Kiely-Perna Four Unpublished Isdcriptions in Cypriot Syllabic Script, Kadmos 2010

7/27/2019 Kiely-Perna Four Unpublished Isdcriptions in Cypriot Syllabic Script, Kadmos 2010

1/24

THOMAS KIELY MASSIMO PERNA

FOUR UNPUBLISHED INSCRIPTIONS IN CYPRIOTSYLLABIC SCRIPT IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

During two visits to the British Museum (BM) to carry out researchfor the Corpus of Cypriot syllabic script,1 I was able to study fourpreviously unpublished inscriptions in this script. Two of these arecompletely unknown to scholars and were identified in the museumstores by Thomas Kiely, curator of Cypriot antiquities at the BritishMuseum; the others have been mentioned in earlier scholars workbut not studied in detail in modern times (MP).

A) An inscribed silver cup from the BM Turner BequestExcavations at Kourion, Site B

(BM GR 1896,2-1.337; BM Catalogue of Gold and Silver Plate no. 13)

a bFig. 1. The silver mastos cup

1 These study periods were financed by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory ofPhiladelphia. The Corpus will be published in volume XV of Inscriptiones Graecaein collaboration with M. Egetmeyer and A. Karnava. I thank J.-P. Olivier andM. Egetmeyer for reading my text and making suggestions and corrections; theremaining errors are, of course, mine (MP).

Kadmos Bd. 49, S. 93116 WALTERDE GRUYTER 2010ISSN 0022-7498 DOI 10.1515/KADMOS.2010.005

Brought to you by | Freie Universitaet Berlin - FUAuthenticated | 87.77.138.233

Download Date | 11/2/12 7:12 PM


2/24

94 Thomas Kiely Massimo Perna

Description (TK)Deep ovoid cup with rounded base (mastos); plain, thickened rim;

the vessel is incomplete: part of the lower body on one side and muchof the base are missing, several fragments have been reattached afterconservation.

Dimension: H: 6.8 cm; D: 8.75 cm; thickness varies from 1.21.6mm at the rim and from 0.350.6 cm on the body.

A Cypriot syllabic inscription is incised around the base from rightto left, beneath an engraved line presumably intended as a guide tothe scribe. The last surviving part of the inscription on the left side

is incised on a fragment which is broken from the vase but fits inplace without a gap, indicating that no intervening characters aremissing. The surface of the metal had previously been cleaned bythe Department of Conservation and Science at the British Museum,during which the inscription became apparent, but the text did notcome to the attention of researchers until recently. The final sectionof the inscription mentioned above is particularly faint, possiblybecause the corrosion on the metal when cleaned was especiallyadvanced. High resolution photography and X-Ray analysis of theobject conducted by the BM on behalf of the Corpus of Cypriot syl-labic inscriptions have clarified the reading of some of the signs andrevealed or confirmed the existence of others.

Provenance and Context (TK)The vessel was excavated by the British Museum Turner Bequest

expedition to Kourion in 1895, led by H. B. Walters, an assistant inthe Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. It was found inTomb 80 which was located in what was designated Site B, partof the well-known cemetery below the classical acropolis namedafter the nearby chapel ofAyios Ermoyenis (Fig. 2).2 Unfortunately,no details are recorded about the form of the tomb, though it islikely to have consisted of one or more chambers approached bya dromos typical of other tombs opened by Walters, and otherexcavators, in the same area.3 The cup was found along with two

2 Walters 1900, 66 and fig. 78, 83.3 Walters provided descriptions or sketches of some of the tombs he excavated in

his field note book entitled Notes at Curium now preserved in the Department ofGreece and Rome. Tomb 76 was a large single chamber measuring 5.9 m x 2.4 mand 1.69 high with a door 0.56 m deep (Kiely 2009, fig. 12). Tomb 83 consisted ofmultiple squared chambers or, as Walters believed, several tombs joined together(Kiely 2009, 79). For tomb types of the Cypro-Classical period see Gjerstad 1948,4247, and Carstens 2006, 125179, for a modern survey.




