True to type? Archaic Cypriot male statues made of limestone 1

LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN

During the Cypro-Archaic period ( ‚†-‚† BC), a large Where sculpture is concerned, Gjerstad used the results number of statues and ‡gurines were dedicated in sanc- from his stratigraphic excavations in the sanctuary at A. Ir- tuaries throughout the island. ˆese images are made of ini in northwestern Cyprus and Cypriot sculptures found terraco‰a and the local limestone, which is easily cut to abroad.  Today his chronology has been challenged based shape, and they range in size from colossal dimensions to in particular on Cypriot sculpture found in the sanctuary small ‡gurines. Brieƒy characterized, Cypriot limestone of Hera on Samos, € and a higher chronology is generally statues are standing, usually with only the front carefully preferred.  Furthermore, Gjerstad’s stratigraphy at A. Irini worked; they have a square build; and sculptors oŠen has been questioned, and it has been suggested that his concentrated their technical ability and energy on a me- Proto-Cypriot and Neo-Cypriot styles are contemporary ticulous rendering of facial features, hair and beard – and productions located respectively at Soloi and Salamis. ‚ in some cases also the clothing. Apart from chronology other issues such as stylistic Many of the statues were retrieved during uncon- development and social, cultural and political inƒuences trolled excavations during the Œ th century, and as a re- have been discussed. Due to its geographical location sult important information, for instance concerning their Cyprus was an important stepping stone in the communi- contexts, was lost. ˆe Swedish Cyprus Excavations con- cation between Egypt, the Levant and the Mediterranean, ducted from Œ to Œ€Œenabled the director Einar Gjer- and people from many di„erent backgrounds frequent- stad to provide a more systematic frame for the material ed the island and most likely lived there. According to development of the island during the ‡rst millennium BC. Gjerstad and Pryce, for instance, the political situation

Gjerstad’s chronology: Cyprus Schmidt’s chronology: Samos Schmidt’s chronology: Cyprus Œst Proto-Cypriot: "‚†-‚"† BC Proto-Cypriot: " †/""†-"Œ†/"†† BC Œst Proto-Cypriot: "‚†-‚"† BC nd Proto-Cypriot: c. "††-‚† BC nd Proto-Cypriot: "††-‚† BC Neo-Cypriot: c. ‚"†-‚† BC Neo-Cypriot: "Œ†/"††-‚"†/‚‚† BC Neo-Cypriot: ‚"†-‚† BC Cypro-Greek: ‚†-‚† BC

Œ I wish to thank the Danish Institute at Athens for granting me a stay, during which this article was begun. I also wish to thank my colleague, Jane Fejfer, for constructive discussions and my reviewers for well-deserved critique.  Gjerstad Œ!, † , €Œ!. € Schmidt Œ"!, .  Fourrier †† , Œ†€. However, see also Hermary & Mertens †Œ, . ‚ Fourrier †† , Œ†; Hermary & Mertens †Œ, €. 59 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

of the island during the Cypro-Archaic period had an for establishing typological groups. Š† However, the present important impact on the local sculpture.  According to analysis focuses primarily on the garments of three main Assyrian inscriptions at Khorsabad and the stele erected statue types: statues dressed in a tunic and a mantle/ chi- by Sargon II at Kition, seven Cypriot kings submi€ed to ton and himation, statues dressed in the so-called Cypriot him in ‚ BC, and the later prism of Esarhaddon men- pants, and statues wearing an Egyptianizing kilt. A point of tions by name ten Cypriot kings and their kingdoms as departure is taken in the garments and their combination tribute payers.  Based upon Herodotus, Gjerstad likewise with the various types of head-gear, hair and beard styles, believed in a conquest of Cyprus by the Egyptian phar- and in the statement made by Counts that “Variations exist aoh Amasis shortly aƒer „‚ BC, and in „†„ BC Cyprus among the types of male votaries, suggesting that sculptors became part of the „ th Persian satrapy; from then on it mixed and matched a€ributes and dress to procure more was involved in the Greco-Persian con‡ict. ˆ Others, like ‘individual’ pieces. Že overwhelming majority, however, Vermeule, held the opposite view that di‰erent garments conform to a set typology.” Š„ Že intention here is to exam- did not re‡ect shiƒing foreign political dominations of the ine how “true to type” the statues actually are, and therefore island. Š‚ Furthermore, discussions pertaining to a possible statues and larger statue€es preserved well enough to form Mycenaean in‡ux at the end of the Bronze Age and a an opinion of the statues in toto are primarily addressed, Phoenician colonization at Kition on the southeast coast assuming that they are more trustworthy as to details than of the island have had and still have an indirect bearing many of the ‘mass-produced’ small statue€es. on the interpretation of Cypriot culture. ŠŠ Other contri- Subsequently the paper addresses other relevant is- butions have focused on the signi‹cance of sculpture as sues currently discussed in other fora, such as material, social or religious markers, ŠŒ and e‰orts aimed at identi- size, appearance and context, from a local as well as a fying speci‹c regional styles have recently been sketched Mediterranean perspective. During the Archaic period by Counts in his examination of some stone sculptures only the local limestone was used by the Cypriot sculp- from the area of Athienou-Malloura. Š tors to produce stone statues. Žis is interesting consider- Archaic Cypriot male statues are interesting because ing the island’s geographical proximity to the marble-rich they are dressed in di‰erent garments, unlike, for instance, islands of Naxos and Paros and the Greek enthusiasm free-standing sculpture produced in the Greek area. Že for this particular material. In both Greece and Cyprus assumption that di‰erent messages were embedded in statuary was produced in di‰erent sizes, but while the the di‰erent out‹ts and probably denoted speci‹c tasks Greeks more or less stuck to the naked kouros formula, suggests that the Cypriots found it important to com- the Cypriots engaged di‰erent types of statues in con- municate and underline various societal obligations or nection with dedications of images of males in the Cyp- events through the sculpture dedicated in the sanctuaries. riot communities. According to the present knowledge, Traditionally, Archaic Cypriot stone sculpture has been Cypriot stone statues were produced to act as votives, classi‹ed according to style, a€ire and foreign in‡uences, or images of their donators, in the local sanctuaries; as and as only the heads of the majority of the large statues such they seem to have played an important role in the survive, headdresses have been used as important criteria religious and cultural life of the communities.

 Gjerstad Šˆ† , ˆ; Pryce ŠˆŠ, „.  Gjerstad Šˆ† , ††ˆ Gjerstad Šˆ† , †. ˆ Gjerstad Šˆ† , †Š- . Š‚ Vermeule Šˆ†, Œˆ‚. ŠŠ For recent contributions cf. Jacovou Œ‚‚ , „‚; Hermary Œ‚‚„; Sommer Œ‚Š‚, ŠŠ . ŠŒ Cf. for instance Counts Œ‚‚Š; Faegersten Œ‚‚; Sen‰ Œ‚‚„, Š‚‚. Š Counts Œ‚ŠŒ, Š„Š. For regional productions of Cypriot terraco€as cf. Fourrier Œ‚‚. Š† For instance Hermary Šˆ ˆ; Sen‰ Šˆˆ; Sørensen Šˆˆ†; Counts Œ‚‚Š. 60 Š„ Counts Œ‚‚Š, Š„. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Fig. €. Bearded male statue in tunic and mantle, H: €€ cm. ‚e Metropolitan Museum of Art (ƒ„. .†„€‡). Fig. . Bearded male statue in tunic and mantle !om the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. H: ".‡ cm. Statues wearing a tunic and a mantle/ ‚e Metropolitan Museum of Art (ƒ„. .†„€#). chiton and himation During the Cypro-Archaic period the standard Cypriot indentations, „‡ probably indications of a special fabric male statue, bearded as well as unbearded, is dressed in or fringes, which are also seen on statuees and ear- a long tunic and a mantle, and wears a pointed cap atop ly terracoa statues and probably betray Near Eastern a bag-shaped hairdo. e tunic is plain and the mantle inˆuences. „‰ e early stone sculptures wear a wig-like is tight-€ing and draped over the le‚ shoulder, carried haircut of Egyptian inspiration and a large beard, which across the back to cover the right shoulder and arm and is either plain or divided into vertical tresses sometimes leaving the le‚ arm free. e right arm is bent in front terminating in snail curls. Š‹ A later statue (Fig. Š) wears of the body with a clenched €st resting on the chest the same narrow mantle with a raised indented border (Fig. „), „ and in some cases the end of the mantle carried and an additional row of incised zigzags, which suggests from behind is visible on the le‚ shoulder. „† e vertical a double row of fringes. Š„ e mantle is now provided edge of the mantle may be incised, raised or raised with with so‚ly modelled folds following the curved edge of

„ Cesnola „‡‡!, pls "", Š‡„; ‹, "‹†; Hermary „‰‡‰, ŠŠ; Sen# „‰‰$, Š . „† Cesnola „‡‡!, pl. "†, Š‡". Fringes are prominent on some small terracoas, but only few of the large the terracoas from A. Irini carry the mantle draped in this particular manner. Karageorghis „‰‰$, €gs ‰-„Š, pl. „Š. „‡ Karageorghis „‰ ‰, €g. $‰; Hermary & Mertens Š‹„", cat. $. „‰ Sen# „‰‰$, pl. !„, d; Karageorghis „‰‰$, nos. $!, $†, "†-‡, †$; Hermary „‰‡‰, ŠŠ. Š‹ A row of curls may likewise appear above the forehead, cf. Hermary „‰‡‰, nos „-!; Karageorghis et al. Š‹‹‹, no. „†„. Large beards are also seen on early terracoas, cf. Karageorghis „‰‰$, nos $", " , Š, , ‡-‰; Buchholz & Untiedt „‰‰ , pl. †; Fourrier Š‹‹†, pl. $, „. Early terracoas demon- strate that this type of statue is sometimes provided with a short plain beard, and limestone heads with similar beards probably also belong to the type, cf. Karageorghis „‰‰$, nos !, †, Š$, ""; Hermary „‰‡‰, nos Š$-", !‹. Š„ Cesnola „‡‡!, pl. ‹, "‹†; Karageorghis et al Š‹‹$, no. „†$; Hermary & Mertens Š‹„", cat. „Š. 61 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Fig. €. Beard-less male in tunic and mantle, H: € cm. Fig. . ‚e so-called priest with dove, H: †€ƒ.† cm. From From the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. ‚e Metropoli- the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. ‚e Metropolitan Mu- tan Museum of Art (ƒ„. €.†„). seum of Art (ƒ„. €.†„).

the mantle, and the pointed cap is more ornate. e large Cypriot stone sculpture, like the colossal head from Gol- beard and the hair at the nape of the neck are divided into goi-A. Photios, and a short moustache is seen on the rows of snail curls and a single row of curls run across early terracoƒas. €„ the forehead. Markoe, following the conventional date, e tight- ƒing mantle continued to be used through- suggested that the row of curls above the forehead is out the †th century BC. In some cases the vertical edge inspired by Achaemenid art and he referred to Ridgeway is provided with parallel folds, which terminate in Greek for a similar suggestion concerning Greek sculpture. €€ On zigzag folds, and the long locks falling to the chest show the other hand, Markoe suggested an Ionian inuence inspiration from Greek kouros statues (Fig. ‚). €ˆ However, in the short moustache and the low-cut beard line with the wreath around the head is not a familiar trait of Greek clean-shaven under-lip (above the chin) also seen on kouroi. In other cases shorter “kouros-locks” are com - heads with an Egytianizing crown. €‚ However, although bined with the tight mantle without folds, €† or mantles Markoe is right that Assyrian and Achaemenid beards with folds are combined with a hairdo consisting of a row cover a larger part of the cheeks it should be mentioned of curls above the forehead, plain transversal locks across that the low-cut beard-line is seen even on the earliest the skull and incised locks on the front of the wig-like hair

