes égéens : avec près de 80 pages, cette partie est aussi longue que l’ensemble des autres chapitres (hors catalogue). En treize sous-parties, l’auteur explore l’ensemble de la documentation de son corpus, et même bien au-delà, en intégrant à sa réflexion le matériel de Samos, Rhodes… La première sous-partie est consacrée aux observations sur les plaquettes féminines, trouvées en grand nombre à Rhodes et Samos, et dont les parallèles sont nombreux à Arsos. Puis l’auteur examine les documents proches de la figurine T600 de Samos, dont l’invention du type est vraisemblablement salaminienne. Les productions d’un autre atelier sont ensuite rassemblées autour de la figure Arsos 540 du musée de Chypre, d’un modelé plastique avec quelques éléments de parure détaillés, et de ses très proches variantes. Elles sont majoritaires à Samos et à Milet, mais aucun lieu de fabrication n’est proposé. L’auteur s’intéresse ensuite à des figures qui combinent des éléments des deux précédentes, T600 de Samos et Arsos 540, dont l’origine doit être recherchée de nouveau dans les ateliers de Salamine. Puis des groupes stylistiques sont constitués autour de la figure T1106 de Samos, proche d’exemples d’Achna ; des figures C637 et C587 du musée de Chypre ; de la terre cuite T 1472 de Samos ; du seul fragment n° 50 de Milet ; de la figure C609 du musée de Chypre ; et des fragments d’origine chypriote occidentale, avant que des fragments beaucoup plus difficiles à caractériser soient évoqués.

348 CCEC 47, 2017

Dans l’ensemble, même si les classements sont en général convaincants, le fait que les regroupements ne soient pas d’abord fondés sur les figures de Milet, dont le catalogue devrait constituer le point de départ de la mise en ordre du matériel, ne rend pas le raisonnement très limpide. Est-ce une étude des terres cuites chypriotes de Milet ou des terres cuites chypriotes de l’Égée ? Le morcellement de l’analyse se poursuit dans les chapitres suivants qui se réduisent parfois à une page ! Le chapitre 8 regroupe des fragments de terre cuite de taille naturelle ou s’en approchant, et fait le point sur les modalités de fabrication des terres cuites de grand format. Le chapitre 9 est consacré aux figurines de « style mixte » : elles combinent une tête massive, dont le visage est moulé, et un corps creux modelé ou tourné. Ce chapitre ne rassemble que 3 figurines. Enfin, le chapitre 10 se focalise sur une seule figurine illustrant la technique du modelage libre sans matrice, qui présente un corps de section ovale et les bras levés en un geste d’adoration

Le chapitre 11 rassemble les figures chypriotes et « chypriotisantes » anciennes, dont les plaquettes datées du deuxième quart du VIIe siècle sont les plus anciennes représentantes. Le chapitre 12 fait le bilan de la chronologie des figurines d’après les contextes de découverte de Milet et de Samos. Si le contexte samien avait suggéré de dater les dernières terres cuites chypriotes jusqu’au milieu du VIe siècle, le bothros milésien du VIIe siècle qui a livré des fragments de céramiques corinthiennes de 690 à 630 invite à remonter et à limiter la durée des importations chypriotes.

Le chapitre 13 conclut que les techniques de production de la coroplathie égéenne orientale n’ont pas été particulièrement stimulées par l’exemple chypriote, mais que les artisans ont aussi puisé dans les modèles crétois ; toutefois, on note que l’emploi du moule pour les visages des figurines est contemporain des premières

importations chypriotes. L’auteur recense les jalons qui indiquent l’adoption de techniques connues dans la coroplathie chypriote, avec des exemples essentiellement samiens.

Le chapitre 14 aborde la question de la consécration des terres cuites chypriotes dans les sanctuaires de l’Égée orientale : leurs circonstances, l’origine et le sexe des dédicants sont d’abord étudiés, avant que l’analyse du répertoire n’apporte un éclairage sur leur identité et la signification des figures. L’auteur place les terres cuites chypriotes dans l’ensemble des offrandes étrangères, essentiellement orientales, parvenues dans les sanctuaires grecs durant le VIIe siècle, sans tenir compte de l’abondante bibliographie récente sur cette question. Il s’attache à démontrer, à partir de l’exemple du sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Milet, que l’offrande de terres cuites ne saurait être interprétée comme celle d’une représentation du dédicant, mais plutôt d’une image en lien avec les divinités honorées. Des particularités locales plaident en faveur de dédicants locaux, et non chypriotes, et l’aspect étranger, voire oriental, de ces figurines pouvait avoir accru leur intérêt aux yeux des dédicants ioniens. L’auteur suggère cependant que l’abondance de cette documentation et la proximité culturelle entre Chypre et la Grèce de l’Est auraient encouragé la fondation de nouveaux cultes, dont – peut-être – celui d’Aphrodite à Milet. Il conclut sur le fait que, comme les objets égyptiens, les documents chypriotes ne sont pas de simples « exotica », mais reflètent de nouveaux flux culturels qui atteignent les sanctuaires de Grèce de l’est.

Dans l’ensemble, malgré l’hésitation entre un classement typologique, technique et stylistique, et une organisation un peu répétitive, cet ouvrage constitue une étude fondamentale des terres cuites chypriotes d’Asie Mineure.

Hélène AURIGNY

COMPTES RENDUS 349

Der von G. Bourogiannis und Chr. Mühlenbock herausgegebene Band bietet die Publikation von Vorträgen, die im April 2015 während des gleichnamigen internationalen Kolloquiums in Stockholm gehalten wurden. Zeitlich erstrecken diese sich von der Frühen Bronzezeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Die Herausgeber, die sich auf die große Tradition der Swedish Cyprus Expedition berufen, verfolgten mehrere Hauptziele, die z. T. weit gefaßt waren, z. T. speziell die Aktivitäten schwedischer Archäologie im Felde wie im Museumsbereich spiegeln (Vorwort p. VIII): 1) Darstellung des modernen Forschungsstandes der Archäologie Zyperns im internationalen Rahmen, 2) Verbesserung des Dialoges zwischen der älteren und jüngeren Generation von Gelehrten, in deren Oeuvre Zypern einen zentrale Stellung einnimmt, 3) die Darstellung des derzeit laufenden Ayia Irini – Projektes des Medelhavsmuseet, das eine Neubewertung der Grabungen der Swedish Cyprus Expedition zum Ziel hat, 4) die bessere Verknüpfung von aktuellen Forschungsprojekten und musealen Aktivitäten, 5) die Darstellung schwedischer Grabungstätigkeit auf der Insel Zypern, hier naturgemäß mit dem Schwerpunkt auf den Untersuchungen in Hala Sultan Tekke. Diesen programmatischen Vorgaben entsprechend, umfaßt der zu besprechende Band Studien zur Museumsgeschichte, zu verschiedenen Fundorten und ihrer Grabungsgeschichte, Untersuchungen zu unterschiedlichen Fundmaterialien, aber auch Vorstellungen aktueller noch nicht abgeschlossener oder gerade begonnener Forschungsvorhaben.

Die Herausgeber haben sich entschlossen, die Beiträge in drei Gruppen zu gliedern: Project stories and museum histories, Ancient places: New perspectives und – am umfangreichsten – Ancient objects: New Perspectives. Diese

Gliederung hat den Vorteil methodischer Kohärenz, reißt aber auf der anderen Seite sachlich zusammengehörige Beiträge (so etwa zu Ayia Irini und Hala Sultan Tekke) auseinander.

Project stories and museum histories: Am Anfang stehen zwei hoch informative Beiträge, zum einen von D. Pilides über Digitalisierungsprojekte des Cyprus Museum bzw. des Department of Antiquities während der letzten Jahre, vielfach mit internationalen Kooperationspartnern (Enkomi, Ayia Irini, allgemeine Fundinventarisierung), dazu über Ausstellungskonzeptionen und neue Museumsprojekte, so ein Eisenbahnmuseum in Evrychou und ein Grabungsmuseum auf dem Gelände des Agios Georgios-Hügels in Nicosia, während A. Christophilopoulou die Geschichte der zyprischen Sammlung des Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge skizziert. Kleine Teile der Sammlung Luigi Palma di Cesnolas, Funde des Cyprus Exploration Fund, namentlich Stein- wie Terrakottaskulpturen aus Salamis, schließlich die Schenkungen Sir Henry Bulwers von Funden aus M. Ohnefalsch-Richters Ausgrabungen in Tamassos, haben den Grundstein einer der bedeutendsten Sammlungen zyprischer Altertümer in Europa gelegt. Christophilopoulous Artikel darf als höchst willkommene Ergänzung zu L. Burns Monographie The Fitzwilliam Museum. A History (London 2016) begrüßt werden. C. Olien widmet sich den Skulpturen der Cesnola-Sammlung im New Yorker Metropolitan Museum of Art, den von Cesnola vorgenommenen Ergänzungen fragmentierter Plastiken, die zur bekannten Kontroverse mit Gaston Feuardent geführt haben. Schließlich stellt Ch. Paraskeuva ein neu konzipiertes, noch in der Phase der Erprobung befindliches, CARMA (Cyprus Archaeological Materials)

4. Giorgos BOUROGIANNIS, Christian MÜHLENBROCK (Hrsg.), Ancient Cyprus Today. Museum Collections and New Research, Åströms förlag, Uppsala, 2016, XV + 350 S., zahlreiche Schwarzweiß-Abbildungen. ISBN 978-91-7081-217-0

350 CCEC 47, 2017

benanntes System zum elektronischen Informationsmanagement vor. In den ersten Hauptteil des Bandes eingereiht ist schließlich eine Studie von St. Diakou zur Grabungsgeschichte des cypro-geometrischen Lapithos, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf den hier dankenswerterweise erstmals im Zusammenhang vorgelegten Dokumenten liegt, welche die Aktivitäten des Museums von Philadelphia – Grabungen wie Integration des Fundmaterials in die Museumsbestände – beleuchten. Dieser Aufsatz hätte durchaus auch im folgenden Hauptteil des Bandes, der wichtige Fundplätze Zyperns im Lichte neuerer Forschungen diskutiert, seinen Platz finden können, zumal gerade Lapithos dort wieder begegnet.