€€ Markoe !"#$, !€%, note !„. €‚ Markoe !"#$, pl. „!, ‚-„. €„ Hermary & Mertens €%!„, cat. !; Karageorghis !""‚, nos. !, ˆ$, †#, $‚-„, $†-". €ˆ Karageorghis et al. €%%%, no. !#$; Hermary & Mertens €%!„, cat. !!. 62 €† Hermary & Mertens €%!„, cat. †€. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

falling behind the ears. € Yet other statues wear a mantle with a broad central fold along the vertical edge, which is familiar from East Greek statues  and seems to have been very popular in Cyprus, where it was used into the ‚th century BC combined with short hair and a wreath/ diadem. ƒ Concerning garments, the so-called ‘Priest with dove’ dated to the late „ th century BC is an interesting statue (Fig. †). ‡ˆ He seems to wear a pleated chiton below a plain chiton with a horizontal relief-decorated border below the knees and a conical cap, richly decorated and surmounted by a small bull’s head. His mantle is an enig- ma calling to mind the mantle of some of the Acropolis korai. Like some of the korai, he carries the mantle over the right shoulder and the broad diagonal central fold and the arrangement of the drapery below the right arm looks like one system, ‡‰ while the draping of the mantle over the leŠ arm seems to belong to another system, ‡ or perhaps it should be read as a separate piece of cloth. ‡‡ His curly beard resembles that of the statue with a pointed cap discussed above (Fig. ). In this case it is combined with a moustache and long “kouros locks” falling to the chest. A strange arrangement of folds is repeated on an- other statue which carries it over a chiton adorned with a border like the chiton worn by the ‘Priest with dove’. ‹e mantle is comparatively tight-Œing, but it is provided with a rather artful drapery on the leŠ shoulder; a bun- dle of folds falling from the leŠ shoulder and enveloping the right forearm is diŽcult to explain and looks like a folded shawl (Fig. ‚). ‡† One suspects that these mantles were used to express a certain degree of individuality. At Œrst glance they look Greek, but they are actually more or less artful, and if not for the Œne technical quality of the Fig. €. Bearded male in tunic and mantle, H: € cm. ‚e statues it could be argued that the sculptors had simply Collection of George and Nefeli Giabra Pierides, Nicosia misunderstood the details. ‹is may still be the case, but it (without inv. no.) seems rather that the correct arrangement of the mantles was not an issue as long as the eect was striking. ‹ese

€ Hermary & Mertens ˆ‰†, cat. „‚.  Bernhard-Walcher et al.‰ƒƒƒ, no. €€; Freier-Schauenburg ‰ƒ€†, no.€, pls ‚ƒ-„ˆ; Hermary ˆˆ‚, Œg. „. ƒ Hermary ‰ƒƒ, no. †„; Hermary & Mertens ˆ‰†, cat. ‰ˆƒ. ‡ˆ Karageorghis et al., ˆˆˆ, no. ‰€. For a discussion of the statue cf. Masson & Hermary ‰ƒƒ‡; Hermary & Mertens ˆ‰†, cat. . ‡‰ Karakasi ˆˆ‰, pls ‰††-‚, ‰€†-‚. ‡ Karakasi ˆˆ‰, pl. ˆˆ. ‡‡ Hermary & Mertens ˆ‰†, cat. . ‡† Karageorghis et al. ˆˆ, ‰„. To judge from the photograph the head probably does not belong to the statue. 63 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Fig. . Bearded male statue in mantle, H: †!cm. From Pyla. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. ANSA I ".

statues with short hair and a wreath around the head. ƒeir himatia cover the le„ arm and are carried below the right arm, covering most of the body like himatia worn by Greek sculpture. € In some cases the mantle provided with narrow parallel folds along the vertical edge is combined Fig. €. Bearded male statue in chiton and himation, H: with short hair and the old large curly beard. † On another €.‚ cm. From the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. „e statue with a similarly draped himation the narrow folds Metropolitan Museum of Art ( .‚.†€). terminate in what looks like fringes (Fig. †). ˆ However, the somewhat strange arrangement of folds below his le„ statues were still meant to be seen from the front, and arm suggests that the intention was to reproduce under- it seems that an eort was made to push the material of cut folds like the ones seen on the mantle of the Antenor the mantle to the front of the statues and to add realistic kore from the Acropolis. ‰ ƒe beard of these statues is as well as unrealistic details in order to underscore the still provided with snail curls but now they terminate in volume of the garment. separate vertical corkscrew locks evidently inspired by From about € BC less ‚amboyant himatia, but still bronze sculptures like the Cap Artemision statue and indicating volume, and also combined with a Greek-look- the hair of the so-called Chatsworth Apollo. Š ƒus two ing chiton, are seen on bearded as well as unbearded dierent beard systems are apparently blended.

€ Hermary !€, "gs #- ; Karageorghis et al. !, no. €; Hermary & Mertens !#$, cat. # . † Hermary & Mertens !#$, cat. ‰. ˆ Karageorghis et al. !, no. †; Hermary & Mertens !#$, cat. ‰€. ‰ Stewart #ŠŠ, "g. #€$. 64 Š Hermary !€, ##; Neer !#, pl. #; Bouquillon et al. !†, "gs #-!. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Although the tunic and mantle and the later chiton and Fig. €. Beardless male wearing himation remained standard garments for Cypriot males “Cypriot trousers” and diadem, the dierent details of these garments and their combina- H: € cm. Istanbul Museum, inv. tions with dierent hair- and beard styles suggest that par- No. €€‚ƒ. ticular combinations of old and new elements were o€en the result of individual choices. An exceptional male stat - ue dated to about ‚‚ BC underlines this eclectic aƒitude (Fig. ). †‚ He is taller than life-size and with his stance he looks very much like a Greek kouros, and yet not. He is naked except for the old tight-‡ƒing mantle, which leaves his le€ side uncovered and actually clings to his muscular (Greek) body, revealing it rather than covering it up. ˆe mantle is provided with the old raised or perhaps folded border, but the out-curving lower end re‰ects his dynam- ic stride, diagonal folds run across his body, and the end of the mantle resting on the le€ shoulder terminates in Greek-looking zigzag folds. Like the ‘Priest with dove’ he of this group has been presented by Hurschmann, †! the has a large curly beard and a tiny moustache combined following is con‡ned to some brief comments. ˆe dia- with long “kouros locks”, but around his head he wears a dems are painted red and decorated with roseƒes, which wreath, unfamiliar from Greek kouroi. Although this stat - are incised or carried out in relief, and it has been sug- ue is unique it displays the same interest in playing with gested that the incisions sometimes seen on the surface details as the statues mentioned above; one could say that of the diadem indicate that they were made of cloth or he epitomizes the Cypriot eclectic aƒitude to sculptural leather. †" Red paint is also preserved on some of the pants. representations and that an aŠuent look was an important However, as also pointed out by Hurschmann, a closer aspect of the statues. look at the pants reveals that at least the rendering of them shows a lack of consistency, sometimes prompting the question of whether the same dress is actually ren- Statues wearing “Cypriot pants” dered. Some pieces wear what looks like short modern ˆe other discrete but smaller group of statues and stat- pants with a ‰y, which seem to be cut to shape and sewn, ueƒes is usually considered to be the Cypriot version of but again they are rendered in dierent ways. †# Others the Greek kouros. ˆe statues are dressed in what has look more like a diaper system with loose ‰aps meeting been called a perizoma – Badehosen or “Cypriot pants” on the front of the ‡gure where they are tied together or shorts combined with a short, tightly ‡ƒing garment above another ‰ap carried between the legs, or the ‰aps with short sleeves akin to a modern T-shirt, a diadem and meet over short pants. †† It has been suggested that they sometimes also armlets and earrings. As a detailed study represent a pants and belt system related to the other

†‚ Bernhard-Walcher et al. !$$$, no. %. †! Hurschmann "‚‚#. †" Hurschmann "‚‚#, ! †. †# Hurschmann "‚‚#, ! $. On some the roseƒe decorates a lozenge-shaped ‰y (Cesnola !&&, pl. ", %#; Hermary !$&$, no.  ). another has a vertical relief line below the roseƒe (Ergülec !$ ", pl. ! , #), or one above and below the roseƒe with no indication of a ‰y (Cesnola !&&, pls ", %: ", "&. Yet another has a ‰y shaped like an inverted U and an additional roseƒe placed above the ‰y (Cesnola !&&, pl. %"). On a single statue the upper part of the pants seems to be bent over, forming an inverted U line in the centre (Karageorghis !$%$, ‡g. #), and on some other pieces the pants are only indicated by incised lines (Cesnola !&&, pl. ", %‚; Hermary !$&$, no. %!). †† It is known in a short version (Ergülec !$ ", pl. "#, ), as well as a longer version (Ergülec !$ ", pl. !&; Hermary !$&$, no. %"). One of these, a tor- so dated to the middle of the  th century BC, actually looks as if it is wearing baggy pants, perhaps indicating that the original garment had been changed or forgoƒen. 65 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Fig. !. Bearded male wearing Egyptianizing out!t, H: €".† cm. From the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. ‚e Metropolitan Museum of Art (ƒ.„ .†ƒ†).

indicate di‡erences as to rank and status, but otherwise the images are fairly homogenous despite the di‡erent de- tails. Most of the statues and statue„es are unbearded and have a bag-shaped hairdo, indicating a young age group, although some of them do have a row of curls above the forehead €ˆ or short plain beard combined with a Greek curly hairstyle. €‰ Perhaps more interestingly, other piec- es demonstrate that the pants could be matched with a Fig. €. Beardless male wearing “Cypriot pants” and dia- pointed cap or an Egyptian looking double crown €Š and dem, H: € cm. From the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. that at least one statue with the rose„e diadem is dressed ‚e Metropolitan Museum of Art (ƒ.„ .†ƒ‡). in an Egyptian-looking kilt. €‹ It should furthermore be noticed that only a few terraco„as are shown wearing pants. € Although the T-shirt decoration is only preserved “Cypriot pants”, a diadem and a T-shirt. € in a few cases we are informed that it was far from uni- form. While one is decorated with vertical red borders,  (Fig. ƒ) another has a central red border with reserved Statues wearing an Egyptianized kilt rose„es,  and the decoration of others are incised or Statues dressed in an Egyptian-looking out!t have at- carried out in relief. One has incised decoration on the tracted much a„ention over the years, and the hybridity front consisting of sections of vertical twigs (Fig. †), ƒ displayed by this group has been underlined in particular and the most elaborate T-shirt with a chiton-like surface by Faegersten in her seminal work on the subject. €€ "e is decorated with a central broad vertical relief band with statues usually wear a bag-shaped hair-do, and they are superimposed stylized sacred trees. † Perhaps the T-shirts dressed in an Egyptianized kilt, sometimes a large Egyp-

€ Schurmann Šˆˆ‹, ‰ƒ‰.  Ergülec ‰† Š, pls ‰ . Š; Hermary & Mertens Šˆ‰, cat. Š†, ‹ˆ.  Ergülec ‰† Š, pls Š‹. ƒ Karageorghis et al. Šˆˆˆ, no. ‰†. † Ergülec ‰† Š, pl. ‰ƒ. "e upper part of a statue with lotus $owers decorating the T-shirt may belong to a similar type, cf. Hermary ‰†ƒ†, no. €. €ˆ Karageorghis et al. Šˆˆˆ, no. ‰ ˆ; Cesnola ‰ƒƒ€, no. €. €‰ Cesnola ‰ƒƒ€, pl. Š€, Š; Hermary & Mertens Šˆ‰, cat. ‹†. €Š Pryce ‰†‹‰, C , Šˆ. €‹ Faegersten Šˆˆ‹, cat. ‰‹. € Karageorghis ‰††‹, !g. ‰ ; Karageorghis ‰††€, !gs ‰-Š, pl. Š, ‹. 66 €€ Faegersten Šˆˆ‹. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

ence. ‚‡ According to Faegersten, the Cypriot kilt is based on a mixture of two diˆerent Egyptian kilt types. ‚‰ One is the wrap-around shenti, and the other is the New King- dom-type kilt. What is particularly interesting, however, is Faegersten’s observation that only a couple of Cypriot Šgures dated to the early ƒ th century BC reproduce the standard Egyptian shenti with vertical ends covering the abdomen, ƒ and that just a single piece from the middle of the century reproduces faithfully the New Kingdom Egyptian kilt with a devanteau, ƒ€ although a small handful are closely related (Fig. €€). ƒ‹ Œe rest displays a mixture of the two garments, and the adornment of the kilts does not ascribe to any Šxed formula, although Uraeus snakes rendered in diˆerent ways are constant Šgural elements. Another small group shows a more elaborate decoration depicting frontal heads on the centre-piece of the kilt like the panther heads on the original Egyptian devan- teaux. ƒ But even these diˆer from one another, showing the heads of Hathor and Bes, a Gorgoneion, a smiling or grimacing head and a bearded head, Bes or a satyr. ƒŽ Œus, some of the heads refer to a Phoenician-Egyptian sphere while others have Greek connotations, leaving Fig. €€. Beardless male statue wearing Egyptianizing out- a confused message – to us, that is. A similar blending t, H: €‚.ƒ cm. From the sanctuary of Golgoi-A. Photios. was noticed by Counts in connection with images of the e Metropolitan Museum of Art (†‚.‡€.ˆ‚†€). so-called Herakles and Bes. ƒ‚ In the case of the kilt dec- oration, confusion may at least partly be overcome if the tianized necklace – an usekh – and a local version of an heads are perceived as apotropaic images. ƒƒ Some of the Egyptian crown, which in some cases has been replaced belts also carry a Šgural decoration which is not an Egyp - by a diadem or a wreath (Fig. €). ‚ƒ Most of them also tian trait and seems to be a Cypriot invention. ƒ„ Again wear a T-shirt with short sleeves, while a small number of diˆerent motifs are rendered: a disc-like object between statues seem to have a naked upper body. ‚„ Earlier terra- X-shaped pa ern, perhaps the remains of originally seated co as demonstrate that short tunics or skirts, sometimes sphinxes; a winged sun disc with facial features of perhaps combined with a broad belt, were used in Cyprus in the Bes or a Gorgo; a lion slayer, perhaps Herakles, †anked „th century BC, although they show no Egyptian in†u- by paradise †owers; a frieze of crouching sphinxes and a