Ancient places: New perspectives: J. Webb zeichnet prägnant ein sehr systematisch angelegtes Bild der Geschichte der Nekropolen von Lapithos während der Mittleren Bronzezeit, wobei sie zur Gewinnung deutlicherer Konturen der Entwicklung der zyprischen Nordküste während der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit Lapithos dem zeitlich früheren Vounous gegenüberstellt. Man wird auf die hoffentlich erfolgende abschließende Publikation so vieler kulturgeschichtlich höchst relevanter Befunde in Lapithos gespannt sein. Es schließen sich zwei der wichtigsten spätbronzezeitlichen Fundplätze der Insel Zypern an: P. Fischer gibt einen Überblick über die Ergebnisse der neuen schwedischen Ausgrabungen von 2010 bis 2015 in Hala Sultan Tekke, die durch Erkenntnisse zur Stratigraphie der von ihm untersuchten Flächen wie durch herausragende Kleinfunde, nicht zuletzt figürlich bemalter Kratere (p. 72 Abb. 2), ein differenziertes Bild der Siedlungsgeschichte zeichnen. Es entsteht so eine Synthese der von Fischer bereits vorgelegten sehr ausführlichen Vorberichte, die in den Opuscula erschienen sind. Es ist nur bedauerlich; daß es offenbar nicht möglich war, einen Beitrag zu den von K. Nys geleiteten parallel laufenden Grabungen in

den Kongreßband zu integrieren. Angefügt sei noch der Hinweis auf vielfache Parallelen zu der schönen Violinbogenfibel aus Hala Sultan Tekke (p. 75 Abb. 3): D. Savella, „Osservazioni su una fibula del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Atene“, in F. Longo u. a. (Hrsg.), Dromoi. Studi sul mondo antico offerti a Emanuele Greco dagli allievi della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene I (Paestum 2016), p. 277-283.

Im Mittelpunkt eines von V. Kassianidou, der derzeit wohl besten Kennerin zyprischen Metallhandwerks, in Angriff genommenen interdisziplinären, also auch naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen ein-beziehenden Forschungsprojektes stehen Metallurgie und Metallhandwerk von Enkomi, der bedeutendsten Metropole Zyperns während der Späten Bronzezeit, und zwar ausgehend von den Ergebnissen der Grabungen, die P. Dikaios dort durchgeführt hat. Eine Vielzahl noch unpublizierten Fundmaterials, Tuyères, Blasebälge (pot bellows), Gußtiegel, Schlacken, Gußformen, Vierzungenbarren und schließlich Metallartefakte selbst repräsentieren einen auf Zypern einmaligen der Forschung zur Verfügung stehenden Materialfundus. Es steht zu hoffen, daß in einer späteren Phase eine Einbeziehung der reichen Befunde und Funde der Grabungen C. F. A. Schaeffers möglich sein wird, um eine tragfähiges Gesamtbild zu ermöglichen. Der Rezensent hatte in den letzten Jahren im Cyprus Museum die Möglichkeit, zahlreiche, kulturgeschichtlich höchst bedeutsame Metallartefakte aus den französischen Grabungen untersuchen zu dürfen. Dort dürfte noch manche Überraschung im Magazin warten.

Wie bereits oben gesagt, bildete das Projekt der Neubearbeitung der reichen Terrakotta- und Keramikfunde des Heiligtums von Ayia Irini einen der Schwerpunkte des Stockholmer Kolloquiums. Während G. Bourogiannis, einer der Herausgeber des hier besprochenen Bandes, die Keramikfunde untersucht und erste

COMPTES RENDUS 351

Ergebnisse zur Chronologie der Bronzezeit und zur Bedeutung der Periode Cypro-Geometrisch III als Zeitpunkt deutlicher werdender Kultaktivität während der Eisenzeit formuliert (vgl. bereits seinen Beitrag „The santuary of Ayia Irini: looking beyond the figurines“, Pasiphae 7, 2013, p. 35-45), geht es S. Houby-Nielsen um Fragen der Ethnizität (Stichwort „griechisch – phönikisch“) vor dem Hintergrund kolonialer Politik während der Grabungen der Swedish Cyprus Expedition, einer bekanntlich turbulenten Phase britischer Herrschaft, und um eine Neubewertung der Stratigraphie, d. h. der von E. Gjerstad beobachteten Überschwemmungshorizonte. Dabei bleibt vieles spekulativ. Daß Gjerstad von der angeblichen Sintflut L. Woolleys in Ur beeinflußt gewesen sei, sollte doch näher begründet werden, so wie auch die politische Wirkung der Grabungen überzeichnet scheint. Daß im übrigen die Grabungsunterlagen in Stockholm nicht in allen Punkten mit Gjerstads Deutungen übereinstimmen, ist dagegen für zukünftige Bearbeiter zu berücksichtigen. Houby-Nielsen rekonstruiert schließlich aus den Grabungszeichnungen einen Grabaltar phönikischen Typs (p. 114 Abb. 2). Eine von ihr angezeigte, im Druck befindliche Publikation wird vielleicht die hier vorgestellten Thesen detaillierter begründen (On the Border of Empires: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 1927-1931). In der Bibliographie zu Ayia Irini erscheint leider nirgends der durchaus beachtenswerte Aufsatz von A. Stylianou, „Neues zur Chronologie der frühen kyprischen Plastik“, in V. Karageorghis, S. Rogge (Hrsg.), Junge zyprische Archäologie (Münster u. a. 2003), p. 29-49.

A. Cannavò, die jetzige Leiterin der französischen Grabungen in Amathus stellt ein neues Projekt zur Kartierung des Platzes (mit Hilfe von GIS) vor, das gerade die Nekropolen berücksichtigen soll, ein vielversprechender Forschungsansatz. Zu den wichtigsten

Beiträgen des Bandes dürfte S. Fourriers Neubewertung der Grabungen der Swedish Cyprus Expedition auf dem Bamboula-Hügel von Kition zählen. Die Stratigraphie entspricht durchaus jener der französischen Untersuchungen, doch scheint die Datierung der ältesten Schichten durch E. Gjerstad in die beginnende cypro-geometrische Periode zu hoch, wie eine Revision der Keramik anzeigt; Fourrier schlägt Cypro-Geometrisch III vor und zeichnet eine Entwicklung, die nicht durch starke Zäsuren gekennzeichnet war. Offen bleiben „many unanswered questions“ (p. 137) zum Beginn phönikischer Kolonisation wie zur Stellung Kitions in der Folge und zur Evolution eines zyprischen, phönikisch dominierten Stadtkönigtums.

Den Conspectus zyprischer Städte schließen zwei Untersuchungen zu Nea Paphos ab, zum Theater und seiner Umgebung vom ersten hellenistischen Theaterbau über die römisch-kaiserzeitlichen Phasen bis hin zur mittelalterlichen gewerblichen Nutzung des Areals von C. Barker, und von A. M. Johansen zur Funktion der Raumeinheiten im Haus des Dionysos, dies ein Bericht über noch geplanter Untersucungen. Hingewiesen sei in diesem Zusammenhang auf den gerade erschienenen Kongreßband: C. Balandier (Hrsg.), Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Bordeaux 2016).

Ancient objects: New Perspectives: Die Artikel unter dieser Rubrik nehmen mehr als die Hälfte des vorliegenden Bandes ein: Es ist kaum möglich, im Rahmen einer Besprechung auf jede Untersuchung im Detail einzugehen. M. Dokimitou-Eliadou und A. K. Vionis geben Einblick in zwei Fallstudien zu tönernem Kochgeschirr der Frühen Bronzezeit aus Marki-Alonia und der Späten Bronzezeit aus Maa-Paleokastro, ein vielfach vernachlässigtes Material, dessen hermeneutisches Potential, etwa zu Fragen der Ethnizität während der

352 CCEC 47, 2017

ausgehenden Bronzezeit in den letzten Jahren deutlich geworden ist; wir verweisen nur auf V. Karageorghis, Ou. Kouka (Hrsg.), On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and the Neighbouring Regions (Nicosia 2011).

Studien zur frühbronzezeitlichen Keramik aus Pyrgos-Mavroraki (S. Di Paolo), zu Textilien aus Palaeoskoutella/Karpass-Halbinsel (H. L. Enegren, I. V. Berghe), zu Textilfunden der Späten Bronzezeit (C. Sauvage, J. S. Smith), zu Duftölen im bronzezeitlichen Zypern (Z. Chovanec), zu Transportgefäßen für den Seehandel (A. B. Knapp; vgl. dazu ders., S. Demesticha [Hrsg.], Mediterranean Connection: Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages [New York 2016]) und zu den bekannten bronzezeitlichen Spielsteinen (W. Crist) kennzeichnen ein weites Spektrum von Studien, die von der wissenschaftlichen Weite des Stockholmer Kongresses zeugen. Chr. Vonhoff gibt einen konzisen Überblick über seine Arbeiten zum phönikischen bzw. phönikisch geprägten Metallhandwerk Zyperns; vgl. ausführlicher ders., „Phoenician Bronzes in Cyprus“, in J. Jiménez Ávila (Hrsg.), Phoenician Bronzes in the Mediterranean (Madrid 2015), p. 269-294. Eine sehr schöne Beobachtung ist G. Papasavvas gelungen: Er konnte die Attribute zweier archaischer zyprischer Terrakotten vom „Astarte-Typus“ aus dem Heraion von Salamis als Fächer, und zwar als die typische nahöstliche Form des Flaggenfächers (flag fan) identifizieren und knüpft daran lesenswerte Betrachtung zur Selbstdarstellung zyprischer Eliten archaischer Zeit mittels nahöstlicher Luxusgüter und zur Konnotation weiblicher Nacktheit.

Zwei Studien widmen sich historischen bzw. numismatischen Themen: Chr. Ioannou, bekannt durch ihre Arbeiten zur Geschichte Zyperns im frühen 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., skizziert die Entwicklung Zyperns im Geflecht phönikischer

und assyrischer Expansionsbestrebungen, während die durch ihre Studien zur Numismatik Zyperns hervorragend ausgewiesene E. Markou Betrachtungen über die historischen Aussagemöglichkeiten zyprischer Münz-prägungen anschließt. G. Papantoniou schließlich diskutiert portraitähnliche Skulpturen des hellenistischen Zypern, d. h. Köpfe, die den Vorgaben ptolemäischer Ikonographie folgen, ein in dieser Zeit weit verbreitetes Phänomen, das sich nicht auf Herrscherdarstellungen beschränkte, sondern der bildlichen Repräsentation lokaler Eliten diente.