‚ƒ Karageorghis et al. ‹, no. €‡‹; Faegersten ‹, no. ‹€. ‚„ Faegersten ‹, nos ‹, ‹€, , ‚‰, ƒ€. ‚‡ Karageorghis €‰‰, nos ‹ƒ-‰, Ž. Œe overlapping side borders on no. Ž and the two central snakes on no. „‹ are probably inspired by the Egyptian- izing kilts. ‚‰ Faegersten ‹, Šg. ‹. ƒ Faegersten ‹, Ž, nos €ƒ, ‹€. ƒ€ Faegersten ‹, no. . ƒ‹ Faegersten ‹, nos ‹‰, ‚‹-, ‚„. ƒ Faegersten ‹, Šg. €€. ƒŽ Faegersten ‹, nos ‹‹, , €‹, €‚, €, ‚. ƒ‚ Counts ‹‡, €‹. ƒƒ Sørensen ‹€Ž, Ž‹. ƒ„ Faegersten ‹, ƒ‚. 67 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

four-winged scarab set in an animal frieze with a lion and them has a feathered moustache and feathered eyebrows. a goat preserved to its le. € A single belt is decorated with Another two statues from Golgoi of the late € th century rose‚es and others are adorned with a bead-like pa‚ern with long kouros-like locks falling behind the ears onto or an Egyptian block-border pa‚ern, while others again the back provide another example. One of them is beard- are provided with a belt buckle. €ƒ less and a row of upturned locks runs across the forehead, „e adornment of the T-shirts also varies. One is dec- while the other has a plain beard, curls across the forehead orated with a central vertical border in relief showing and the long locks subdivided by horizontal incisions. † If so-called Phoenician cup palme‚es, double vertical lines the heads ascribed to this type of statue are also taken into perhaps indicating stripes adorn two of the T-shirt and consideration, it appears that the combination of diŠerent a fourth is provided with vertical and horizontal borders hair and beard types is actually quite varied, †Ž and that lled with hanging lilies and buds linked with loops. †‡ variety is also displayed by beardless males. †€ According As noted by Faegersten the Egyptian collar, the usekh, is to Faegersten, none of the statues wear the crown placed worn both by statues dressed in a T-shirt and those who on top of an Egyptian-type headdress, in the Egyptian seem to have a naked upper body, and most of the collars manner. †† „e shape of the crowns varies, and in some which are made in relief or incised or painted show two cases they even look like a mixture between the crown decorated registers of stylized ˆoral and vegetal designs and the conical cap. † „e more ornate crowns carry an with a bo‚om row of hanging drops. †‰ However, although individual relief decoration. †ƒ Yet other kilt statues are painted colours may have worn oŠ over the years it was bare-headed, or they wear a rose‚e diadem, a wreath or apparently not imperative that the kilt was combined with a helmet; a single gure with a Horus head/mask poses an Egyptian collar, as demonstrated by a statue from Gol - as a scribe. ‡ „e out t is also worn by males carrying goi, and in a couple of cases the collar even seems to be weapons ‰ or an animal under the arm. ‹ converted into a neck border of the T-shirt. †‹ „e rendering of the hair and the beard also shows that no strict formula was observed, which is demon- Summary and further discussions strated by the two statues with striped T-shirts from In the Archaic Cypriot communities it seems to have Golgoi dated to the early € th century BC. †Œ Both have a been important that free-standing stone statues of males bag-shaped hairdo and a short plain beard but only one of dedicated in the sanctuaries conveyed diŠerent messages

€ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ,€€ nos Œ‡-Œ, €‡; Idem ‹‡‡Ž, Ž-Ž. €ƒ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, ‡, nos ‹†, ‰‹ and ‹ƒ, ‹‰ and †, ‹, Œ, Œ-, Žƒ. †‡ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‰‹, ‹Œ-, Œ. †‰ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, . †‹ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‹, ‹Œ, Œ. †Œ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‹Œ-. † Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‹ƒ, Œ‰. †Ž Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, no. †: An Egyptian wig with horizontal sections, a short curly beard, moustache partly cut and painted black; Idem nos ‹€-: a bag-wig, plain beard and eyebrows; Idem no. ƒ: A plain beard and moustache; Idem no. ‹: a bag-wig, plain beard, incised moustache and eye- brows; Idem no. ‹‡: A bag-wig, a row of curls above the forehead plain beard and incised eyebrows; Idem no. : A bag-wig, beard nely tooled; Idem no. ‹, Ž: what looks like a reduced curly bag-wig, curls above the forehead, incised moustache and eyebrows; Idem no. ‹‰: Short curly hair, curls above the forehead, curly beard and plain eyebrows. †€ Cf. Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, no. ƒ: A bag-wig divided vertically and horizontally: Idem nos Ž‹, €‰: A bag-wig and incised eyebrows; Idem nos Œ, €†-: A bag-wig and curls above the forehead; Idem nos. ‹ƒ, Ž: long “kouros locks” and short hair with curls above the forehead. †† Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, Ž†. † Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, no. ‹‡. †ƒ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‹‡, ‹‰, Œ‡, Ž, €€; Brönner, ‰ƒƒ, . ‡ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, nos ‰Œ, Œ‰, ŒŽ; Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, no. ‰. Similar representations are not seen in Egypt, but are known from Phoenician ivories (Fae- gersten ‹‡‡Œ, ‹‹); the gure is also unique in a Cypriot context, although it blends in with other Cypriot gures wearing other types of masks (Karageorghis et al. ‹‡‡‡, nos ‹‹‹-€). ‰ Faegersten ‹‡‡Œ, cat. Œ‡, Œ†. 68 ‹ Faegarsten ‹‡‡Œ, cat. Œƒ, Ž, €‹. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

expressed by dierent a€ire, and, although the majority ety of ways and to mix non-Egyptian decorative elements of stone statues were dedicated in sanctuaries located and Egyptian elements, with the Uraeus snakes being the in the Mesaoria plain, it was apparently an island-wide most permanent elements. ‚‰ Moreover, it appears that phenomenon and not conned to kingdoms of eastern the two other spectacular elements, the Egyptian collar Cyprus. ‚ƒ „e above discussions of the three typological and crown, were not imperative; the kilt is also worn by groups were primarily based on dress types because the bare-headed statues or combined with a mask or a helmet, garments are so distinct and dierent from one another, and perhaps a rose€e diadem. Some are unbearded like and it showed that heads with dierent headgear do not the statues dressed in “Cypriot pants”, but about the same necessarily appear together with only one type of gar- number carry a short plain beard sometimes combined ment; this, however, is far from saying that headdresses with a moustache, or a short beard provided with snail were unimportant. As in other Mediterranean societies, curls. If other crowned heads belong to this statue type, the tunic and mantle were standard garments worn by males with larger curly beards and moustache could also males with short and long beards as well as unbearded wear this particular outt, although their number appears males, and this is supported by the numerous stone stat- to be small judged by the extant sculpture. ‚ˆ ue€es and terraco€a gurines dedicated in the sanctu- Not only the shape of garments but also their fabric aries. Foreign elements such as the fringed mantle and and colour are important elements in conveying messag- Greek types of drapery were assimilated, and old and es, but unfortunately the ancient Mediterranean world new elements blended in dierent ways. For instance, oers few remains of actual garments, and textual infor- the old tight mantle was not given up at a time when mation about textiles in Cyprus is similarly scarce. How- more voluminous Greek himatia were introduced. In re- ever, traces of dierent colours are preserved on Cypriot shaped forms it was combined with long “kouros locks” stone sculpture and in particular on terraco€as, ‚† for in- and a wreath around the head worn by unbearded men stance the decorative elements of the cap of the “Priest (Fig. ƒ) and mature men with large curly beards (Fig. †). with dove” are enhanced by black, red and yellow paint. ‚‚ „e pointed cap familiar from the earliest stone sculpture Otherwise, red is the colour that seems to have been used was also used later and even combined with statues wear- most on the various garments. „e red traces on the man- ing Greek-looking garments, “kouros locks” and curly tle of the same statue may indicate that the entire mantle beards (Fig. ‡), while the large beard of a group of statues was originally red, while other statues and statue€es il- with wreaths around the head is a mixture of two dierent lustrate that mantles and tunics could be decorated with beard styles (Fig. ˆ). Statues dressed in “Cypriot pants” red fringes and borders. ‚Š „e diadems, T-shirts and pants and a T-shirt apparently form the most homogenous worn by the statues dressed in “Cypriot pants” also show group, although dierent shapes of pants, each revealing traces of red colour, as do the T-shirts and naked upper dierent details, may be noticed. Almost all of them are body and details of the kilt, the collar and the crown of the beardless and have a bag-shaped hairdo, with a few excep- statues wearing an Egyptianizing kilt. It also appears that tions. ‚‡ In comparison, statues dressed in Egyptianizing some of the T-shirts of statues wearing “Cypriot pants” kilts show greater diversity, partly because their outt is and kilts were decorated in the same way, for instance more complicated. Still, it is noteworthy that the Cypriots with red vertical borders (Fig. ‚), Š‹ while the relief dec- chose to blend two dierent Egyptian kilt types in a vari- oration of others document that T-shirts in both groups

‚ƒ Hurschmann !‹‹ƒ, g. "; Faegersten !‹‹ƒ, "‹Š. ‚‡ If a head with a rose€e diadem in the Louvre once belonged to this type of statue, this outt could also be combined with long locks, a short curly beard and a moustache. Cf. Hermary "Š‚Š, no. ˆ‹. ‚‰ Faegersten !‹‹ƒ, table ". ‚ˆ Faegersten !‹‹ƒ, nos !, ‰‚, ˆˆ, ˆŠ. ‚† Pryce, "Šƒ", ‡; Sen "ŠŠƒ, !‡; Counts !‹‹", "‰‰. ‚‚ Karageorghis et al. !‹‹‹, no. "†!. ‚Š For instance Karageorghis et al. !‹‹‹, nos "Š‹, "Šˆ-†. Š‹ Faegersten !‹‹ƒ, no. !‡. 69 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

could be more elaborate, with a central border showing body and the physical details of the statues, and this may superimposed stylized sacred trees. € be part of the reason why Cypriot sculpture has been con- If it is not that red is simply more resistant than other sidered inferior to Greek sculpture. Not even at the turn of colours,  there seems to have been a preference for this the ! th century, when modernist circles praised Archaic particular colour, perhaps because it connoted wealth and Greek sculpture and embraced it for being anti-academic or prestige. ‚is may be supported by the red garments and produced by master cra"smen, was Cypriot sculp- worn by ƒgures painted on Cypro-Archaic po„ery, al- ture part of the picture, perhaps because so" limestone though it should be kept in mind that we are dealing with is easily worked compared to hard marble. # In particular bichrome po„ery decorated with black and red paint.  the Greek kouros has received much a„ention and much Generally speaking, traces of paint are be„er preserved praise; but Snodgrass, although acknowledging its social on terraco„a sculpture, and the cuirasses from Salamis importance, saw the kouros as a tiresomely inhibiting and and Kazaphani decorated with pa„erns and panels with conventional medium.  Recent and still ongoing discus- ƒgures in bichrome technique are good examples of how sions address issues such as the message(s) embedded in ornate an outƒt could be. † Yon, however – drawing at- this particular type of statue and its agency. Some of the tention to fragments of another large terraco„a statue viewpoints are mentioned here partly to illustrate the with traces of red, black, yellow, white and green paint di$erent perceptions of modern viewers and to put into now in the Musée de Toulouse – has proposed that this perspective the lack of a„ention given to contemporary dress item is not a cuirass but an embroidered chiton with Cypriot statues, which share the same frontal pose and fringes which the Persians, according to Herodotus, wore the same frontal stare. For Tanner the kouros is “a hieratic on top of the cuirass. ‰ If this is correct we get a glimpse of image distanced from and eschewing interaction with the vividly pa„erned tunics somewhat like renderings of As- viewer”, €!! and Neer ƒnds that “type is disengaged, aloof syrian textiles and garments painted on A„ic Black Figure from those addressees who actually stop to read, look and vases, Š and such tunics would seem to be a be„er match mourn”, in the case of the Anavysos kouros. €!€ Other, very for the decorated T-shirts and pants or kilts worn by the di$erent viewpoints emphasize the interaction between other Cypriot statues treated here. ‚is is not to say that the kouros and the viewer by means of the kouros’ return all tunics were this ornate, as also indicated by the tunics of the viewer’s gaze, and thus it “establishes a relationship with painted borders worn by the statue„es mentioned with the viewer”, as Elsner puts it. €! ‚e interaction be- above; elsewhere, undecorated or white garments may tween the Cypriot statues and their spectators has not have held speciƒc connotations, for instance of purity. ‹ been an issue of debate, and one may wonder if this is because, unlike the Greek kouroi, they are clothed and thus do not have an eroticized e$ect. As succinctly de- e body scribed by Neer, “kouroi are all about bodies”, €! not least Generally speaking, Cypriot sculptors did not invest to a viewer in the present-day Western world, where trim much a„ention and workmanship in the execution of the males, epitomized by shiny oil-anointed body builders,

€ Ergülec €‹, pl. €#; Faegersten !! , cat. €.  Faegersten !! , † .  Karageorghis & des Gagniers €‹†, ‰Š, VI.‹ † Karageorghis & des Gagniers €‹†, €.a.‹ and b.€ ; Karageorghis € , nos #!-. ‰ Yon !!‰, † . Š For instance Dalley €€, ƒgs ‰-€€; Hirmer & Arias €Š, pl. €‹. ‹ Gawlinski !!#. # Pre„ejohn !€, !†.  Snodgrass €#!, €‹. €!! Tanner !!€, ‰‹. €!€ Neer !€!, ††. €! Osborne €##, ‹; Stewart €‹, ŠŠ; Elsner !!‰, ‹Š. 70 €! Neer !€!, ‰!. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

have become role models. e renewed interest in the statues of the early th century BC perpetuate the frontal kouros may in fact partly re€ect this phenomenon. Seen pose and the frontal gaze, and in Cyprus athletic statues from this perspective it is perhaps not surprising that the did not catch on, which is another important deviation clothed Cypriot male statues have aracted limited inter- from the Aic/Greek development to be addressed be- est; this is clear in Vermeule’s statement that “the bodies low. of the limestone statues tend to be decorative vehicles, e general lack of interest in sub-dermal features on distinguished by costume or quality of carving rather than Cypriot sculpture is even more noteworthy as the Greeks subtleties of style”. ‚ƒ„ developed an interest in such features, and earlier on Although we may trace Ionian and Aic stylistic in- neighbouring Assyrian sculptors made an e‹ort to empha- €uence in Cypriot sculpture, the Cypriot sculptors did size muscles and sinews of both humans and animals in a not follow the new naturalistic trend, which has been powerful although schematic way. ‚‚ƒ Turning to the Achae- termed “the Greek revolution” and connected with the menids, on the other hand, it has been recognized that introduction of democracy in Athens, the date of which, the physicality of the body only features on the Bisitun however, is still debated. ‚ƒ To Ridgway, on the other relief – a victory monument, which according to Feldman, hand, the change in Greek sculpture from the † th to the adheres to a Near Eastern tradition going back to the stele th centuries BC cannot be narrowed down to a speci‡c of Naram-Sin. ‚‚‚ Otherwise, the Persians, like the Cypri- time or event, but is the result of a series of consecutive ots, tended to pay lile aention to bodily details, perhaps developments, ‚ƒ† and Neer, discarding the notion of the because the meaning of the Persian relief sculpture was Greek revolution, sees the Classical style as “an ongoing symbolic and meant to convey permanence – as suggested adjustment of emphasis” and “a recon‡guration of the by Ridgway – ‚‚ and perhaps a deliberate continuation of relation of image to beholder”. ‚ƒˆ As in the case of the a traditional formalism may also have been instrumental kouros, the changed interconnection between the early where Cypriot sculpture was concerned. is may be sup- Classical statue and the viewer in Aica has received var- ported by a few exceptions which, although they point in ious interpretations. While some consider these statues di‹erent directions, indicate that local sculptors did occa - self-absorbed and turning the spectator into a voyeur, ‚ƒ‰ sionally elaborate on the physicality of the body. e over others ‡nd that “the life and movement of the Classical life-size statue from Pyla mentioned above (Fig. ˆ) is the statues makes for more direct contact”. ‚ƒŠ most impressive and powerful example, as it rushes for- is serves to underline the diverse interpretations ward in a dynamic stride. ‚‚Ž His narrow mantle directs the of the development of Aic sculpture from which some aention of the spectator to his naked body underneath Cypriot sculptors partly drew their inspiration, and also it, rather than covering it up, aspiring to share what Neer to emphasize that stylistic in€uence is only part of the calls the erotic perspective of the kouros. ‚‚„ A statue from picture: there are limitations to the Aic or Greek in€u- Potamia identi‡ed as Apollo with a lyre is another note- ence in Cypriot sculpture, concerning not only naturalism worthy example. He, too, is apparently naked but for the but also the e‹ect of the sculpture on the viewer. Unlike mantle, which is also draped over the le shoulder and car- the development in Aic and Greek sculpture, Cypriot ried under the right arm. But it is draped very low, almost

‚ƒ„ Vermeule ‚Šˆ„, ‰‰. ‚ƒ Stewart ‚ŠŠˆ, ˆƒ; Tanner ƒƒ‚, ˆ. For a discussion of the date cf. Osborne ƒƒ†, ‚ƒ. ‚ƒ† Ridgway ‚Š‰ , †, ‚„. ‚ƒˆ Neer ƒ‚ƒ, „. ‚ƒ‰ Elsner ƒƒ , ˆ†, ‰ . ‚ƒŠ Tanner ƒƒ‚, ˆƒ. ‚‚ƒ Aker ƒƒˆ, Žƒ. ‚‚‚ Feldman ƒƒˆ, ‰‚. ‚‚ Ridgway ‚Š‰ , ‚‚. ‚‚Ž Bernhard-Walcher et al. ‚ŠŠŠ, no. ˆ†. ‚‚„ Neer ƒ‚ƒ, „Š. 71 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

below the hip. Again the mantle is not voluminous, but it widespread use of local limestone for Cypriot sculp- is draped in a way that reveals the so body structure and ture”. €$% As to the la†er suggestion, it should be taken the genitals beneath it. €€ Again the drapery is part of the into consideration that during the Cypro-Archaic period play. €€‚ Some of the Egyptianizing statues present another Cyprus was hardly impoverished, and as just mentioned and quite diƒerent approach to the rendering of the body, marble was available and exploited on the islands of Paros which is provided with a somewhat „oppy belly €€ that and Naxos, located not far away. €$€ It rather seems that brings to mind Egyptian statues from the New Kingdom marble was not an issue in Cyprus at this point in time. period, rather than the contemporary Egyptian/ Phoe- Greek marble is praised for its radiance, its wonder and nician look. Although the slender waist may result from its whiteness, €$$ while Cypriot limestone shares only the cu†ing away the stone between the arms and the body as whitish colour and perhaps sometimes the shine. €$& !e suggested by Faegersten, €€‡ this does not account for the choice of local material may actually be one of the reasons „oppy belly. why Cypriot sculpture has been considered inferior by modern spectators. However, such an a†itude may not th e material have prevailed during the late and early part of the ‚th century BC, as indicated by the series of limestone !e materials used for statuary are also important ele- statue†es of Cypro-Ionian style found in the Levant, at ments of their visual expression and the messages embed- Naucratis in Egypt and in Greek sanctuaries in particular ded in them. !e production of stone sculpture started on Rhodes, Samos, Cnidos and at Miletus. €$' Although more or less at the same time in Cyprus and the Greek the series raises a number of other interesting questions, world. !e beginning of the Cretan series of limestone the few comments here address only the material. Scien- statues of the so-called Daidalic style is dated to the early ti#c analyses indicate that at least the examined statue†es th century BC. €€" !e style is also represented by stone from Samos and Lindos and Vroulia on Rhodes are most statuary outside Crete as for instance the Nikandra stat- likely made of Cypriot limestone. However, the variety of ue, which was erected to Artemis on Delos by the mid- limestone in Cyprus is a complicating factor, and it cannot dle of the th century BC and represents the #rst statue be excluded that some of the other statue†es were made made of marble, which became the famed material for of limestone from sources outside of Cyprus. €$ Jenkins Greek sculpture. !e production of Cypriot limestone has pointed out that a group of similar statue†es found at statues also began in the th century BC, but like their Naucratis are made of Cypriot gypsum and not Egyptian Near Eastern and Egyptian neighbours the Cypriots used alabaster, as previously believed. €$‚ According to him “!e local stone material. According to Counts “!e lack of gypsum statue†es seem to have been a de luxe alternative an indigenous source of marble and an apparent lack of to limestone, intended to simulate the white marble of the desire or economic ability to import it resulted in the Greek sculptures they copy”. €$ Both materials may also

€€ Karageorghis €" ", #g. '; €""‡, no. $. €€‚ !e concentration of the elaborate folds along the le side together with the block-like right side and the strange position of the abdomen seen from the front indicate that the statue was not made to be seen from a strictly frontal viewpoint. !e statue seems to be restored, but it is di)cult to pinpoint the extent of the restoration. €€ Karageorghis et al. $%%%, no. € ‚; Faegersten $%%&, nos &%, ''. €€‡ Faegersten $%%&, ‡'. €€" Stewart €""%, €% . €$% Counts $%%€, €&. €$€ Stewart €""%, &‡. €$$ Stewart €""%, &‚; Neer $%€%, &. €$& For the diƒerent hues cf. Kourou et al. $%%$, $. €$' Kourou et al. $%%$. €$ Kourou et al. $%%$, &, . €$‚ Jenkins $%%€, €‚ . 72 €$ Jenkins $%%€, € . LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

have a shiny quality like marble and thus support Jenkin’s during the Archaic period; if it was, it is usually assumed suggestion. Still, they too carry painted decoration. e that such statues have disappeared because they were use of colour was commented on above in connection vulnerable and prone to re-melting. e ! th -century BC with the dress types, and in Cyprus colouring continued sphyrelata from Krete and Olympia, the la†er produced as an important element used to enhance dress and orna- from a combination of Greek and re-used Near Eastern mental details during the € th century BC, as documented relief plaques, document that bronze was indeed used by one of the Hathor capitals and sarcophagi found at for larger statuary in the Mediterranean during the Ar- Amathus and Kouklia-Palaipaphos. ‚ƒ Furthermore, paint- chaic period, ‡‡ and not just for small „gures, which are ed sculpture was not con„ned to Greece and Cyprus. also known from Cyprus. ‡" As it stands, the so-called In other neighbouring societies such as Egypt and the Chatsworth head found at Tamassos (which belongs to- Assyrian and Achaemenid empires, paint was used for gether with a leg in the Louvre) is the earliest evidence instance on architectural reliefs made of yet other sorts of local large-scale cast bronze statuary. ‡€ However, it is of stone material, which is likewise being analyzed and dated to the second quarter of the € th century BC, and it debated. ‚ Considering the geographical location of Cy- is noteworthy that, pace a single kouros from Marion, the prus, these areas are likewise important when it comes to earliest and similarly scarce evidence of marble statuary understanding the use of colours on Cypriot sculpture. appeared at the same time or later. ‡# Discussions of materials should also include other We know that wood and ivory was used for Greek materials such as metals, wood and ivory. Here it may sculpture – wood for xoana – and the remains of the two be useful to draw a†ention to Neer’s discussion of “shin- #th -century BC statues found at Delphi testify to a com- ing stone”, i.e. marble. ‡ˆ According to Neer, marble not bination of ivory and other precious materials such as considered shiny enough could be improved with bright gilded bronze sheets, gold foil and silver and bronze nails, tin or silver foil, as in the case of the “Ballplayer Base”, a and in the la†er case Stewart rightly emphasizes their statue base from Kerameikos in Athens named a‰er its colourful eŠect. ‡! Here it should be mentioned that paint relief decoration showing ball players and athletes. But along with gold, was applied on Achaemenid sculpture as this statement would seem to contradict Neer’s praise a colouring device. ‡ƒ e ivory and some of the woods of the radiance of marble itself and could even speak in used in Greece derive from the Levant, and one would favour of a preference for play with colours produced expect that the nearby island of Cyprus, itself densely for- by combining diŠerent materials. e application of foil ested at the time, would have used the same materials for may also re‹ect in‹uence from bronze statuary, where sculpture, although not a shred of evidence is available. metals were similarly used in colourful combinations e possibility has therefore largely been ignored, but in and in combination with other materials. ‡ Taking the her meticulous study of the Cypriot Egyptianizing statues Cypriot natural resources of copper into consideration, Faegersten argues for Phoenician models made of wood, it is hard to believe that bronze – another shiny material, which were either brightly painted or embellished with with which the verb marmairo (to gli†er or shine) was ivory and coloured glass inlays. ‡ Considering the local o‰en associated – ‡‚ was apparently not used for statues characteristic rendering of the bodies and faces of the