Noch einmal stehen in diesem Abschnitt des Stockholmer Kongreßbandes Hala Sultan Tekke und Ayia Irini im Vordergrund: B. Stolle stellt einen wiederverwendeten Brunnen („Tomb A“) vor, der sukzessive über einen längeren Zeitraum während Spätzyprisch II C zu Bestattungszwecken diente – ein äußerst ungewöhnlicher Befund. Mehrere Siegelzylinder, veröffentlicht von T. Bürge, vermehren den spätbronzezeitlichen Fundbestand aus Hala Sultan Tekke; sie dürften meist als Importe zu identifizieren sein. Ein Beispiel wurde wohl lokal nachgeschnitten. Über das Alltagsleben der Siedlung informiert ein instruktiver Aufsatz von A. Lindqvist, der das ichthyologische Material und Gerätschaften für den Fischfang wie Angelhaken und Netzgewichte zusammenstellt. Angemerkt sei nur, daß der große bronzene Dreizack aus Grab 23, den Lindqvist selbst nur zögernd einbezieht, aufgrund der Form (Größe, keine Widerhaken!) wie der Parallelen in der Levante sicherlich als Statussymbol zu interpretieren ist. Dafür sprechen auch eisenzeitliche Nachfolgeformen in Israel wie auf Zypern selbst, im Grab 142 von Palaipaphos-Plakes. Ayia Irini wird aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven in den Blickpunkt genommen: Chr. Mühlenbock und T. Borsson präsentieren erste Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen

COMPTES RENDUS 353

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

1. !/%?&"# 23%0."# %'%-1# 313# "0,":-21,3"# "1# 4-HH&23"#%&#H&,#"1#;#*"2&,"#4"#)%#1"0&"#4&#23*-0%-,"F#R0#8"&1#1(&K(&,2#)"2#1,(&'",#2&,#)5-01",0"1F

L.%,1"2+# 1%$)"%&Q+# H-:&,"2N+# 2%02# ,"0(0.",# 8(&,#%&1%01#;#)5%.&-13#2.-"01-H-?&"F

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`1#4"#."2#4",0-",2#"21#45%&1%01#8)&2#:,%04#?&"+#4"8&-2#?&"#)"#O38%,1"*"01#4"2#<01-?&-132#05%$(04"#8)&2#)%#6#!/,(0-?&"#9#"0#)-:0"#L/118^aabbbF./,(0-?&"F"H%F:,aN# "1# ?&"# )%# 8%,&1-(0# 4&#!"#$%&'$('&)"'*"#+%&,"-&'$('.-&/01/&/"23'45#%12#

5. Z-c(2##$#$%!&!'(!)*# "1#>%,-%#d)+!# L34FN+#+#>&23"#45<,1#!7.)%4-?&"+#<1/=0"2+#@ABe+#ffE#8F+#

0(*$,"&2"2#H-:&,"2+#8,-0.-8%)"*"01#"0#.(&)"&,2+#4%02#)"#1"Q1"F J]UZ#gehDiBhDEAiAD@fDe

(mittels inductivelycoupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy – ICP-AES) an Statuetten und Keramikscherben, die sich chronologisch von der Späten Bronzezeit bis in die Periode Cypro-Archaisch II erstrecken: Der überwiegende Teil der 59 Proben scheint relativ einheitlich (für die Keramik durch Dünnschliffe untermauert). Die Ergebnisse entsprechen nicht S. Fourriers stilistischen Analysen. Hier werden jedoch weitere Untersuchungen nötig sein. Die italienischen Ausgrabungen der Jahre zwischen 1969 und 1973 haben Nekropolen der Eisenzeit bei Ayia Irini untersucht, die A. Osingher noch einmal in den Blick nimmt. Er betont die Rolle von phönikischen Keramikimporten, zu denen noch zyprische Nachahmungen griechisch

spätgeometrischer Skyphoi neben dem üblichen lokalen Geschirr treten. Phönikische Präsenz wird auch durch wenige Inschriften und eine sehr grob gezeichnete Stele deutlich. Leider verhindert die türkische Okkupation des Gebietes weitere archäologische Aktivitäten.

Wie wohl aus der notgedrungen kurzen Aufzählung der Themen hervorgeht, ist mit Ancient Cyprus Today ein reicher inhaltsvoller Band entstanden, dessen Beiträge eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Spezialisten zu Rate ziehen werden, ein Werk, dessen Beiträge modernen Forschungsstand spiegeln, zu Zustimmung und auch Widerspruch herausfordern – insgesamt ein inspirierender Kongreßband.

Hartmut MATTHÄUS

354 CCEC 47, 2017

"21#2&28"04&"#L)"#4",0-",#0&*3,(#4%1"#4"#@ABAN+#(0#0"#4-28(2"#8)&2#:&=,"#45-0H(,*%1-(02#2&,#)"2#H(&-))"2#,3%)-23"2#;#!/78,"+#"0#8%,1-.&)-",#4%02#)"#.%4,"#45(83,%1-(02#4"#2%&'"1%:"F

G%#8,"*-=,"#.(01,-$&1-(0#LZF#jH21,%1-(&N#H%-1#)"#8(-01#2&,# )%# #8,3/-21(-,"# )%#8)&2#%0.-"00"#4"#)5k)"#LIJ"DlJJJ"#*-))30%-,"2N+#."))"#?&-#8,3.=4"#)%#8/%2"#4"#[/-,(c-1-%+# "1#?&-#.(00%k1+#4"8&-2# )"2#4",0-=,"2#43."00-"2+#4"2#%'%0.3"2#,"*%,?&%$)"2#4"# )%# ,"./",./"F# G5%&1"&,# -01=:,"# )"2# ,32&)1%12#)"2#8)&2#,3."012#L-)#4(00"#8F#@f#&0#1%$)"%&#1,=2#&1-)"# ,32&*%01# )"2# 8,-0.-8%)"2# 31%8"2# 4"# )%#.()(0-2%1-(0+# 8&-2# 4"# )%# 03()-1/-2%1-(0# 4"# )5k)"+#%'".# )%# )-21"# 4"2# 2-1"2# ?&-# )"2# -))&21,"01N# "1# -)#2(&)-:0"# )"2# 8,-0.-8%&Q# 8(-012# 4"# 43$%1+# ?&-#.(021-1&"01# %&1%01# 45%Q"2# ?&-# 4(-'"01# (,-"01",#)"2# 1,%'%&Q# "0# .(&,2# "1# ;# '"0-,F# G"# 8,"*-",#8,($)=*"#"21#.")&-#4"#)%#'-2-$-)-13#%,./3()(:-?&"#4"2# 2-1"2# )"2# 8)&2# %0.-"02# L?&5-)# H%&1# 2%02#4(&1"# ./",./",# 2&,# 4"2# 8%)3(4&0"2+# 432(,*%-2#-**",:3"2+# "1# 4%02# )%# *(01%:0"N# _# )"# 2".(04#.(0.",0"#)"2#*(4%)-132#4&#8%22%:"#45&0"#2(.-313#4"#./%22"&,2D.())".1"&,2#;#."))"#45%:,-.&)1"&,2D3)"'"&,2# ^# 3'()&1-(0# )(.%)"# (&# %88(,1# 4"#0(&'"))"2# 8(8&)%1-(02# '"0&"2# 4&# T,(./"DR,-"01#m#G5"Q8(23#45RF#[(&c%#8(,1"#2&,#)"#JJJ"#*-))30%-,"F#G"#8(-01#4"#'&"#%4(813+#2&,8)(*$%01#)5"02"*$)"#4"# )%#>34-1",,%03"#(,-"01%)"# 2&,# )%#)(0:&"#4&,3"+#0"#8",*"1#8%2#',%-*"01#4"#K&:",#4"#)%#8",1-0"0."#4"2#,%88,(./"*"012#8,(8(232F#lF# [%22-%0-4(&# (HH,"# &0"# 2701/=2"# ;# )%# H(-2#.)%-,"#"1#8(-01&"#2&,#)%#*31%))&,:-"#4&#.&-',"#;#)5W:"#4&#U,(0S"#L?&"#2"2#1,%'%&Q#(01#)%,:"*"01#.(01,-$&3# ;# H%-,"# .(00%k1,"NF# j))"# "Q8)(-1"#1(&1"2#)"2#2(&,."2#4-28(0-$)"2#L%,./3()(:-?&"2+#%,./3(*31,-?&"2#"1#1"Q1&"))"2N+#4(01#"))"#8(-01"#)"2# -04-.%1-(02# 8%,H(-2# .(01,%4-.1(-,"2# ^# -)# "21#%-02-#,"*%,?&%$)"#45($2",'",#)"#43'")(88"*"01#4"#)%#*31%))&,:-"#4&#.&-',"#%&#!/78,-(1"#>(7"0#L%'".# &0"# 1"./0-?&"# .",1"2# "0.(,"# 8,-*-1-'"#%'%01# )5-0'"01-(0# 4"# )%# 1&7=,"N# "1# 4"# '(-,#!/78,"#%88%,%k1,"+#2(&2# )"#0(*#45<)%2-%+#4%02#)"2# 2(&,."2#(,-"01%)"2#4=2# )"#,!,"# 2-=.)"+# 1%04-2#?&"# )5%,./3()(:-"# 0"# ,"04# .(*81"# 45%&.&0#

./%0:"*"01# 4%02# )%# 1(8(:,%8/-"# 4"2# 2-1"2+#4-28",232# "0# '-))%:"2F#G5"Q8)(-1%1-(0# 4&# .&-',"#"1# 2(0# .(**",."# (01# .",1%-0"*"01# "&# &0# ,n)"#431",*-0%01# 4%02# )5/-21(-,"# 4"# !/78,"+# *%-2#-)# H%&1# %&22-# 8,"04,"# "0# .(02-43,%1-(0# 45%&1,"2#H%.1"&,2+# ,"28(02%$)"2# 45%&1,"2# 1"*8(,%)-132F#o# 2%# 2&-1"+# pF# T%8%2%''%2# %$(,4"# )"# 2&K"1# 4"#)%# *31%))&,:-"# 4&# $,(0S"# ;# 8%,1-,# 4"# )531&4"#4"2# 8,(4&.1-(02F# J)# ./(-2-1# ?&%1,"# :,(&8"2# ^#)"2# 2&88(,12# 4"# ./%&4,(02+# )"2# H-:&,-0"2#%01/,(8(*(,8/"2+# )"2# )-0:(12#*-0-%1&,"2# "1# )"2#.,%1=,"2#%*8/(,(q4"2F#G5"Q8(23+#?&-#,"8(2"#2&,#&0"# %0%)72"# 2",,3"# 4"2# 431%-)2# ?&-# ,3'=)"01# )"2#1"./0-?&"2#4"#H%$,-.%1-(0+#"21#"Q"*8)%-,"F#R0#0"#*"01-(00",%#-.-#?&"#)531&4"#4&#6#4-"&#%&#)-0:(1#9#45j0c(*-#4(01#)5%&1"&,#*(01,"#?&5-)#%#313#.,33#8%,# )5%K(&1# 45&0# 2&88(,1# "0# H(,*"# 4"# )-0:(1#"0#8"%&#4"#$r&H#;#&0#2,/&/-6'6$7# L:,s."#;# )%#1"./0-?&"#4&#8+2&/-6'$-N+#*",'"-))"&Q#"Q"*8)"#4"#$,-.()%:"#1"./0-?&"#?&-#,"H)=1"#&0#$,-.()%:"#-4"01-1%-,"# 8%,1-.&)-=,"*"01# ,3&22-F# O",0-=,"#31&4"# :303,%)"+# ."))"# 4"# ZF# T%8%4-*-1,-(&+#%4(81"#&0#8(-01#4"#'&"#3:3"0#8(&,#)5%0%)72"#4"2#,")%1-(02#.(**",.-%)"2#"01,"# )%#p,=."+#!/78,"#"1#)"#T,(./"DR,-"01#L4(01#)5t:781"NF