‚ƒ Hermary  ƒ€, „g. !; Hendrix ‚ˆˆ, pl. ; Flourentzos ‚ˆˆ!, „gs ‡-!. ‚ Nagel ‚ˆ‡, - . ‡ˆ Neer ‚ˆˆ, !€. ‡ Wünsche ‚ˆˆ!, €‡; Brinkmann ‚ˆ", !. ‡‚ Neer ‚ˆˆ, !#. ‡‡ Borell & Ri†ig  ƒ, ‚ˆ#. ‡" Hermary ‚ˆˆ, "€-#". ‡€ Bouquillon et al. ‚ˆˆ#, ‚‡", ‚€‚. ‡# SenŠ  ‡, "ƒ; Ridgeway  !ˆ, €ƒ, „gs ƒ"-!; Maier & Karageorghis  ƒ", „g. !ˆ; Fontan ‚ˆˆ!, " . ‡! Stewart  ˆ, ‡!. ‡ƒ Nagel ‚ˆ‡, !. ‡ Faegersten ‚ˆˆ‡, ‚‚€-"‡. 73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Cypriot statues, Faegersten specically comments that and clay for votary statues should perhaps be seen from what was being imitated was the “new and foreign, col- a religious and/or local perspective. From the onset the ourful pleasing a€ire”, thus underscoring the importance statues were primarily produced to perform as dedica- of the play with colours. ‚ƒ „e relief decoration of the tions in sanctuaries, and the use of these materials, once Egyptianizing kilts brings to mind ivory carvings, and the established for this specic purpose, was by and large indented borders of some of them certainly indicate that perpetuated until the Roman period. Marble was indeed inlays were inserted or that the stone sculpture imitated used before, but as demonstrated by Fejfer, Šƒ it was sys- products made of other materials, ‚ and perhaps refer to tematically employed in architectural se€ings in Cyprus beads applied to real kilts. ‚ Other details of the stone during the Roman period in order to accommodate the sculpture reveal in†uence from techniques more at home Roman imperial style, while bronze and limestone con- in other materials. For instance, the incised decoration tinued to be used for self-representations in traditional on the T-shirt of one of the statues dressed in “Cypriot se€ings such as sanctuaries. pants” (Fig. ˆ) and the drapery of some of the tunics and mantles seem to be more at home in works of clay or Size bronze. ‚‰ Like the mantle edge of some of the stone stat - ues mentioned above (Figs. - ), the stippled moustache Both Greeks and Cypriots produced statuary of dierent and feathered eyebrows of some stone sculpture reveal sizes. A Œ th -century terraco€a statue from Salamis origi- in†uence from work in clay, ‚‚ thus supporting the more nally more than ‚.‹ƒ m tall and a helmeted head of lime- general comment by Hermary that stone sculpture essen- stone, more than ƒ. m tall and dated to around ‹ƒƒ BC, Š tially developed from terraco€a sculpture. ‚Š It should also demonstrate the large sizes of some of the earlier statues, be mentioned that the lower part of terraco€a gurines and although the size seems to diminish with time statues with wheel-made bodies look very much like the high feet taller than life-size, as for instance the “Priest with dove” on stemmed bowls, ‚‹ while the loose locks of hair and (Fig. Œ), were still being produced by the end of the ‹ th beard on some of the later statues rather reveal in†uence and the beginning of the Š th century BC. „e large size from metalwork. ‚Œ It thus seems that sometimes tech- would have been rather spectacular and overwhelming in niques more at home in other media were borrowed to the se€ing of the Cypriot sanctuaries, which were them- achieve certain eects in stone statuary, and the question selves hardly impressive architectural structures and ut- arises of how closely the craŽsmen working in dierent terly dierent from the large stone temples in Greece and media actually collaborated. ‚ the monumentality of Egyptian versions, as pointed out According to Jenkins the use of marble was one of by Sen. Š In Greek sanctuary se€ings the colossal kouroi the self-dening characteristics of Greek sculpture, ‚ˆ and would likewise have made an overwhelming impression, perhaps similar Cypriot connotations were embedded and in the case of the Samian Heraion these “monsters”, in the local limestone. „e persistent use of limestone to use Stewart’s expression, may even have been one of

‚ƒ Faegersten ƒƒ‰, ‚ . ‚ Faegersten ƒƒ‰, no. ‹. ‚ Faegersten ƒƒ‰, nos Š, ƒ- . ‚‰ Karageorghis et al. ƒƒƒ, nos ‹ˆ, ‰‰‹. ‚‚ Markoe ˆŒ, pls ‚ƒ, ‚, ‰-‚; Faegersten ƒƒ‰, nos , ‚. ‚Š Hermary ˆˆ, ‚‹. ‚‹ For instance Karageorghis et al. ƒƒƒ, nos , ‰‰. ‚Œ Hermary ˆˆ, no. Œ; Karageorghis et al. ƒƒ‰, no. ‰‰‹; Hermary ƒƒŠ, ƒ‰. ‚ Cf. Karageorghis ˆˆ‰, Š. ‚ˆ Spivey ˆˆ‹, ‹‚. Šƒ Fejfer ƒ‰, ˆ . Š Hermary ˆˆ, ‚‰; Karageorghis et al ƒƒƒ, no. Œ. 74 Š Sen ˆˆ‰, ‹. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

the reasons why the construction of the Rhoikos temple details, which probably held speciƒc meanings. ‚is outƒt, was begun. € ‚e votives were ƒrst and foremost o„er- or parts of it, is worn by bearded as well as unbearded males, ings to the gods, and large and even colossal sizes may of and so it seems to have li‡le to do with a speciƒc age group course express a wish to present the deity with the best or age-related rituals. ‚e statues have been interpreted as one could a„ord, but simultaneously they also conveyed images of the local aristocracy, kings and princes, perhaps messages concerning economic and social power. € As also presiding as priests. €" Having traced the inter-depend- stated by Miller, “power is, among other things, a property ency between Cyprus and Phoenicia concerning this type of materiality”, €€ and investigations of Achaemenid art, for of statue as well as other media, Faegersten suggested that instance, have shown that hierarchical proportions were “this particular ƒgure type was connected to a Phoenician used as a means to convey information on social stratiƒ- royal and/or divine sphere, where a (foreign) royal refer- cation. €† Following this line of thought one would expect ence was one preferred means for a‡racting the a‡ention of the large statues also to be the most ornate, but the group the divine powers”. €# A sacral aspect seems to be supported of the Egyptianizing statues for instance contradicts this by a colossal statue of the so-called Cypriot Herakles, also assumption. ‚ey, too, appear in di„erent sizes from stat- named Master of the Lion by Counts, dressed in a kilt-like ue‡es to colossal dimensions. While three of the six pieces skirt combined with a T-shirt. †$ ‚e Egyptianizing gar- with ornate kilt aprons decorated with a frontal head are ment was probably worn by priests, royal or not, but this indeed tall, the other three are less than one metre tall, €ˆ does not exclude that a wider range of o%cials a‡ached to and small and large statues of this particular type appeared the sanctuaries were entitled to wear it. ‚is would account together in the sanctuaries at Idalion and Golgoi. for the falcon-headed scribe and the ƒgures with weapons and carrying animals mentioned above, as well as the dif - ferent sizes of the statues. Interpretations Statues dressed in “Cypriot pants” are usually inter- ‚e Egyptianizing outƒt looks rather impractical and could preted as princes or members of the royal families. Sen„ hardly have been used in a daily context; one wonders what emphasizes the display of luxury items such as the jewel- materials it was made of in real life. It is and was !ashy and lery. † According to Hermary, diadems with rose‡es were eye-catching, and was probably reserved for particular reserved for kings, princes and princesses in the Near segments of the Cypriot kingdom societies, who clearly East and the Cypriot statues may represent princes in wished to display themselves in an ostentatious way. ‚e divine service, †& while Counts is open to this dual inter- decorative elements suggest that it was used within a reli- pretation without necessarily referring to the Near East. † gious sphere, and at the same time the variety of details and Hurschmann agrees with Sen„ that the outƒt would be the inconsistent use of the crown and broad collar indicate practical and easy to move in, and he suggests that the that a donator and his sculptor were free to choose the exact statues represent ceremonial assistants participating in an-

€ Stewart ##$, ˆ. € Sørensen ## , "". €€ Miller &$$€, &$. €† Azarpay ## , ˆ". €ˆ Faegersten &$$, nos €, $, €$. €" Maier #"#, ˆˆ; Hermary #"#, #; Sen„ ##, ˆ. €# Faegersten &$$, &$€, &†€. †$ Karagorghis et al. &$$$, no. #$; Counts &$$", $. Here the broad belt securing the kilt is repeated, as is the beaded edge of the kilt covering the le' thigh, thus repeating a dress detail seen on other kilt statues. However, the two ends do not meet in the middle, where the vertical devanteau or apron is missing. ‚e le' hem of the kilt is provided with a Greek drapery system ending in zigzag folds, and the line of beads marking the right border of the kilt has been incorporated as the central decoration of this system. It should also be noticed that his beard is of the old-fashioned type with vertical tresses. † Sen„ ##, ˆ. †& Hermary #"#, . † Counts &$$, €". It should be noticed, though, that the simple rose‡es decorate the garments of kings as well as o%cials on Neo-Assyrian reliefs, cf. Guralnick &$$ , &. 75 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

imal sacrices or representatives of family clans or other the so-called Anakreontic revellers on A„ic vase paintings social groups. €‚ ƒe small terraco„a group of two youths produced around ˆ‹‹ BC. On these sympotic vessels rev - with rose„e-decorated pants and diadems anking a large ellers, including Anakreon whose name is wri„en on three bull – perhaps being led o‡ to be sacriced – may sup- of the vases, are shown in lavish chitons and himatia which port a religious interpretation. €ˆ However, this does not they adopted among other things from their Lydian aristo- exclude an athletic aspect, and it is interesting that similar cratic peers in order to di‡erentiate themselves from their pants are used by Mongolian wrestlers competing at the contemporaries. €Œ Based upon literary sources, Kurke has Naadam festival, which has its roots in ritual sacricial provided a list of the elements that made up this luxurious ceremonies. € In Mongolia wrestling is one of the three lifestyle called habros, which includes long, owing gar- games of men, which are instrumental in restructuring ments of expensive material, hair worn long and elaborate- traditions, values and identities, and in Cyprus the sim- ly coi‡ured, gold ornaments, perfumes and scented oils. ilar outt may have embodied comparable notions and Kurke also pointed out that while the term carried posi- were perhaps connected with rites of passage. Compared tive connotations in the  th century BC it took a negative with the extant corpus of sculpture dressed in tunic and turn in Greece during the ˆ th century, probably because of mantle, statues and statue„es wearing “Cypriot pants” the Persian wars and the turn to democracy in Athens. €‰‹ and Egyptianizing kilts are comparatively few and hardly ƒe adoption of the Greek-inspired chiton and himation appear in terraco„a, which may also indicate that these in Cyprus may be seen as an expression of Grecophilia garments were reserved for specic occasions and mem- and/or a political manifestation against the Persians, or bers of the Cypriot societies. simply as a social manifestation of members of the upper ƒe tunic-–mantle and later chiton–himation combi- classes leading a luxurious lifestyle like Greek and other nation may be considered an international garment com- Mediterranean aristocrats. Some of the statues dressed in bination of the time. In Cyprus details of these garments chiton and himation have also been interpreted as kings show in uence rst from the Near East, then Ionia and or priests or both. €‰€ In this respect one particular group A„ica; but as mentioned above, old traits continued and has received a„ention: according to Sen‡, statues from blended with new ones in an inconsistent way. ƒis type of Idalion with a tasselled beard and a wreath around the sculpture seems to represent older as well as younger men head (Fig. ) represent members of the local royal dynasty of di‡erent social groups, primarily based upon their size prior to its annexation by Phoenician Kition, and should and elaboration. €‰ Fringes and borders of mantles were be seen as “verstärkter Anschluss” to Greek culture. €‰Ž Her- inspired by the Near East where personalized borders mary, on the other hand, dating the annexation of Idalion and fringes could be used by the Assyrians to seal legal to ‚‰‹-‚‹ BC and the statues in question to about the records, €Š and in Cyprus they may likewise have served to middle of the ˆ th century BC, interpreted them as images distinguish certain members of the societies. During the of royal members of the new Kitian dynasty of Idalion. €‰ th century the Cypriots adopted the Greek-inspired hi- Although it is highly likely that kings and members of the mation with folds, which indicates that the volume of the royal family acted as priests during the Cypro-Archaic pe - garment became an issue. References were made above to riod it is dicult to prove. €‰‚ ƒe epigraphic evidence dates

€‚ Sen‡ €ŒŒ, ‚, note Œ; Hurschmann Ž‹‹, Ž‹ˆ. €ˆ Karageorghis €ŒŒˆ, pl. ˆŽ, €. € Rhode Ž‹‹Œ, ŽŠ, ŒŒ. €‰ Sen‡ €ŒŒ, ‰€; Sørensen €ŒŒ‚, ŠŠ. €Š Dalley €ŒŒ€, €Žˆ. €Œ Neer Ž‹‹Ž, €Œ with further references. €‰‹ Kurke €ŒŒŽ, Œ‰-Š, €‹Ž. €‰€ Sen‡ €ŒŒ, ‰€. €‰Ž Sen‡ €ŒŒ, ‰. €‰ Hermary Ž‹‹ˆ, €€Ž. 76 €‰‚ Cf. Hermary Ž‹€‚, €‚ for a summary. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

to the late  th century BC and later, and the archaeological from the kingdom of Idalion. €†Œ e rendering of Greek evidence concerning the Archaic period is inconclusive. €‚ myths on this sarcophagus links it with the sarcophagus Discussing royalty and sculpture, three sarcophagi from Palaepaphos; it has been suggested that the fore- dated to the ƒrst part of the ‚ th century BC should be most intention with the scenes was to re-arm Greek taken into consideration not least because it has been culture, and that the scene from Troy on the Palaepaphos suggested that these painted and relief-decorated sar- sarcophagus referring to Teucros, son of Telamon and cophagi became the new medium for manifestations founder of Salamis in Cyprus, served to underline the of power and royalty, thus taking over the former role Greek roots of the island as such. €† Whether or not the of statuary. €„ On the so-called Amathus sarcophagus decoration of the sarcophagi was intended to convey procession scenes are seen on the long sides and ƒgures political statements, images of Greek gods appeared on of Astarte and Bes decorate the short sides. € e long the island at the same time and statues dressed in the sides of the slightly later sarcophagus from Golgoi are “Cypriot pants” and Egyptianizing kilts were given up, decorated with symposium and hunting scenes, while the suggesting changes within the religious practice. If these myth of Perseus and Medusa and two persons standing garments were ƒrst and foremost associated with perfor- in a horse-drawn chariot decorate the short sides. €† e mances of religious rites connected to the local deities, sarcophagus from Kouklia (Palaepaphos) carries ƒgural they were perhaps considered old-fashioned or incom - scenes which may relate to Greek mythology, such as patible with new developments and were accordingly Ajax carrying the body of Achilleus, and Odysseus and given up. However, if the statues, and in particular those his men escaping from the Cyclops Polyphemos. €‡ All wearing Egyptian kilts, were associated with royalty it is three sarcophagi show a mixture of details which point noteworthy that they were given up while the Cypriot to Greek, Ionian, Phoenician and Persian spheres, and kingdoms prevailed. Furthermore, it does not necessarily the sarcophagi from Golgoi and Palaepaphos relate to follow that their disappearance from the sculptural realm the so-called Greco-Persian tomb reliefs from Ionia, implies that statuary ceased to be a prominent ground Lycia and Western Anatolia, areas likewise subjugated for manifestation of power during the ‚ th century BC, by the Achaemenid empire. €†ˆ To Drayco‰, “the mate- as proposed by Satraki. €†‚ e role of statues as status rials present Western Anatolian emulation of Persian markers seems rather to have continued, as suggested nobles”, €†€ and she asks whether it is possible to detect by the statues wearing himatia and wreaths mentioned variations among the areas in question, €†Š topics that above. e continued dedication of statues in the sanc - are likewise relevant in the case of Cyprus. It has been tuaries demonstrates that statuary did, indeed, remain a suggested that the sarcophagus from Amathus, which is signiƒcant social and cultural marker. In fact, the sanc- decorated with traditional Cypriot elements based on tuaries probably functioned as important places, which Near Eastern iconography, was made for a local king helped keep the societies together by means of ritualized and re‹ects the city’s refusal to join the Ionian uprising behaviour. As stated by Bollmer, “Ritual is the embodied against the Persians in ‡‡ BC, while the sarcophagus performance of history as memory. And for memory to from Golgoi may have belonged to a dignitary probably persist in time the ritual must be maintained”. €†„

€‚ Hermary Šˆ€, €Œ. €„ Satraki Šˆ€Œ, €ŒŒ, €Œ. € Ta‰on-Brown €‡†€, ; Hermary & Mertens Šˆ€, cat. ‡ˆ with further references. €† Karageorghis et al. Šˆˆˆ, no. ŒŒ€. €‡ Raptou Šˆˆ, Œ€„. €†ˆ Ta‰on-Brown €‡†€, †€; Ta‰on-brown €‡†, €„‡; Petit Šˆˆ, ‚€. €†€ Drayco‰ Šˆ€ˆ, €. €†Š Drayco‰ Šˆ€ˆ, Š. Cf. also Baughan Šˆ€ˆ, ŒŠ. €†Œ Hermary Šˆ€, Œ„€, Œˆ. €† Raptou Šˆˆ, ŒŠ„. €†‚ Satraki Šˆ€Œ, €ŒŒ. €†„ Bollmer Šˆ€€, ‚‡. 77 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Fig. €. e sculpture arranged around the altar in the sanctuary at A. Irini, €om the North.

Context cles around an altar, almost conveying the impression of e context of statues plays a vital role, and as the Cypriot participants focusing on the altar, as suggested by Sen€ stone sculptures primarily functioned as dedications to (Fig. ‡).  ˆ It might even be suggested that the ‰gures a god or gods and objects to be viewed in the sanctuar- were arranged in a theatre-like se„ing where the smaller ies, they belong to a category that Snodgrass has termed ‰gures close to the altar and the large ones at the back en- converted o€erings, meaning o€erings which have no sured that they were all able to follow and even partake in possible use outside of a “votive” context, ‚ƒ and Whitley what was being performed at the altar. Furthermore, they adds that the votives are new objects whose social lives, seem to be turned approximately towards the entrance as dedications and custodians of social memory, are just of the temenos, which in period Š and perhaps also the beginning. e majority is believed to represent adorants preceding period, ‹, was located in the north eastern cor- alias donators, who were thus immortalized and meant to ner of the temenos. Upon entering, visitors would have be exhibited forever in the sanctuaries. e sanctuary at been faced with this scenario of closely grouped imagery A. Irini on the northwest coast of Cyprus was excavated dedicated by their ancestors and possibly themselves, by the Swedish Cyprus expedition, and the terraco„as and thus live adorants and images of previous votaries dedicated here present an interesting phenomenon. ‚‚ interacted with the altar as the focal point. Although serious questions have been raised concerning e Apollo sanctuary at Idalion   serves as another the stratigraphy and the date of Gjerstad’s Proto-Cypriot example (Fig. Œ). e statues were erected within an archi- and Neo-Cypriot stylistic groups the location of the ma- tectural se„ing apparently belonging to di€erent phases, jority of statuary remains unchallenged. ‚ It was found which the excavators recorded together with the location in an open-air temenos, arranged in concentric semicir- of the statue bases. Although it cannot be proved, Sen€ sug-

‚ƒ Quoted Whitley ‡ˆˆŒ/ˆ‹,  ˆ. ‚‚ Gjerstad  ŒŠ, ‚ˆ‚, ‰gs ‡!Œ; ‡ƒƒ- . ‚ Stylianou ‡ˆˆŒ, ‹ƒ; Fourrier ‡ˆˆƒ, ˆ‹.  ˆ Sen€  Œ, ‹.   According to Gaber  ‹, !‡; ‡ˆˆ‚, Š ; Gaber & Dever  !, ˆŠ, the exact location of the sanctuary was not recorded on a map by the excavator and based upon her investigations she has proposed another area than that indicated by Ohnefalsch-Richter in his work, Kypros, die Bibel und 78 Homer, Berlin ‚ Œ pl. ‡. Instead of a temple a temenos with utilitarian buildings is proposed. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Fig. €. Model of the Apollon sanctuary at Idalion (Sen €‚).

gests that the dierent statue types were placed in groups where statues placed in the temenos before the entrance according to their a€ire, based on the notes le by the to the cult room ‡anked the approaching visitors. ‚ƒˆ e excavator Hamilton Lang. ‚ƒ„ e statues dedicated in the bases recorded on the plan of the sanctuary at Achna indi- earlier eastern part of the sanctuary probably also focused cate that here statues were raised partly in line and partly on an altar, while the statues in the late Archaic western in small clusters, ‚ƒ‰ and according to Cesnola’s perhaps not section of the sanctuary were aligned in rows both under reliable observations of the sanctuary at Golgoi-A. Photios, shelter and in the large courtyard, apparently without an the statues were arranged in lines along the walls and in the altar as a focal point, but facing the procession entering centre of the sanctuary, ‚ƒŠ recalling the situation at Idalion. the court from the west as past spectators, or “Vertreter On the other hand the statuary in the Apollo sanctuary at der Fes€eilnehmer” to use Sen’s expression. ‚ƒ† However, Tamassos was apparently placed in a separate temenos, supposing Lang’s information is reliable, a slightly dierent which gives the impression of being a storage area. ‚ƒ‹ scenario may be proposed. If the two stone basins on an Although votives were removed periodically as wit- axis running north–south in the centre of the courtyard nessed by depositions in bothroi, the Œnd circumstances were focal points in some kind of ceremony, participants at A. Irini and Idalion for example suggest that this did could have entered through both entrances and lined up not happen on a regular basis, since both older and more along the three sides of the basins, while the rows of statues recent statues were found together by the excavators. e would have formed the southern part of the audience and statues, which were dedicated at dierent times within the participated along with the living adorants in a way more sanctuaries, presented dierent pasts in a continuously similar to the situation at A. Irini. e interplay between forward-moving present, and so they were instrumental statues and adorants is repeated at the palace at Vouni, for upholding links with the past and for marking out a

‚ƒ„ Sen ‚ƒƒ†, ‚‹; Sen „!!‰, ‚!†. ‚ƒ† Sen ‚ƒƒ†, ‚†-ˆ. ‚ƒˆ Sen ‚ƒƒ†, ‚ˆ. ‚ƒ‰ Gjerstad ‚ƒˆ", Œg. ‚.†. ‚ƒŠ Hermary & Mertens „!‚ˆ, ‚ˆ. ‚ƒ‹ Gjerstad ‚ƒˆ", ƒ, Œg. ‚.ˆ; Buchholz & Untiedt ‚ƒƒŠ, ˆ‹, Œg. ŠŠ. 79 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

sanctuary as a place of memory. e importance of the Many of the Cypriot sanctuaries were located outside past in the present is indeed underlined by the fact that the city centres, and, largely based upon studies of Cyp- some Cypriot sanctuaries of the Iron Age like A. Irini, riot terraco‹as and po‹ery, Fourrier has suggested that Maroni and Enkomi were located at places with earlier the location of extra-urban sanctuaries deŒned spheres Late Bronze Age activities. €‚ of inŠuence and were used as a means to legitimize the e statues were probably also invigorating a sense claim of a territory by an urban centre. †‡ According to of community in the Cypriot societies – which was espe- Fourrier the use of the names Golgia and Paphia for the cially important because neither the „ th nor the following “Great Goddess” of the island wri‹en on dedications centuries were peaceful times on the island. We do not found in sanctuaries located in the Mesaoria reŠects po- know whether the statues in question were personal or litical negotiations between certain kings, †‡Ž and Golgia collective dedications, but according to Guggenheim and images of the “Cypriot Heracles”, alias “the Master “objects outside the remembering persons or collectives of the Lion”, may have been promoted in order to unify may act as catalysts for the production and interperson- Mesaoria as a homogeneous cultural region. †‡ If this is al adjustment of memory”. € Furthermore, as stated by correct, it demonstrates that sanctuaries were involved in Bollmer, “For a collective to exist over any extended pe- political tensions of the area during the  th century BC, riod of time, memory has to be performed repeatedly, as and it is quite likely that they played a similar role during rituals” and “it is in embodied action that the collective the previous centuries. Sanctuaries provided permanent is united, in spite of the plurality of individual a ects, loci for meetings of many kinds of people, and the tra- beliefs and interpretations of history and policy”. †‡‡ is ditional se‹ings as well as the votives and in particular was not a local Cypriot phenomenon, as witnessed for the statues were probably important signiŒers not only instance by the situation in the sanctuary at Olympia in respect to religion but also in political and cultural in Greece. According to Hölscher, interaction between negotiations. Although new elements such as sarcophagi various types of free-standing statues and the visitors to were introduced as markers of social superiority, statues this sanctuary was played out from the „ th century BC dedicated in sanctuaries did indeed remain important for onwards, and the statues acted not only as votive monu- the duration of the Cypriot kingdoms and beyond. ments but also as spectators to successive celebrations. †‡€ Still, our comparatively slight knowledge of the physical Conclusions appearance of the Cypriot sanctuaries makes it di‰cult to imagine the impression the structures together with e analysis above suggests that although Count’s remark the votives, and the statuary in particular, made on the about Cypriot statues being true to type seems convinc- visitors. e experience would also have been inŠuenced ing, we cannot be absolutely sure that heads with certain by what time of the year they were there, and whether the headdresses belong to speciŒc statue types. Furthermore, visit took place during broad daylight or by torch-light. the variety concerning details indicates that statue-mak- Although it is problematic to ascertain in this case, the ing was not governed by strict formulae and that the e ect of light and lightning on sensual perception is an Cypriots appreciated the ability to provide their dedi- important issue, which should be addressed along with cations with an individual touch. Some details may also materials, colours and sizes employed, as demonstrated have been used to convey speciŒc messages unreadable by a number of other studies. †‡† to us today. e details and the combination of various