O"&Q# %,1-.)"2# ,"04"01# .(*81"# 4"# H(&-))"2#,3."01"2#4"#2-1"2#4"#)5W:"#4&#U,(0S"F#!")&-#4"#pF# p-(,:-(&# 8(,1"# 2&,# 2"2# 1,%'%&Q# ;# Z-.(2-"D.6/+' 9+%+2:";/F# J)# 8,3.-2"# )%# 1(8(:,%8/-"# 4"#)5(..&8%1-(0#4"#)%#03.,(8()"#"1#8&$)-"#.",1%-0"2#4"2# 43.(&'",1"2# *%13,-"))"2# )"2# 8)&2# 0(1%$)"2F#G"2# 4"&Q# *%?&"11"2+# ?&5-)# ,%88,(./"# %'".#,%-2(0# 45"Q"*8)%-,"2# 2-*-)%-,"2# 4"# U"))%8%q2D<$1-$12+# 2(01# "Q."81-(00"))"2# ^# )5%&1"&,#,".(00%k1+# 2&,# )5&0"+# )%# ,"8,32"01%1-(0# 45&0#2&88(,1# 4"# .&-22(0# L3)3*"01# .%,%.13,-21-?&"#0(&'"%&# -01,(4&-1# %&# *(*"01# 4"# )%# 8/%2"# 4"#T/-)-%+#.(**"#)5(01#$-"0#*(01,3#)"2#H(&-))"2#4"#>%,c-D.=$-/+N#"1#-)#2(&)-:0"#)5%0%./,(0-2*"#4"#)%#H(,*"#%,./-1".1&,%)"+#.-,.&)%-,"+#?&-#,"0'(-"#;#4"2#*(4=)"2#438%2232#4&#!/%).()-1/-?&"F#l(-);#&0#$")#"Q"*8)"#4"#.(*8,(*-2+#;#)%#H(,1"#./%,:"#27*$()-?&"+# "01,"# 0(&'"%&13# "1# 1,%4-1-(0F#OF# T-)-4"2# (HH,"# &0# ,%88(,1# 8,3)-*-0%-,"# 2&,#

COMPTES RENDUS 355

2"2# 1,%'%&Q# "0# .(&,2# 4%02# )%# ,3:-(0# 45<:-(2#](S(*"0(2# ^# 2&,# &0# 1",,%-0# 43K;# $-"0# $%)-23#8%,# 4"2# 1,%'%&Q# %013,-"&,2# LH(&-))"2# 2&34(-2"2#"1# 8,(28".1-(02# 4&# 45#%12' >1%;"5N+# )5"*8)(-#4"#0(&'"))"2#1"./0-?&"2#"0#2&88(,1#;#)%#H(&-))"#L]Jp#"1#8,(28".1-(02#:3(8/72-?&"2N#8",*"1#4"#.(*8)31",#)%#.%,1"#%,./3()(:-?&"#4"#)%#S(0"F#

G%# 8,(8(,1-(0# 4"2# .(01"0&2# L"01,"# 31&4"2#:303,%)"2# "1# "Q%*"0# 4"# 2-1"2# 8%,1-.&)-",2N# "21#-0'",2"# 8(&,# )5W:"# 4&# X",F# d(&2# )"2# %,1-.)"2#2(01+#"0#"HH"1+#4"2#31&4"2#4"#.%2+#;#)5"Q."81-(0#4"#.")&-#45jF#>%,c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`1,"#8)&2#:,%'"2#?&"#."#?&5"0# ,%88(,1"# u3,(4(1"+# %&# 8(-01# 45"01,%k0",#)%# 4-28%,-1-(0# 4"# .",1%-02# ,(7%&*"2# LH%&1D-)#.(*8,"04,"#?&5"))"#2",%-1#1"013"#45%11,-$&",#)"2#*(00%-"2#4&#1,32(,#;#&0#,(7%&*"#4"#G34,%#4(01#(0#05%#8)&2#1,%."#%8,=2#)"2#)-21"2#%227,-"00"2#mNF#R&# "0.(,"# ."))"# ?&-# *"1# "0# ,")%1-(0# )"# :,(2#'()&*"# 453*-22-(02# 4"# )%# 1,"01-=*"# %003"# 4&#,=:0"# 4"# T&*%77%1(0# %'".# 4"2# 8,38%,%1-H2# "0#'&"#4"#8(,1",#2".(&,2#%&Q#d7,-"02#%22-3:32#8%,#<)"Q%04,"F#J)#"21#.",1%-0#?&"#)"2#,(-2#./78,-(1"2#(01#4v#̀ 1,"#2())-.-132#%&#.(&,2#4"#."2#3'30"*"012+#*%-2# ,-"0# 05-04-?&"# 2v,"*"01# ?&")# .%*8#T&*%77%1(0#%'%-1#./(-2-#^#45%8,=2#T)&1%,?&"+#)"#'-"&Q#,(-#4"#[-1-(0#%'%-1#(HH",1#&0"#383"#4-:0"#4"#*"01-(0#;#<)"Q%04,"#"1#)5(.1,(-#4"#d%*%22(2#;#T071%:(,%2#4"#]%)%*-0"#L2"&)#*"01-(003#8%,#)"2# 2(&,."2# %&Q# .n132# 45<)"Q%04,"# 8"04%01# )"#2-=:"#4"#d7,N#8"&1#`1,"#%&22-#-01",8,313#.(**"#&0"#,3.(*8"02"+#'(-,"#&0"#,38%,%1-(0#"0'",2#."#

4",0-",+# "1# 0(0#8%2# .(**"#&0#8&0-1-(0# 4&# ,(-#./78,(D8/30-.-"0F#

>F# J%.('(&#8%,1# 45&0"# )".1&,"# H(,1"+# ?&5"))"#%88)-?&"# 4"# *%0-=,"# 27213*%1-?&"+# 8(&,#43.(021,&-,"# )"# 8%72%:"# 3.(0(*-?&"# %.1&")# 4"#[(&c)-%# "1# ,"1,(&'",# .")&-# 4"# T%)%"8%8/(2+# "1#"))"#(HH,"#&0#,32&*3#4"2#H(&-))"2#*"03"2#4"8&-2#@AAi# 8%,# )5P0-'",2-13# 4"# !/78,"# 2(&2# H(,*"#4"# K(&,0%)+# 8)%.3# "0# %00"Q"F# G"2# 43.(&'",1"2#"Q."81-(00"))"2#4"2#03.,(8()"2#4"# )5<0.-"00"DT%8/(2# Lj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l-()%,-2#"1#jF#]1"8/%0-N#2(01+#"))"2+#-034-1"2#"1#1(&1#;#H%-1#2"02%1-(00"))"2F#G5"Q-21"0."# 4"# 1(*$"2# .(021,&-1"2+# 4%1%$)"2#4&# !/78,(Dp3(*31,-?&"# JJ+# (HH,"# &0#0(&'"%&# K%)(0# 8(&,# *-"&Q# %88,3/"04",# )"#43'")(88"*"01# 45&0"# %,./-1".1&,"# H&03,%-,"#178-?&"*"01#%*%1/(&2-"00"#L%'".#&0#*(4"#4"#.(&'",1&,"# "0# 4%))"2# 1(&1# ;# H%-1# 8%,1-.&)-",N+# "1#K"#2",%-2# 1"013"#4"#2&-',"# )"2#%&1"&,2# )(,2?&5-)2#8,(8(2"01# &0# ,%88,(./"*"01# %'".# .",1%-0"2#1(*$"2# 45j0c(*-# L4(01# -)2# ,"*%,?&"01#1(&1"H(-2# 8,&4"**"01# ?&5"))"2# 2(01# )%,:"*"01#%013,-"&,"2NF# J)# ,"21"# ;# 3)&.-4",# )"# ,%88(,1#

@F# G"# 2%,.(8/%:"# %'%-1# 313# 31&4-3# "0# 431%-)# ^#jF# V%81(&+# 6# !&)1&,"# :,".?&"# "1# 1,%4-1-(0# (,-"01%)"#;# T%8/(2# 9+# 44A4# fe+# @AAe# LB$,,+6"' C' .--/"'4+1D"&N+#8F#fAeDf@hF#P0#./(-Q#4"#1(*$"2#L)"2#*`*"2#?&"# ."))"2# ?&-# 2(01# 8,32"013"2# -.-N# %# 313# 8&$)-3# 4"#H%w(0# "Q/%&21-'"# 8%,# lF# [%,%:"(,:/-2+# jF# V%81(&+#E"8%$#$="/2'+&'9+=+"#+#)$2'(%$,'&)"'"-7'$('&)"'@+&"'F%$-G"' .6"' &$' &)"' 45#%$H.%8)+/8' #"%/$7+# Z-.(2-"+#@ABCF

356 CCEC 47, 2017

"01,"#."2#1(*$"2#"1# )"2#.(021,&.1-(02#43:%:3"2#"0# 2&,H%."# L*&,2# 43)-*-1%01# 4-HH3,"01"2#.(021,&.1-(02# .-,.&)%-,"2+# 4"# 4-%*=1,"# '%,-3NF#J)# ,"21"# 3:%)"*"01# ;# "0# 8,3.-2",# )%# 4%1%1-(0# ^#)%# 43.(&'",1"# 4"# 21=)"2# 1"04# ;#*(01,",# ?&"# )"#2-1"#%#.(02",'3#2%#'(.%1-(0#H&03,%-,"+#%&#*(-02#K&2?&5%&#43$&1#4"#)538(?&"#/"))30-21-?&"F#T"&1D`1,"# 8"&1D(0# 2&::3,",# &0"# .(*8%,%-2(0# %'".#)"2# %*30%:"*"012# L*&,2# 45"0.)(2# "1# *%22-H2#8(,1"D21=)"2N#4"#)%#03.,(8()"#1%,4(D%,./%q?&"#"1#.)%22-?&"# 4"# ]%)%*-0"D4"==+%:+#fF# G"2# H(&-))"2#4&# 8%)%-2# 45J4%)-(0# L>F# u%4K-.(21-N# 2(01# 8)&2#%0.-"00"2+# *%-2# .5"21# )%# 8,"*-=,"# H(-2# ?&5(0#4-28(2"#45&0"#8,32"01%1-(0#%&22-#431%-))3"#L%'".#&0#8)%0#4"#)534-H-."NF#G"#.(01"Q1"#4"#43.(&'",1"#4"2#6#%,./-'"2#9#8/30-.-"00"2#L.",1%-02#$2&%+8+'2",%-"01#"0#8(2-1-(0#8,-*%-,"+#45%&1,"2#%&,%-"01#313#,3&1-)-232#4%02#)%#,"./%,:"#4"#2()2N#"21#"Q8(23F#o# )%# 2&-1"+# >FpF#<*%4%2-# p&SS(# 8,32"01"# )"#1,%'%-)#"HH".1&3#"0#'&"#4"#)%#8&$)-.%1-(0#4"#."2#1"Q1"2+# 4"# )".1&,"# 4-HH-.-)"# "1# 4(01# )%# 4%1%1-(0#253./")(00"# 2&,#8,%1-?&"*"01# 1(&1# )"# !""# 2-=.)"#L"1#8"&1D`1,"#*`*"#)"#43$&1#4&#!!!"#2-#)%#*"01-(0#4"#T1()3*3"#,"0'(-"#;#)%#83,-(4"#4"#,"8,-2"#4"#)5k)"+#;#8%,1-,#4"#@gf#%'F#MFD!FNF#G5&0#4"2#%.?&-2#)"2#8)&2#,"*%,?&%$)"2#"21#45%-))"&,2#4"#*(01,",#?&"# ."2# 6# %,./-'"2# 9# (01# 313# 1"0&"2# 4"8&-2#)"# ,=:0"# 4"# >-)c7%1(0# K&2?&5;# T1()3*3"+# "0#8%22%01# 8%,#<01-:(0"# "1#O3*31,-(2# T()-(,.=1"+#1(&2#*"01-(0032#4%02#)"2#1"Q1"2#^#.5"21#)"#2-:0"#3'-4"01# 45&0"# .(01-0&-13# %4*-0-21,%1-'"+# %'%01#"1#%8,=2#)5"Q3.&1-(0#4&#4",0-",#,"8,32"01%01#4"#)%#470%21-"#,(7%)"#c-1-"00"F#G%#*"01-(0#4"#6#,(-#45<)%2-%#9+#3'(?&3"#)(,2#4"#)%#.(**&0-.%1-(0+#05%88%,%k1#8%2#4%02# )5%,1-.)"#8&$)-3+#?&-#*3,-1"#45`1,"# .(*8)313# 8%,# &0# %&1,"# %,1-.)"# ,3."01#CF#

3. lF#[%,%:"(,:/-2+#AI8+;+&/$-2'/-'&)"'E"8%$#$=/2'$('>+=+,/2#JJ+#Z-.(2-"+#BgeAF

CF# >FpF# <*%4%2-# p&SS(+# MF<F# x%*(,%# Gy8"S+#6#G5%,./-'-(#H"0-.-(#4-#J4%)-(0#^#21%1(#4"))%#,-.",./"#9+#>",/&/8+'"'4=+22/8+'g+#@ABi+#8F#BheDBgf#^#)"2#%&1"&,2#7#*"01-(00"01# )"2# %11"21%1-(02# 4"# 8)&2-"&,2# 4-'-0-132#L0(1%**"01# U%%)# 4"#[-1-(0# "1# V"2/"8/D>-c%)+# 43K;#.(00&2# 8%,# 4"2# -02.,-81-(02N+# "1# -)2# 25-01",,(:"01# 2&,#

G"# 4",0-",# 2-1"# 8,32"013+# .")&-# 4"# )538%'"# 4"#>%S(1(2# L]1F# O"*"21-./%N+# 05"21# 8"&1D`1,"#./78,-(1"# ?&"# 8%,# %..-4"01# ^# )"# 0%'-,"+# %'".#2%# .%,:%-2(0# 8,"2?&"# "Q.)&2-'"# 4"# '-0# ./-(1"+#'"0%-1#45t:3"F

!"#,-./"#(&',%:"#"21#&0"#-0430-%$)"#,3&22-1"+#"1#&0#(&1-)#-04-28"02%$)"+#1%01#8(&,#)"2#31&4-%012#?&"# 8(&,# )"2# 283.-%)-21"2F# R0# "0# 2(&/%-1"# )%#1,%4&.1-(0#"0#%0:)%-2+#%H-0#4"#1(&./",#&0#8&$)-.#8)&2#'%21"F#G5&0#4"2#1,%-12#)"2#8)&2#,"*%,?&%$)"2#4"#)5"02"*$)"+#?&-#1,%'",2"#4-%./,(0-?&"*"01#)%#8)&8%,1#4"2# "Q8(232+# "21# )5%11"01-(0# ,"0(&'")3"#?&-#"21#432(,*%-2#8(,13"#;#)5"28%."#-013,-"&,F#G%#43.(&'",1"# 45&0# .%*8"*"01# 38-8%)3()-1/-?&"#4%02# )%# *(01%:0"# L;#l,"12-%D!$17/+N+# )%# *-2"#"0# 3'-4"0."# 45&0"# (..&8%1-(0# )(0:&"# L4"8&-2#%&#*(-02#)"#TTZ<N#4"2#.(01,"H(,12#(,-"01%&Q#4&#d,((4(2+#)5-*8(,1%0."#4"2#,-'-=,"2#z##0(1%**"01#)"# p-%)-%2+# 4(01# (0# 4(&1",%# 1(&1"H(-2# ?&5-)# %-1#K%*%-2#313#0%'-:%$)"E##z#"1#4"2#*-0"2#4"#.&-',"+#)"2#1,%'%&Q#,3."012#4%02#)%#,3:-(0#45J4%)-(0#"1#4"#Z-.(2-"+#)531&4"#4"2#%,,-=,"D8%72#L%-02-#;#T%8/(2N#.(*8)=1"01# &0# 8%72%:"# 1,(8# 2(&'"01# ,34&-1# ;#2"2#2-1"2#&,$%-02#.n1-",2F#!5"21#);#8"&1D`1,"#&0"#0(&'"))"#,3'()&1-(0#6#./78,(D."01,-?&"i#9+#T(&,#,"8,"04,"#)5"Q8,"22-(0#H(,:3"#8%,#>F#J%.('(&+##^#(0#25%HH,%0./-1#4(,30%'%01#4&#2"&)#8(-01#4"#'&"#"Q13,-"&,+#*%,-0+#.")&-#4&#83,-8)"+#8(&,#%4(81",#.")&-#4"#)5-02&)%-,"#"1#"0'-2%:",#)5k)"#4%02#1(&1"#2%#4-'",2-13#:3(:,%8/-?&"F

]%$-0"#-)*((!.(

)%# 0%1&,"# 4"# ."2# %,./-'"2+# ?&-# 2"*$)"01# .(*8,"04,"#;#)%#H(-2#4"2#6#*-0&1"2#9+#4"2#.(,,"28(04%0."2#"1#4"2#%,./-'"2#8)&2# )(0:&"2+# H%-2%01# )"#$-)%0#45%.1-'-132#4"#8)&2-"&,2#*(-2F

EF##u78(1/=2"#*"01-(003"#8F#ghF

iF# 6#<4'(.%1-0:# !78,(."01,-.-2*^#<0# J04-:"0(&2#>(4")# H(,# 1/"# j*",:"0."# (H# ]1%1"# X(,*%1-(0# (0#!78,&2#9+#4%02#$-' &)"' .%8)+"$=$65' +-7' B/2&$%5' $(' &)"' A+2&"%-'J"7/&"%%+-"+-'/-'B$-$%'$('>"5,$1%'?/&/-+#M3,&2%)"*+#@AAe+#8F#CiBDCeEF

COMPTES RENDUS 357

G"# ./(-Q# 4"# T%8/(2# .(**"# 6# !%8-1%)"#"&,(83"00"# 4"# )%# .&)1&,"# 9# "0# @ABe# z# &0"#8,"*-=,"#8(&,#!/78,"#z#*3,-1%-1#45`1,"#.3)3$,3#%'%01# )53'30"*"01# )&-D*`*"# ^# .5"21# ."# ?&5(01#H%-1+# ;# )5%&1(*0"# @AB@+# !)%-,"# U%)%04-",+#4-,".1,-."# 4"# )%# *-22-(0# %,./3()(:-?&"#H,%0w%-2"#;#T%8/(2+#"1#j&21%1/-(2#V%81(&+#%)(,2#,"28(02%$)"# 4&# O-21,-.1# 4"# T%8/(2# %&# 2"-0# 4&#O38%,1"*"01# 4"2# <01-?&-132# 4"# !/78,"+# "0#(,:%0-2%01#;#)5P0-'",2-13#45<'-:0(0#"1#4"2#T%72#4"#l%&.)&2"#&0#.())(?&"# -01",0%1-(0%)#4(01# )"2#%.1"2#(01#313#8&$)-32#8%,#)"2#34-1-(02#<&2(0-&2+#4%02#&0"#8,32"01%1-(0#4"#1,=2#$"))"#?&%)-13F#

!"2# .-,.(021%0."2# 8%,1-.&)-=,"2# "Q8)-?&"01#?&"# )5(&',%:"# 25%./='"# 8%,# )5-01",'"01-(0# 4"#MF# >(01%-:0%.# L6# G"2# .%8-1%)"2# "&,(83"00"2#4"# )%# .&)1&,"# ^# )5"0K"&# 8%1,-*(0-%)# 9N+# %4K(-01#%&# *%-,"# 45<'-:0(0# "1# "Q8",1# %&8,=2# 4"2#6# !%8-1%)"2# "&,(83"00"2# 4"# )%# .&)1&,"# 9+# ?&-#,%88"))"#)5/-21(-,"#4"#."11"#"01,"8,-2"#*%,?&%01"#4"#)5P0-(0#"&,(83"00"+#4&"#;#&0"#-0-1-%1-'"#4"#>")-0%# >",.(&,-# "0# BghE+# "1# 8%,# ."))"# 4"# dF#X-)-88-4-2+#2".,31%-,"#:303,%)#4"#)%#*&0-.-8%)-13#4"#T%8/(2+#2&,#)"#8,(K"1#*-2#"0#r&',"#8(&,#@ABe#L6# T%8/(2# @ABe# j&,(8"%0# !%8-1%)# (H# !&)1&,"#!%04-4%1"# !-17# 9NF# !"2# 4"&Q# .(**&0-.%1-(02#2(01# 8,3.343"2+# 4%02# )%# 1,(-2-=*"# 8%,1-"# 4&#)-',"+# -01-1&)3"# 6# G"# 8%1,-*(-0"# ;# )538,"&'"#4"2# 2-=.)"2# 9+# 4"# 1,(-2# %,1-.)"2# .(02%.,32# ;# 4"2#1,%'%&Q# 4"# .(02",'%1-(0# "1# 4"# *-2"# "0# '%)"&,#4&# 8%1,-*(-0"# 4"# Z"%# T%8/(2# ^# .")&-# 45jF#u%4K-21"8/%0(&#L6#T,%.1-.%)#<88,(%./"2#-0#1/"#!(02",'%1-(0#(H#Y%))#T%-01-0:2#-0#Z"%#T%8/(2#9N#-))&21,"#)%#,-./"22"#z#"Q."81-(00"))"#;#!/78,"#z#4"2# 8"-01&,"2# *&,%)"2# 4538(?&"# /"))30-21-?&"#"1+#2&,1(&1+#-*83,-%)"#L&0#.",1%-0#0(*$,"#45"01,"#"))"2# 2(01# "0.(,"# -034-1"2N+# 1%04-2# ?&"# MFD!)F#U"22%.# "1# !)F# U%)%04-",# -02-21"01# ;# K&21"# 1-1,"#