€‚ Fourrier †‡‡!, €††. € Guggenheim †‡‡, Ž€. †‡‡ Bollmer †‡€€, Ž‚. †‡€ Hölscher †‡‡†, ‚. †‡† Bille & Sørensen †‡‡!. †‡ Fourrier †‡€, €‡!. †‡Ž Fourrier †‡€, €€‡. 80 †‡ Fourrier †‡€, €€. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

elements are actually quite impressive, in particular in Greek marble, and according to the present evidence the the case of the statues wearing the Egyptianizing kilt, but Cypriots did not acquire Archaic Greek marble statues in also where statues dressed in a tunic and mantle/chiton great numbers. It seems that like the Persians the Cypriots and himation are concerned. Even the Cypriot pants are preferred local stone material, perhaps because it was part rendered in a number of dierent ways, although they are of their identity- building and maintenance. ‚e size of basically a simple dress item. Traces of paint furthermore the Cypriot statues is another interesting aspect, which indicate that the statues were once more colourful and deserves further deliberation. As mentioned above the painted details were probably also used to enhance the wide range of sizes in particular of statues wearing an individual look of a statue. Hathor capitals and sarcophagi Egyptianizing out‡t makes it diˆcult to interpret them demonstrate how brightly coloured relief sculpture in all as images of kings and princes. If so, materiality was stone could be, and the local terraco€as underline the of li€le consequence to Cypriot royalty, which is hard importance of paint as a communicative device. Com- to believe considering that we are dealing with hierar- parative studies not only of Cypriot stone and terraco€a chic societies in which the elite was presumably keen on sculpture but also of Greek, Near Eastern and Egyptian outshining subordinate classes. ‚e ornamentation of sculpture may provide us with a be€er understanding of the kilts carries religious connotations and suggests that how the use and perception of colour in Cyprus relates to these garments were used ‡rst and foremost by persons the practices in neighbouring, usually considered dom- functioning as priests and as sanctuary dignitaries, how- inant cultures. Analyses of how the details were made, ever not necessarily to the exclusion of royalty. Otherwise for instance carved in relief, incised or painted, may also we might have to argue that the inconspicuous statue€es provide a be€er insight into the interrelation between were dedicated by humble citizens trying to please their crasmen working in dierent media. ‚e continuation of sovereign, and thus open up a discussion of the relation the foursquare build of the Cypriot statues and the gener- between donator and dedicated statue. al lack of interest in physical details sets Cypriot sculpture Concerning size, the naked kouros ‡gure represents apart from the development in Greece during the late ƒ th another interesting phenomenon in Cyprus. A single mar- to „ th centuries BC. Perhaps Cypriot sculpture along with ble kouros was found in a tomb at Marion, †‰ but only Persian sculpture was meant to convey permanence, and a few small local statue€es are known, †Š indicating an seen through political lenses, it could be argued that if the indierence to this particular type of statue. One may disappearance of the kouros and kore statues is linked to therefore wonder what prompted the making and dedi- the abolition of well-known aristocratic emblems in the cation of what could be called the colossal semi-kouros Greek area, a similar impetus for change was not present from Pyla (Fig. ‰). On the one hand the sculptor of this in Cyprus, where the kingdom-based societies prevailed. statue clearly paid a€ention to bodily details like those Additional comparative analyses of sculptural expressions seen on Greek kouroi, and on the other hand it could be in Cyprus and the various societies in western Anatolia argued that the statue with its large beard, mantle and as well as the Levant likewise subjected to Persia oer wreath not only stands apart from the Greek kouroi but possibilities of providing a deeper insight into how areas, actually ignores the concept of the kouros statue. each with their dierent backgrounds, reacted to Persian From what we know Cypriot stone statues were pro- political domination. Such studies would also put the duced to be dedicated in the local sanctuaries where they reception of ‘Perseria’ in Athens into perspective. †ƒ functioned not only as gis to the gods but also as links to ‚e persistent use of the local limestone for all types the past, and they may even have been perceived as rep- and sizes of local statues and statue€es is also notewor- resentatives of past generations participating in ongoing thy. Apparently the assimilation of Greek stylistic traits ceremonies at the sanctuaries. As such, they sustained the in Cypriot sculpture was not accompanied by the use of role of the sanctuaries as places of memory throughout

†ƒ Miller !""‰. †‰ Richter !"‰†, no. !‰", ‡gs „ ‰-". †Š Sen !""#, $Š. 81 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

the duration of the Cypriot kingdoms and later. Appar- dedication of di„erent Cypro-Archaic statue types sug- ently Cypriot free-standing male and female statues were gests that it was important that di„erent functions and/ not used for other purposes, for instance grave markers, or events meaningful to the local societies were put on as were the Greek kouros and kore statues in some Ae- display and commemorated. As stated by Entwistle, “hu- gean areas. € ‚is single function seems to underline a man bodies are dressed bodies”, “dress is a basic fact of very close connection between statues and sanctuaries in social life”, and “conventions of dress a empt to transform Cyprus, and it raises the question of whether the statues †esh into something recognizable and meaningful to a were by themselves somehow perceived as belonging to culture”. ƒƒ the divine realm. ƒ€ Whether this is accepted or not, the

€ Meyer and Brüggemann €€", maps #-$. ƒ€ Unfortunately none of the % th -century BC Cypriot grave stelai crowned with lions or sphinxes are preserved well enough to ascertain whether their sha&s carried an image of the deceased like A ic grave stelai; cf. Ta on-Brown ƒ'%, #(; Hermary ƒ'$, %%', %"%, %'ƒ; Pogiatzi €€", #-', (€. 82 ƒƒ Entwistle €€€, %, '. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Bibliography Brinkmann, V. €‚ Drayco(, C.M. €€$ ‘Arkaisk og klassisk polykromi’, in Som ‘What does “being “Greco-Persian” Aker, J. €€' forvandlet. Antik skulptur i farver , J. mean? An introduction to the papers’, ‘Workmanship as Ideological Tool in Stubbe Østergaard & A.M. Nielsen Bolletino di Archeologia on line I 1"#" the Monumental Hunt Reliefs of As- (eds.), København, !"-#"$. volume special G/ G# / # www.aec- surbanipal’, in Ancient Near Eastern Art ologia. Beniculturali.it, #-3. Accessed in Context, Studies in Honour of I. Win- Brönner, M. ""‚ #"."/.1"#/. ter by her Students , J. Cheng & M.H. ‘Heads with Double Crowns’, in Cyp- Feldman (eds.), 11$-130. riote Stone Sculpture , F. Vandenabeele Elsner, J. €€% & R. La%neur (eds.), Brussels-Liege, ‘Re6ections on the ‘Greek Revolution’ Azarpay, G. ""‚ *+-/0. in art: from changes in viewing to ‘Designing the body: Human Propor- the tranfortmation of subjectivity’, in tions in Achaemenid Arts’, IrAnt XXIX, Buchholz, H,-G. & K. Untiedt, ""# Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient 1-#$. Tamassos. Ein antikes Köningreich auf Greece , S. Goldhill & R. Osborne Zypern , Jonsered. (eds.), Cambridge, 3!-$/. Bernhard-Walcher, A. et al.""" Bernhard-Walcher, A., G. Dembsky, K. Cesnola, L.P. di $$% Entwistle, J. €€€ Gschwantler & V. Karageorghis, Die A desriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Col- #e Fashioned Body. Fashion, Dress and Sammlung zyprischer Antiken im Kun- lection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Modern Social #eory , Cambridge. sthistorischen Museum. #e Collection of Metropolitan Museum of Art New York , Cypriote Antiquities in the Kunsthistor- Vol.#, Boston. Ergülec, H. "' isches Museum , W. Seipel (ed.), Vienna. ‘Large-Sized Cypriot Sculpture in the Counts, D.B. €€ Archaeological Museums of Istanbul’, Bille, M. & T.F. Sørensen €€' ‘Prolegomena to the study of Cypriote SIMA 1". *, Gothenburg. ‘An Anthropology of Luminosity: 2e Sculpture’, CCEC 0#, #1$-!#. Agency of Light’, Journal of Material Faegersten, F. €€* Culture #1, 130-!*. Counts, D.B. €€$ #e Egyptianizing Male Limestone Stat- ‘Master of the Lion: Representation uary $om Cyprus , Lund. Bollmer, G.D. € and Hybridity in Cypriot Sanctuaries’, ‘Virtuality in systems of memory: AJA ##1, 0-1+. Faegersten, F, €€% Toward an ontology of collective mem- ‘A Cypriot Limestone Torso in the ory, ritual, and technological’, Memory Counts, D.B. € National Museum, Stockholm – Ap- Studies *, */"-3*. ‘Local Styles and Regional Trends proaching the so-called Egyptianizing in Cypriot Limestone Sculpture, in Group in Cypriote Sculpture’, in Medel- Borell, B. & D. Ri(ig ""$. Crossroads and Boundaries; 2e Ar- havsmuseet. Focus on the Mediterranean , ‘Orientalische und griechische chaeology of Past and Present in the S. Houby Nielsen (ed.), Stockholm, Bronzereliefs aus Olympia. Der Fund- Malloura Valley, Cyprus’, M.K. Tou- */-3!. komplex aus Brunnen #+’, OlForsch 13. mazou, P.N. Kardulias & D.B. Counts Berlin & New York. (eds.), ( AASOR ) 3/, #*$-31. Fejfer, J. €* ‘Marble Mania: Code-switcing in Bouquillon, A. et al. €€# Dalley, S. "" Roman Cyprus’, in Artefact Variebility, Bouquillon A., S. Descamps, A. Her- ‘Ancient Assyrian Textiles and the Or- Assembage Di%erentiation, and Identity mary & B. Mille, ‘Une nouvelle Étude igins of Carpet Design’, I"N 1$, ##+-0/. Negotiation: Debating Code-Switching in de l’Apollon Chatsworthy’, ", 11+-3#. Material Culture , J. Poblome, D. Maal- 8tania & J. Lund (eds.) (HEROM 1), Belgium, #3$-$+. 83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Feldman, M.H. €€ Gaber, P. & W.G. Dever, !##' Hermary A. !#%# ‘Darius I and the Heroes of Akkad’, in ‘Idalion, Cyprus. Conquest and Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre. Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Community’, in Preliminary Excava- Sculptures. Musée du Louvre. Départ- Studies in Honour of Irene J. Winter by tion Reports Sardis, Idalion and Tell ment des antiquités orientales , Paris. Her Students , J. Cheng & M.H. Feld- el-Handaquq North , W.G. Dever (ed.), man (eds.), Leiden & Boston, !"#-$%. ASOR #%, 5#-//%. Hermary, A. !##! ‘Les débuts de la grande plastique Flourentzos, P. €€ Gawlinski, L. €€% chypriote en terra quite’, in Cypriote !e Sarcophagos of Palaepaphos, Nic- ‘“Fashioning” Initiates: Dress at the Terraco/as , Proceedings of the First osia. Mysteries’, in Reading a Dynamic Can- International Conference of Cypriote vas: Adornment in the Ancient Mediter- Studies, Brussels-Liège-Amsterdam, Fontan, E. €€ ranean World , C.S. Colburn & M.K. !$ May – / June, /$5$, F. Vandenabeele ‘La sculpture en Phénicie’, in. XX La Heyn (eds.), Cambridge, /0"-"$. and R. La4neur (eds.), Brussels-Liège, Méditeranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à /%$-01. Carthage. Paris, /0$-##. Gjerstad, E. !#"( ‘Ajia Irini’, !e Sweedish Cyprus Expedi- Hermary, A. €€! Fourrier, S. €€ tion. Finds and Results of the Excavations ‘Les statue6es en bronze à Chypre à La coroplastique chypriote archaïque. in Cyprus %&() – %&+%, Vol II , Stockholm, l’époque de royaumes’, Archaeologia Identités culturelles et politiques à l’épo- "0!-5!0. Cypria IV, /0#-"0. que des royaumes , Lyon. Gjerstad, E. !#$% Hermary, A. €€( Fourrier, S. €!" !e Sweedish Cyprus Expedition IV.(. ‘Les derniers temps du royaume d’Idal- ‘Constructing the Peripheries: Ex- !e Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic ion et son annexion par Kition’, CCEC tra-Urban Sanctuaries and Peer-Polity and Cypro-Classical Periods . Stockholm. %#, $$-/!". Interaction in Iron Age Cyprus’, BA- SOR %12, /2%-!!. Guggenheim, M. €€# Hermary, A. €!$ ‘Building Memory: Architecture, net- ‘Les fonctions sacerdotales des souve- Freyer-Schauenburg, B. !#$ works and users’, Memory Studies ! (/), rains Cypriotes’, CCEC 00, /%1-#!. ‘Bildweke der archaischen Zeit und des %$-#%. Strengen Stils’, SAMOS XI, Bonn. Hermary, A. & J.R. Mertens €!$ Guralnick, E. €€$ !e Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Art. Gaber, P. !##$ ‘Neo-Assyrian Pa6erned Fabrics’, Iraq Stone Sculpture , New York. ‘In Search of Adonis’, in Cypriot Stone "", !!/-%!. Sculpture . Proceedings of the Second Hirmer, M. & Arias, P.E. !#' International Conference of Cypriote Hendrix, E.A. €€! A History of Greek Vase Painting , Lon- Stone Studies Brussels-Liège /$$% F. ‘Polycromy on the Amathus Sarcopha- don. Vandenabeele & R. La4neur (eds.), gos, a “Rare Gem of Art”’, Metropolitan Brussels-Liège, /"/-#. Museum Journal %", 0%-#5. Hurschmann, R. €€" ‘Archaisch-kyprische Kouroi mit Ho- Gaber, P. €€% Hermary, A. !#%( sen’, CCEC %%, /"$-!2$. ‘Excavations at Idalion and the Chang- ‘Un nouveau chapiteau Hathorique ing History of a City-Kingdom’, Near trouvé à Amathonte’, BCH /2$, "#1-$$. Hölscher, T. €€ Eastern Archaeology 1/: /-!, #!-"%. ‘Rituelle Räume und politische Den- kmäler im Heiligtum von Olympia’, in Olympia %0)1 – (222. %(1 Jahre Deutsche 84 Ausgrabungen , Mainz am Rhein, %%/-0#. LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Jacovou, M. €€ Karageorghis, V. et al. €€ Miller, M.C. !""$ ‘Cultural and Political Congurations Ancient Art *om Cyprus in the collection Athens and Persia in the Fi1h Century in Iron Age Cyprus: €e Sequel to a of George and Nefeli Giabra Pierides , BC , Cambridge. Protohistoric Episode’, AJA !!", #"$-$%. Athens. Nagel A. €!% Jenkins, I. €€! Karakasi, K. €€! ‘Color and Gilding in Achaemenid Ar- ‘Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: €e Case Archaische Koren , Munich. chitecture and Sculpture’, in e Oxford for Cypriot Origin’, AJA !&$, ", !#(-%). Handbook of Ancient Iran, D.T. Po6s Kourou, N. et al. €€ (ed.), Oxford. Karageorghis, V. !"#" Kourou,N., V. Karageorghis, Y. Mania- ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes tis, K. Polikreti, Y. Basiakos & C. Xen- Neer, R.T. €€ archéologiques a Chypre en !)#+’, BCH ophontos, Limestone Statue+es of Cypri- Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Paint- )(, /(!-$#). ote Type found in the Aegean, Nicosia. ing. e Cra1 of Democracy, ca. '2&-34& B.C.E, Cambridge. Karageorghis, V. !"$" Kurke, L. !"" ‘Material from a Sanctuary at Potamia’, ‘€e Politics of habrosyne in Archaic Neer, R.T. €!€ RDAC , "+)-("&. Greece’, ClAnt !!, )!-!"&. e Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture , Chicago & London. Karageorghis, V. !""% Maier, F.G. !"" e Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus ‘Priest Kings in Cyprus’, in Early Society Osborne, R. !" III. e Cypro-Archaic Period. Large and in Cyprus, E. Peltenburg (ed.), Edin- ‘Death Revisited; Death Revised. €e Medium Size Sculpture, Nicosia. burgh, (%#-)!. Death of the Artist in Archaic and Classical Greece’, Art History !! (!), Karageorghis, V, !""& Maier, F.G. & V. Karageorghis !"( !-!#. e Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus Paphos. History and Archaeology , Nic- IV. e Cypro-Archaic Period. Small osia. Osborne, R. €€# Male Figurines, Nicosia. ‘When was the Athenian democratic Markoe, G. !"$ revolution?’, in Rethinking Revolutions Karageorghis, V. !"" ‘A Bearded head with a conical cap through Ancient Greece , S. Goldhill & R. Greek Gods and Heroes in Ancient Cy- from Le4oniko: An Examination of a Osborne (eds.), Cambridge, !&-"+. prus , Athens. Cypro-Archaic Votary’, RDAC , !!)-"$. Papantoniou, G. €!% Karageorghis, V. & J. des Gagniers Masson & Hermary !""% ‘Cypriot Autonomous Polities at the !"$( O. Masson & A. Hermary, ‘À propos Crossroads of Empire: €e Imprint of La céramique chypriote de style #gure. du “pretre à la colombe” de New York’, a Transformed Islandscape in the Clas- Âge du Fer (%&'&-'&& Av. J.-C.). Bibliote- CCEC "&, "$-(/. sical and Hellenistc Periods’, BASOR ca di antichità cipriote ", Rome. (%&, !#)-"&$. Meyer, M & N. Brüggemann €€$ Karageorghis, V. et al. €€€ Kore und Kouros. Weihgaben für die Göt- Pogiatzi, E. €€% Karageorghis,V., J.R. Mertens & M.E. ter , Vienna. Die Grabreliefs auf Zypern von der ar- Rose, Ancient Art *om Cyprus. e chaischen bis zur römischen Zeit , Mann- Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Miller, D. €€& heim & Möhnesee. Museum of Art, New York. ‘Materiality: An Introduction’, in Ma- teriality , D. Miller (ed.), Durham & London, !-$&. 85 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DANISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS ∙ VOL UME VIII