2&,# )%#03."22-13#4"#8,(13:",#?&")?&"2D&0"2#4"2#0(*$,"&2"2# 21,&.1&,"2# 2(&1",,%-0"2# (&# 2"*-D"01",,3"2# .(00&"2# 2&,# )"# 2-1"# L6# V3H)"Q-(02#2&,# )%# .(02",'%1-(0# "1# )%# 8,32"01%1-(0# 4"2#21,&.1&,"2# ,&8"21,"2# 4"# )%# .())-0"# 4"# K+D%/:+#LT%8/(2N#^#8,(8(2-1-(02#8,3)-*-0%-,"2#9N+#"1#?&"#TF#[(&12()%*$,(2#8,32"01"+#4%02#)%#8",28".1-'"#4"#@ABe+#6#<#T,(8(2%)#1(#O70%*-.%))7#V"4"H-0"#1/"# V")%1-(02/-8# $"1b""0# 1/"# <0.-"01# %04#>(4",0# !-17# (H# T%8/(2# 9F# !"# 4",0-",# %,1-.)"#8",*"1#4"#8(2",#&0#8,($)=*"#?&-#%HH".1"#4"8&-2#)(0:1"*82# )531&4"# 4"2# '"21-:"2# %01-?&"2# "1#*34-3'%&Q# 4"# T%8/(2# ^# )5%$2"0."# 45&0# 8)%0#1(8(:,%8/-?&"#4"#,3H3,"0."+#.(*8%,%$)"#;#."&Q#4(01# )5(0# 4-28(2"# 8(&,# T%)%"8%8/(2+#[(&,-(0+#<*%1/(01"# "1# [-1-(0aG%,0%.%+# &0# 2-1"# "0.(,"#8)&2# H(,1"*"01# .(0H,(013# ;# )%# 2&8",8(2-1-(0#4"2# '-))"2# %01-?&"# "1# *(4",0"BF# G"2# H-:&,"2# B#"1#@#4"#."1#%,1-.)"#4(00"01#"0#"HH"1#z#$-"0#?&"#)%#432-:0%1-(0#4"2#*(0&*"012#2(-1# -))-2-$)"#2&,#)%# H-:F#@#"1#?&5-)#057#%-1# %&.&0"# )3:"04"#2&,# )%#8,"*-=,"# z# &0"# *"-))"&,"# -*%:"# 4"# )5"28%."#&,$%-0#4"#Z"%#T%8/(2#?&"#)"2#8)%02#,"8,(4&-12#4%02# )%# 8)&8%,1# 4"2# %&1,"2# .(01,-$&1-(02F#!5"21#)5-04-."# 2%02# 4(&1"# )"# 8)&2# .%,%.13,-21-?&"#4&# ,")%1-H# 432-013,`1# %,./3()(:-?&"# 4(01# %#2(&HH",1# T%8/(2# 8%,# ,%88(,1# %&Q# %&1,"2# :,%042#2-1"2# %01-?&"2# 4"# )5k)"+# *%):,3# )"2# ,"./",./"2#"01,"8,-2"2# 8%,# 1,(-2# :,%04"2# 8",2(00%)-132# ;#?&-# )534-1,-."# ,"04# K&21"*"01# /(**%:"+# [F#Z-.()%(&+# [F# >-./% (b2c-# L8,"*-",# 4-,".1"&,#

1. Comme on le sait, la ville de Ktima/Paphos proprement dite se trouve sur la hauteur, à peu de distance à l’intérieur des terres, alors que le site antique est près de la mer, mais ce quartier de Kato Paphos a lui aussi été fortement urbanisé au cours des dernières décennies.

6. Claire BALANDIER (éd.), Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote, de l’antiquité à nos jours. Études archéologiques, historiques et patrimoniales. Actes du 1er colloque international sur Paphos, Avignon 30, 31 octobre et 1er novembre 2012, Ausonius éditions, Mémoires 43, Bordeaux, 2016, 438 p., nombreuses illustrations en noir et blanc et en couleurs. ISBN 978-2-35613-163-8

358 CCEC 47, 2017

4"#)%#*-22-(0#8()(0%-2"N#"1#TF#>":%b#z+#8&-2#8%,#4-HH3,"01"2#3?&-8"2#./78,-(1"2#"1#31,%0:=,"2F###

G"# .())(?&"# 45<'-:0(0# .(021-1&"# &0"#8,"*-=,"# 31%8"# -*8(,1%01"# 4%02# )"# ,"0(&D'"))"*"01# "1# )5%88,(H(04-22"*"01# 4"# 0(2#.(00%-22%0."2# 2&,# &0"# '-))"# H(043"# 2"&)"*"01#'",2# )%# H-0# 4&# !""# 2-=.)"# %'F# MFD!F+# *%-2# ?&-#"21# 4"'"0&"+# 4%02# )%# 4"&Q-=*"# 8%,1-"# 4"#)%# 4(*-0%1-(0# 81()3*%q?&"+# )%# .%8-1%)"#%4*-0-21,%1-'"# "1# 8()-1-?&"# 4"# )5k)"+# "1# 4(01#)5-*8(,1%0."# 0"# 25"21# 8%2# 43*"01-"# K&2?&5;#)538(?&"#8%)3(./,31-"00"F#G%#8,"*-=,"#8%,1-"#4&#)-',"+#6#G%#,"./",./"#%,./3()(:-?&"#;#T%8/(2#9+#,%22"*$)"#4%02#&0#8,"*-",#./%8-1,"#&0#"02"*$)"#4"# 4-Q# %,1-.)"2# .(02%.,32# %&Q# 6# 4(003"2# 4&#1",,%-0# "1# 4"2# H(&-))"2# 9F# !"11"# &1-)"# *-2"# %&#8(-01# 25(&',"# 2&,#&0"#8,32"01%1-(0#2701/31-?&"#4"#)%#1(8(:,%8/-"#4"#Z"%#T%8/(2#"1#4"#)5/-21(-,"#4"2#,"./",./"2#4"#1",,%-0+#4&"#;#MF#> 70%,.S7c+#*"*$,"# "22"01-"))"# 4"# )%# *-22-(0# 8()(0%-2"#"1# %&1"&,+# "0# BggA+# 45&0# (&',%:"# 4"# ,3H3,"0."#2&,# )%# '-))"# /"))30-21-?&"F# G5%$2"0."# 45&0# 8)%0#"21# -.-# ,":,"11%$)"+# 4"#*`*"#?&"#4%02# )5%,1-.)"#2&-'%01+# 4%02# )"?&")# jF# V%81(&# 8,32"01"+# "0#8)&2#4"#?&")?&"2#%28".12#4"#2"2#1,%'%&Q#,3."012#2&,#45%&1,"2#2-1"2#%01-?&"2#4&#4-21,-.1#L[(&c)-%+#>%,-(0N+# &0# %8",w&# 4"# 2"2# ,"./",./"2# 4%02#8)&2-"&,2# 03.,(8()"2# 2-1&3"2# ;# [1-*%aT%8/(2#"1# ;# [%1(# T%8/(2# ^# 0(1(02+# "0# 8%,1-.&)-",+# )"2#31(00%01"2# 1(*$"2# 4"# ./-"02# *-2"2# %&# K(&,# ;#?=5:5'E"%$+# 8,=2# 4"# )%# 8(,1"# 0(,4D(&"21# 4"# )%#'-))"+# ?&"# )5%&1"&,# %'%-1# .(**"013"2# "0# 431%-)#4%02#0(1,"#4+)/"%#@AAgF#G"2#%&1,"2#%,1-.)"2#4"#."#8,"*-",#./%8-1,"#2(01#.(02%.,32#%&Q#8,-0.-8%&Q#./%01-",2#"0#.(&,2#4"#H(&-))"2#(&#4"#8&$)-.%1-(0#L;#)5"Q."81-(0+#."8"04%01+#4"#.")&-#4"#)%#>%-2(0#45R,8/3"+# 4-,-:3# 8%,# OF# >-./%")-4=2+# "1# 4"2#1,%'%&Q# "HH".1&32# 8%,# ]F# u%4K-2%''%2# 4%02# )"2#6# 1(*$"2# 4"2# ,(-2# 9NF# jF# T%8&.-DY %47c%# "1#YF#>%./(b2c-#8,32"01"01#)"2#8,"*-",2#,32&)1%12#4"# )%# *-22-(0# 4"# )5&0-'",2-13# 4"# !,%.('-"+#?&-# 31&4-"# 4"8&-2# @ABB# )5%:(,%# 4"# )%# '-))"# ^#45-*8(,1%01"2# ,".(021,&.1-(02# 8%,%-22"01# 4%1",#4&# 43$&1# 4"# )538(?&"# -*83,-%)"+# ;# )%# 2&-1"+#8"&1D`1,"+# 4&# 1,"*$)"*"01# 4"# 1",,"# 4"# BEaBC#