Preejohn, E. €‚€ Schmidt, G. ‚!&$ Stylianou, A. €" e Modernity of Ancient Sculpture. ‘Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion ‘Neues zur Chronologie der frühen Greek Sculpture and Modern Art €om von Samos’, Samos VII, Bonn. kyprischen Plastik’, in Junge zyprische Winckelmann to Picasso . London & Archäologie , V. Karageorghis & S. Rog- New York. Sen', R. ‚!!". ge (eds.), Münster. ‘Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion. Ar- Pryce, F.N. ‚!"‚ chitektur und Statuenaussta2ung eines Sørensen, L.W. ‚!!( A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Depart- zyprischen Heiligtums’, SIMA XCIV, ‘0e Divine Image?’, in Cypriot Stone ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities of Jonsered. Sculpture , in Proceedings of the Second the British Museum. Vol. I. Part II. Cyp- International Conference of Cypriote riote and Etruscan , London. Sen', R. €%. Stone Studies Brussels-Liège )**", F. ‘Dress, habit and status-symbols of Vandenabeele & R. La6neur (eds.), Raptou, E. €# Cypriote statuary from Archaic to Brussels-Liège,#*-(*. ‘Culture grecque et tradition orientale Roman times’, in Cyprus: Religion and à Paphos’, CCEC "#, "$#-%(. Society from the Late Bronze Age to Sørensen, L.W. €‚( the End of the Archaic Period , V. Kara- ‘Creating identity or identities in Rhode, D. €! georghis, H. Ma2häus & S. Rogge Cyprus during the Archaic period’, in ‘Mongolia’s Naadam Festival: past and (eds.), Münster, **-))$. A(itudes towards the Past in Antiquity. present in the construction of national Creating Identities , Proceedings of identity’, ir.canterbury.ac.nz accessed Snodgrass, A. ‚!$ an International Conference held at !".#$.%#!&. Archaic Greece. e Age of Experiment , Stockholm University, )7-)# May %$$*, London. Stockholm Studies in Classical Ar- Richter, G.M.A. ‚!# chaeology, B. Alroth and Ch. Sche8er Kouroi. Archaic Greek Youths. A Study Sommer, M. €‚ (eds.), Stockholm, ""-17. of the Development of the Kouros Type in ‘Shaping Mediterranean Economy and Greek Sculpture , London & New York. Trade: Phoenician Cultural Identities Tanner, J. €‚ in the Iron Age’, in Material Culture and ‘Nature, culture and the body in clas- Ridgway, B.S. ‚!# Social Identities in the Ancient World , S. sical Greek religious art’, WorldArch "" e Severe Style in Greek Sculpture , Hales & T. Hodos (eds.), Cambridge, (%), %7#-#9. Princeton. ))1-"#. Taon-Brown, V. ‚!$‚ Ridgway, B.S. ‚!$% Spivey, N. ‚!!& ‘Le “sarcophage d’Amathonte”’, in Am- ‘Late Archaic Sculpture’, in Greek Art Understanding Greek Sculpture. Ancient athonte II. Testemonia %: La sculpture , A. Archaic into Classical . A Symposium Meanings, Modern Readings , London. Hermary (ed.), Paris, #1-(". held at the University of Cincinnati April %-", )*(%, C.G. Boulter (ed.), Lei- Stewart, A. ‚!! Taon-Brown, V. ‚!$& den, )-)#. Greek Sculpture. An Exploration , New ‘Gravestones of the Archaic and Haven & London. Classical Periods: Local Production Satraki, A. €‚" and Foreign In;uences’, in: Acts of the ‘0e Iconography of Basileis in Archaic Stewart, A. ‚!!# International Archaeological Symposium and Classical Cyprus: Manifestations Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient “Cyprus between the Orient and the Oc- of Royal Power in the Visual Record’, Greece , Cambridge. cident , V. Karageorghis (ed.), Nicosia, BASOR "#$, )%"-11. 1"*-7".

86 LONE WRIEDT SØRENSEN ∙ TRUE TO TYPE?

Vermeule, C. €‚ Sources for &gures and Fig. !. Antikensammlung, Kunsthis- ‘Cypriote Sculpture, the Late Archaic credits torisches Museum, Vienna, inv. ANSA and Early Classical Periods: Towards Fig. (. ;e Cesnola Collection. I )*(. Purchased ("!# from Georg V. a More Precise Understanding. Modi- ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. Millosicz. Photo: KHM-Museumsver- cations in Concentration, Terms and Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 band. Dating’, AJA !", #"!-$%. (!*.+(.#*4"). Courtecy Virginia Mu- seum of Fine Arts, Richmond. Photo: Fig. ". I am grateful to Kristina Win- Whitley, J. !""#/"‚ Katherine Weizel @Virginia Museum ther-Jacobsen for providing me with ‘Le&ing the Stones in on the Act. Stat- of Fine Arts. I thank the Virginia Mu- this photo. ues as Social Agents in Archaic and seum of Fine Arts for permission to Classical Greece’, KODAI ()/(*, ("+-$". reproduce the photo. Fig. $. ;e Cesnola Collection. ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wünsche, R. !"" Fig. #. ;e Cesnola Collection. Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 ‘Zur Farbigkeit des Münchener ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. (!*.+(.#*!$) “h&p://DP#%!4!+. jpg” Bronzekopfes mit der Siegerbinde’, Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 in Bunte Gö"er. Die Farbigkeit antiker (!*.+(.#*4%). “h&p://DP#4)"!%. jpg” Fig. (%. ;e Cesnola Collection. Skulptur , V. Brinkmann & R. Wünche ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. (eds.), Munich, (+(-4+. Fig. ). ;e Cesnola Collection. Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. (!*.+(.#*!#) “h&p://DP#4)"!*. jpg” Yon, M. !""% Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 ‘Peintres, potiers et coroplplathes à (!*.+(.#4*4) “h&p://DP#4)$($. jpg” Fig. ((. ;e Cesnola Collection, Salamine. À propos d’une tête de stat- ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. ue archaïque en terra cuite’, CCEC )+, Fig. *. ;e Cesnola Collection. Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 )+-+*. ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. (!*.+(.#*!() “h&p://DP#4)"!). jpg” Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 (!*.+(.#*44) “h&p://DP#!4$+*. jpg” Fig. (#. Excavation photo published in Gjerstad ($)+, g. #!". I am grateful to Fig. +. ;e Collection of George and ;e Medelhavs Museet, Stockholm, for Nefeli Giabra Pierides. Photo: Bank providing me with a copy. of Cyprus Cultural Foundation Col- lection. Fig. (). Made by Reinhard Sen< pub- lished Sen< ($$), pl. #a. I am grateful to Fig. 4. ;e Cesnola Collection. Reinhard Sen< for providing me with ;e Metropolitan Museum of Art. a copy. Purchased by subscription, ("!*-!4 (!*.+(.#*4() “h&p://DP#%(%"+. jpg”

87