%'F# MFD!F+# &0# 3'30"*"01# ?&-# 2",%-1# ;# )5(,-:-0"#45%&1,"2#,3%*30%:"*"012#&,$%-02+#"0#8%,1-.&)-",#.")&-# 45&0"#*%-2(0# 4(13"# 45&0# ,-./"#*($-)-",+#,".(021,&-1"#%8,=2#."11"#4%1"#4%02#)"#?&%,1-",#4"#J+=$1&"-++# -.-# 8,32"013"# 8%,# 2(0# H(&-))"&,#YF#<F#O%2S"b2c-#z# %.1"&,#*%K"&,+# 4"8&-2#EA# %02+#4"# )%# ,"./",./"# %,./3()(:-?&"# ;# Z"%# T%8/(2F#XF# p-&4-."# H%-1# )"# $-)%0# 4"# @E# %02# 4"# H(&-))"2#LBghhD@ABfN# 4"# )5&0-'",2-13# 4"# !%1%0"# 2&,# )"#2-1"# )(0:1"*82# %88")3# 6# p%,,-22(052# !%*8# 9+#*%-2# ?&-+# 8)&1n1# ?&5&0"# :%,0-2(0# *-)-1%-,"+#%$,-1%-1#1,=2#',%-2"*$)%$)"*"01#&0#(&#8)&2-"&,2#2%0.1&%-,"2+#"0#8%,1-"#2(&1",,%-02#̂ #.&,-"&2"*"01+#)5%&1"&,#0"# H%-1# %&.&0"#%))&2-(0#%&Q# H,%:*"012#%,./-1".1&,%&Q# 4538(?&"# /"))30-21-?&"# "1#-*83,-%)"#1,(&'32#;#."1#"04,(-1+#8&$)-32#"0#@ABE#8%,#GF#X&4&)-# 4%02# )"# .%4,"#4"2# ,"./",./"2#4"#)%#*-22-(0#-1%)-"00"@#_#-)#"21#4-HH-.-)"#45-4"01-H-",#)"2# .&)1"2# .3)3$,32# 4%02# ."11"# S(0"+# 8,(./"# 4&#,"*8%,1# 0(,4# 4"# )%# '-))"+# *%-2# (0# 0(1"# ?&5&0#1"22(0#%11-?&"#;#H-:&,"2#,(&:"2#?&-#0"#8"&1#:&=,"#`1,"#8(213,-"&,#;#fEADfCA#%11"21"#?&"#)"#2-1"#31%-1#H,3?&"013#%'%01#)%#H(04%1-(0#4"#)%#'-))"F#

G%#8%,1-"#(,-"01%)"#4"#)5"28%."#&,$%-0+#%&#)-"&D4-1#K+D%/:++#%#H%-1#"))"#%&22-# )5($K"1#4"#H(&-))"2#-*8(,1%01"2F# !"))"2# 4&# 1/3s1,"+# "01,"8,-2"2#"0# BggE# 8%,# &0"# *-22-(0# 4"# )5&0-'",2-13# 4"#]740"7+# (01# 8",*-2# 4"# .(*8,"04,"# )5/-21(-,"#4&# *(0&*"01# "1# 4"# 2(0# "0'-,(00"*"01#-**34-%1# L0(1",+# %&# 43$&1# 4"# )5%,1-.)"# 4"#!F# U%,c",+# &0# "Q."))"01# 8)%0# 4"# )%# '-))"+#*%-2# ,"8,(4&-1# ;# 8"1-1"# 3./"))"N# ^# ?&")?&"2#-02.,-81-(02# :,%'3"2# 2&,# )"2# 2-=:"2# -0'-1"01# ;#4%1",#)%#.(021,&.1-(0#4"#)534-H-."#'",2#)%#H-0#4&#!""#(&#)"#43$&1#4&#!!!"#2-=.)"+#&0"#4%1"#/%&1"#?&-#"01,"#"0#K"&#4%02#)"2#43$%12#2&,#)%#H(04%1-(0#4"#Z"%#T%8/(2+#.(**"#'",,%#8)&2#)(-0#_#)"#1/3s1,"#.(00%k1#"02&-1"#8)&2-"&,2#,"*%0-"*"012+#4(01#)"#8)&2#-*8(,1%01#"21#2-1&3#;#)538(?&"#%01(0-0"#L@"#*(-1-3#4&# !!"#2F#%8,F#MFD!FN+#*%-2#)%#.(021,&.1-(0#%4K%."01"# 45&0# 07*8/3"# "21# %013,-"&,"# ;# ."11"#

2. Voir le compte rendu de M.-Chr. Hellmann, CCEC 45, 2015, p. 451-453.

COMPTES RENDUS 359

4%1"F# G%# S(0"# ?&-# 2531"04# %&D4"22&2# 4"# ."1#34-H-."# "21# 31&4-3"#4"8&-2#@AAh#8%,# )%#*-22-(0#4"# )5&0-'",2-13# 45<'-:0(0# ?&"# 4-,-:"# !)%-,"#U%)%04-",F# j))"# 8,32"01"# -.-+# "0# .())%$(,%1-(0#%'".#>F#p&-01,%04+#&0"#2701/=2"#2&,#)5/-21(-,"#4"# ."# 2".1"&,# 0(,4D"21# 4"# )%# '-))"# %01-?&"+#4"'"0&# &0# ?&%,1-",# ,32-4"01-")# ;# )538(?&"#-*83,-%)"#z#"1#2%02#4(&1"#8)&2#1n1#43K;#z+#.(**"#)5%11"21"#)%#43.(&'",1"#45&0"#*%-2(0#4&#!",#2-=.)"#%8,F#MFD!F#43.(,3"#4"#8"-01&,"2#*&,%)"2#4(01#)%#.(*8(2-1-(0#"21#%0%)723"#4%02#&0#%,1-.)"#4"#!F#l-"-))".%S"2+#!F#M()-(1#"1#>F#>30%:",F#>%-2#."11"#S(0"#%'%-1#45%$(,4#313#&1-)-23"#.(**"#.%,,-=,"+#4(01#)"2#.,"&2"*"012#(01#8%,H(-2#313#,3%*30%:32#"0# )-"&Q# 4"# .&)1"+# .(**"# )"# *(01,"# MFD!)F#U"22%.#4%02#&0"#31&4"#?&-#438%22"#)"#.%4,"#4"#K+D%/:+F#O%02#)"#4",0-",#%,1-.)"#4"#."#./%8-1,"+#VF#!F#<04",2(0#H%-1#)"#8(-01#2&,#)"2#,"./",./"2#.(02%.,3"2# %&# ./s1"%&# *34-3'%)# 4"# >+%+-7+'L$=$-"2+#H(&-))3#8"04%01#4"#)(0:&"2#%003"2#8%,#T"1",# >":%b# ^# "01,"8,-2"# 8,($%$)"*"01# '",2#B@AA# 8%,# )"2# G&2-:0%0+# )%# .(021,&.1-(0# 4"# ."1#34-H-."#05%#8%2#313#%./"'3"+#2%02#4(&1"#;#.%&2"#4"2#4(**%:"2#"01,%k032#8%,#)"#1,"*$)"*"01#4"#1",,"#4"#B@@@F

!"11"#8,"*-=,"#8%,1-"# 4"# )5(&',%:"# 25%./='"#2&,#?&%1,"#6#t1&4"2#4"#*%13,-")#-22&#4"2#H(&-))"2#%,./3()(:-?&"2# 9# ^# )"2# *(00%-"2# 4"2# H(&-))"2#%&21,%)-"00"2# 4"# K+D%/:++# 8%,# <F# O"21,((8",Dp"(,:-%4=2# _# )"2# %*8/(,"2# 4"# 1,%028(,1#1,(&'3"2# ;#Z"%#T%8/(2+# 13*(-02# 4"2# 3./%0:"2#.(**",.-%&Q# 4"# )%# '-))"+# 8%,#<F# O($(.S# _# "1#4"&Q# .(01,-$&1-(02# 2&,# )"2# '",,"2+# )5&0"# 2&,#)"2# "Q"*8)%-,"2# 4538(?&"# /"))30-21-?&"# "1#-*83,-%)"#4&#1/3s1,"#"1#4&#,"21"#4"#)%#.())-0"#4"#K+D%/:+# LUF#>.!%))N+# )5%&1,"# 2&,# ."&Q# 1,(&'32#4%02# )"2# H(&-))"2# 8()(0%-2"2# 4"# Z"%# T%8/(2#LOF#>%S%0"cNF##

G%# 4"&Q-=*"# 8%,1-"# ,%22"*$)"# 4"2# 31&4"2#.(0.",0%01# 4"2# 6# <88,(./"2# /-21(,-?&"2# 4"#Z"%#T%8/(2#9F#G%#8,"*-=,"#45"01,"#"))"2+#4&"#;#jF#>%,c(&+#H%-1# )"#8(-01#2&,# )"#*(00%7%:"#4"2#,(-2#8%8/-"02#K&2?&5;#)%#./&1"#4"#Z-c(c)=2+#"0#8,3)&4"#;#&0#43$%1#2&,#)%#4%1"#"1#)"2#.(04-1-(02#4"#)%#H(04%1-(0#4"#)%#0(&'"))"#'-))"+#2&K"1#1,%-13#

4%02#)5%,1-.)"#4"#OF#l-1%2#"1+#8)&2#8%,1-"))"*"01+#4%02#.")&-#45<F#>"/)#4(01#)531&4"#H%-1#&0#$-)%0#45"02"*$)"# 2&,# )%# 8)%."# 4"# Z"%# T%8/(2# 4%02#)5%4*-0-21,%1-(0# 81()3*%q?&"# 4"# !/78,"# z#2701/=2"#?&"#8,()(0:"#)5%,1-.)"#4"#MF#R)-'-",#"1#TF# [""0# 2&,# )5%1")-",#*(031%-,"# 8%8/-"0F#l-1%2#"1# >"/)# 43H"04"01# )5-43"# ?&"# ."11"# -0-1-%1-'"#,"'-"01# ;# T1()3*3"+# %)(,2# 2%1,%8"# 45t:781"#"1# %))-3# 4"# Z-c(c)=2+# 4%02# )"2# %003"2# f@BDfB@afBB# z# "0# 1(&1# .%2# %'%01# fAiF# G5($K".1-H#8,-0.-8%)# %&,%-1# 313# 4"# .,3",# &0# 0(&'"%&# 8(,1#*-)-1%-,"# 8(&,# ,"*8)%.",# .")&-# 4"#T%)%"8%8/(2#"1# 4531%$)-,# );# 4"2# *",."0%-,"2+# ,"K(-012# 2%02#4(&1"# 8%,# &0"# 8%,1-"# 4"2# /%$-1%012# 4"#>%,-(0#%8,=2#)%#4"21,&.1-(0#4"#)%#'-))"#_#)%#8,32"0."#4"#p,".2# '"0&2# 4&# *(04"# 3:3"0# "Q8)-?&",%-1# )%#.(021,&.1-(0#8,3.(."#4&#1/3s1,"F#!"11"#/78(1/=2"#"21#8)&2#',%-2"*$)%$)"#?&"#."))"#?&-#H%-1#4&#,(-#Z-c(c)=2# )"# H(04%1"&,# 4"# Z"%# T%8/(2+# *`*"#2-+#.(**"#)"#,%88"))"#MF#[%,%:"(,:/-2#4%02#2(0#%,1-.)"+#)"#4",0-",#2(&'",%-0#)(.%)#%#K(&3#&0#,n)"#-*8(,1%01#4%02#)"#43'")(88"*"01#4"#4-HH3,"012#2%0.1&%-,"2# 4&# 1",,-1(-,"# 4"# 2(0# ,(7%&*"+#4(01# 1,=2# 8,($%$)"*"01+# ;# Z"%# T%8/(2+# ."&Q#45<,13*-2#<:,(1",%#"1#<8())(0#u7)%1=2+#'303,3#4%02# &0"# :,(11"# 8,(./"# 4"# )%# '-))"# 31&4-3"# -.-#8%,#{F#l",0"1+# "0# *`*"# 1"*82# ?&"# )"2# %&1,"2#13*(-:0%:"2#4&#.&)1"#45<8())(0#;#Z"%#T%8/(2F#R0#0"#2%&,%-1#3'(?&",#)"2#.&)1"2#8%8/-"02#2%02#8%,)",#4"#.")&-#45<8/,(4-1"#^#MFDUF#!%7)%#,"'-"01#2&,# )%# 4-HH-.-)"# ?&"21-(0# 4"# )%# )(.%)-2%1-(0# 4&#1"*8)"#45<8/,(4-1"#T%8/-"00"#4%02#)%#0(&'"))"#'-))"+# "1# 8,(8(2"# 4"# )"# 2-1&",# 4%02# )"# 2".1"&,#4"# )53:)-2"# 4"# )%# T%0%7-%# d/"(2c"8%21-# L|#d/"(2"$%21-# mN+# %&D4"22&2# 4&# 8(,1+# %&# 2&4D"21#4"# )%#'-))"# L)534-H-."#"21# -04-?&3#2&,# )"#8)%0#4"#)5%,1-.)"#4"#!F#U%,c",+#8F#gBNF

G538(?&"#-*83,-%)"#"21#*(-02#$-"0#,"8,32"013"#4%02#."#./%8-1,"#/-21(,-?&"#?&"#4%02#)"2#4(003"2#4"# H(&-))"2# ^# 4"&Q# %,1-.)"2# 2"&)"*"01+# &0# 4"#TF# p%,&1-# 2&,# 2%-01# T%&)# ;# T%8/(2# "1# &0# %&1,"#4"# dF# >%',(K%00-2# ?&-# 8,(8(2"# 45-4"01-H-",+# ;#)538(?&"#4"#!(021%01-0+#)%#6#>%-2(0#4"#d/323"#9#.(**"# )"# #%+"&$%/1,# 4"# )%# '-))"F# R0# 8%22"#"02&-1"# ;# )538(?&"#*34-3'%)"+# %'".# )531&4"# 4"#

360 CCEC 47, 2017

L’importance des deux missions chypriotes d’Edmond Duthoit – en 1862 avec Melchior de Vogüé et William Waddington, seul en 1865 – avait déjà été mise en évidence par L. Bonato et par d’autres, mais ce livre, magnifiquement édité par la Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, constitue désormais la référence sur la vie et l’œuvre de cet architecte au parcours original. Né à Amiens en 1837, d’un père sculpteur, dessinateur et décorateur, Duthoit commence à travailler comme maçon, à 13 ans, sur le chantier de la cathédrale d’Amiens, puis entre en 1857 dans l’atelier de Viollet-le-Duc à Paris, au moment de la restauration de Notre-Dame. Ces années de jeunesse et le contexte familial sont présentés dans la première partie du livre (« Edmond Duthoit en famille »), par deux articles richement illustrés, dus à Raphaële Delas et Monique Gossart-Ansart. En 1861, sur la recommandation de Viollet-le-Duc, de Vogüé engage Duthoit comme dessinateur pour la mission d’étude qu’il va diriger à Chypre, à la suite de celle d’Ernest Renan en Phénicie. Parti de Marseille le 22 décembre 1861 (c’est là que se trouve « le plus magnifique café du monde » mentionné dans le titre de l’ouvrage), il passe dans l’île quatre mois de l’année 1862, et le reste au Liban, à Jérusalem et en Syrie. Une seconde mission à Chypre a lieu de mai à août 1865. Ces séjours en Méditerranée orientale sont étudiés dans la deuxième partie de l’ouvrage (« Edmond

Duthoit en voyage ») par Lucie Bonato et, pour le travail artistique de Duthoit à Chypre, par Rita Severis, à partir d’une abondante documentation, essentiellement conservée au musée de Picardie à Amiens (voir à ce sujet, dans la quatrième partie de l’ouvrage, les articles de L. Bonato, L. Dalon et M. Dondin-Payre). Les lettres « chypriotes » de Duthoit à sa mère, et à quelques autres correspondants, avaient été publiées en 1985 par Jacques Foucart-Borville dans nos Cahiers, et L. Bonato et R. Severis avaient fait connaître une partie des dessins, mais la nouvelle édition de cette correspondance par L. Bonato dans la troisième partie du livre (« Edmond Duthoit épistolier »), étayée par la richesse des commentaires et l’abondance et la qualité des reproductions donnent une tout autre ampleur à cette étude. On apprécie également la présence d’une série de photographies de Famagouste, Nicosie, Limassol, Kérynia, Bellapaïs et Palaepaphos/Kouklia légèrement postérieures au séjour d’E. Duthoit, ainsi que d’une vue de Larnaca qui est même antérieure (1860). Textes et dessins mettent en évidence l’intérêt du jeune architecte pour les monuments gothiques de l’île, suite logique de son travail en France, mais aussi pour les scènes de la vie quotidienne : c’est un témoignage rare, souvent émouvant, sur Chypre à la fin de la période ottomane.

7. Lucie BONATO, Monique DONDIN-PAYRE et collaborateurs, La Méditerranée d’Edmond Duthoit, archéologue et architecte, XIXe siècle. « C’est du plus magnifique café du monde que je t’écris », Paris, Geuthner, 2017, 681 p., 469 fig. en noir et blanc et en couleurs. ISBN 978-2-7053-3900-5

MF#V-./%,4#2&,#j&4"2#4"#!%&?&")-"2+#3'`?&"#4"#T%8/(2#"1#0(0."#4&#8%8"#%&#,!""#2-=.)"+#"1#."))"#4"#!F#R11"0DX,(&Q#2&,#)"#,n)"#4"2#.(**",w%012#-1%)-"02# 4%02# )%# '-))"# 4&# ,!!"#%&# 43$&1# 4&# ,"!"#2-=.)"F

p,s."#%&#470%*-2*"#4"#!)%-,"#U%)%04-",#"1#;#2(0#"0:%:"*"01#4%02#4"#0(&'"))"2#,"./",./"2#;# Z"%# T%8/(2+# )"# .())(?&"# 45<'-:0(0# "1# )"2#

%.1"2# ?&-# H(01# )5($K"1# 4"# ."# .(*81"# ,"04&#.(021-1&"01# &0# $(0# 8(-01# 4"# 438%,1# 8(&,# &0"#03."22%-,"#*-2"#"0#'%)"&,#4"#."#2-1"#*%K"&,#8(&,#)5/-21(-,"# 4"# !/78,"F# G"# :,%04# .())(?&"# ,3&0-#/-'2/&1#"0#(.1($,"#@ABe#8,()(0:"#"1#%*8)-H-"#)"#*(&'"*"01# ^# (0# 2"# ,3K(&-1# ?&"# 2%# 8&$)-.%1-(0#2(-1+#"))"#%&22-+#.(0H-3"#%&Q#34-1-(02#<&2(0-&2F

<01(-0"#/.(&$(0##

COMPTES RENDUS 361

Le chapitre sur les activités archéologiques de Duthoit à Chypre en 1862 reprend et prolonge – ici encore, grâce au nombre et à la qualité des illustrations – les recherches menées autrefois par Olivier Masson, Annie Caubet et par moi-même dans le catalogue des sculptures chypriotes du Louvre, qui proviennent pour l’essentiel des missions de 1862 et 1865. Les œuvres découvertes à Golgoi-Ayios Phôtios et à Malloura (mais, fig. 59, on corrigera « 1995 » en « 1988 » pour le recollage de la tête de l’Apollon citharède) ont vraiment révélé, avant les fouilles de Lang et de Cesnola, la qualité et l’originalité des sculptures chypriotes. Rappelons que c’est parfois uniquement grâce aux dessins faits par Duthoit que la provenance de ces œuvres est connue, et notons qu’un torse archaïque en calcaire dessiné par Duthoit à Groteri dans le Karpass (fig. 116) a été retrouvé à Yialousa (fig. 117), dans une zone hors de contrôle du Département des Antiquités depuis 1974. Les découvertes de sculptures ont été plus nombreuses (sur le site de Golgoi /Athiénou), mais moins spectaculaires en 1865, lors d’une mission surtout marquée par la préparation mouvementée de l’enlèvement du « vase d’Amathonte » – qui ne sera descendu du sommet de l’acropole qu’après le départ de Duthoit – et la mort du consul français François de Maricourt, victime du choléra, que Duthoit avait assisté jusqu’au bout. Lors de la même mission, le jeune architecte s’était rendu à Assos, en Troade, pour relever les remparts de la ville antique : on est ébloui par la qualité des aquarelles et de l’ensemble des dessins qu’il a réalisés sur ce site.

L’année qui suit son retour en France Edmond Duthoit se marie – deux fils naîtront de cette union –, et il est nommé inspecteur des Monuments Historiques de la Somme et de l’Oise, tout en continuant à travailler dans le cabinet de Viollet-le-Duc. En 1872 il effectue une première mission en Algérie comme architecte des Monuments Historiques, avant d’être nommé en 1880 architecte en chef. Il passe désormais, jusqu’à sa mort en 1889, plusieurs mois par an dans ce pays où il travaille sur les sites romains, mais relève et dessine également, avec son habituel talent, les monuments et les décors arabes, et entretient une abondante correspondance avec sa femme. Monique Dondin-Payre présente et commente de manière remarquable cette dernière période de la vie d’Edmond Duthoit. Plusieurs index (noms de personnes, noms de lieux et de monuments), un « glossaire des mots étrangers cités dans la correspondance » et une série de cartes facilitent l’usage de ce gros et riche volume.

Cet ouvrage constitue, on le voit, un magnifique hommage à l’œuvre d’Edmond Duthoit, sans laisser de côté les aspects moins attachants de sa personnalité (comme son antisémitisme, caractéristique de la période où il vit), mais c’est aussi une contribution de premier plan à l’histoire de l’architecture en France dans la seconde partie du XIXe siècle. Pour ce qui concerne Chypre, Duthoit reste un témoin essentiel sur l’état de l’île dans les années 1860 et sur une étape essentielle dans la découverte de son histoire antique et médiévale.

Antoine HERMARY

Achevé d’imprimer

avril 2018

ISBN 978-2-7018-0557-3

Depuis 1984, les Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes (abrégés

CCEC) publient des études sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de Chypre, de

l’Antiquité à nos jours, souvent dans le cadre de dossiers thématiques

issus de réunions scientifiques. Ils donnent également des comptes rendus

d’ouvrages récents.

Les volumes 1 (1984) à 44 (2014) sont désormais disponibles gratuitement

sur le site internet « Persée » : www.persee.fr.