3/24

Four Unpublished Inscriptions in Cypriot Syllabic Script 95

gold earrings in the form of lionsheads, probably of Cypro-ClassicalII or early Hellenistic date (BMGR 1896,2-1.181-182; BM Jewel-lery 17281729), 47 gold beads,currently strung as one necklace,of Cypro-Classical or Hellenisticdate (BM GR 1896,2-1.183; BM

Jewellery 1604), two bronze mir-ror cases (only one of which was

registered: BM GR 1896,2-1.325,probably of Hellenistic date), anda bronze spatula (also apparentlynot preserved).4 A silver drachmof Alexander the Great is alsomentioned in Walters field notes,as well as in the main publishedaccount of the excavations, butthis item was not subsequentlyregistered by the museum at leastnot with this provenance pos-sibly because it was regarded as aduplicate. The finds from Tomb80, although limited in numberand almost certainly a highly selec-tive sample of what was originallyfound signalled in particular bythe absence of any ceramic mate-

rial5 suggest the presence of one or more burials dating from thelater Cypro-Classical or early Hellenistic periods, roughly the 4th or3rd century BC.

The tomb was located in the lower end of a field in the easternpart of the Ayios Ermoyenis cemetery, an area where Walters foundnumerous tombs with rich objects of Cypro-Phoenician and Greektype, including many valuable items in gold, silver and bronze.6 Part

of Cesnolas Curium Treasure almost certainly originated in this4 Some details not included in Walters 1900 were recorded in his field notebook,Kiely 2009, esp. 79. For a full republication of the original finds from 1895 cf.Kiely 2011.

5 For a discussion of a similar treatment of Tomb 73 of the same excavations atKourion cf. BaileyHockey 2001, 10933.

6 Walters 1900, map of Site B on p. 60; Kiely 2009, 6465.

Fig. 2. Cemetery of AyiosErmoyenis. Location of the

Tomb 80 (Details of Walters1900, 60)




4/24


area, particularly in the northern part of the field near where anelaborate built tomb of later Cypro-Archaic date was discovered in1989.7 Later excavators also explored the area with some success,no doubt encouraged by Cesnolas discoveries, including GeorgeHake in 1882,8 J. W. Williamson and Max Ohnefalsch-Richter in188384,9 and Emile de Castillon in 188687.10 Excavations werelater conducted in this cemetery, on the opposite side of the roadcloser to the acropolis, by George McFadden for the University ofPennsylvania Museum expedition to Kourion in 194041.11 The areamust have been one of the principal burial grounds of the ancient

city throughout the later history of the kingdom of Kourion, espe-cially if Christou is correct in his interpretation of the built tomb asa royal sepulchre, around which perhaps other members of the localaristocracy placed their tombs. To anticipate the results of the epi-graphic analysis presented below, the importance of the individualsburied in the Ayios Ermoyenis cemetery is further demonstrated bythe observation that the majority of vessels with inscriptions fromKourion bear the names of rulers or, in this example, a priest.12

Parallels and date (TK)BM GR 1896,2-1.337 is the only example of a metal mastos cup

of this type from Cyprus known to the authors, apart from onecited in Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richters Catalogue of the CyprusMuseum as being of the exact shape as the BM vessel. The former isalso said to have been found in Kourion, though no further detailswere given and the vessel is not currently identifiable in the CyprusMuseum.13 The proportions of a deep cup from Idalion excavated byColonna-Ceccaldi are broadly similar to the present example, but thebase is more pointed, giving the vessel a tulip-shaped profile similarto glass mastos cups of various types of Hellenistic date. 14 (The lat-ter comparison does not however necessarily imply a lower date for7 Christou 1996, chapter 10; also ARDA 1989, 55; ARDA 1990, 5253.8 Bailey 1965, 713; Kiely 2010 provides a summary of the earlier visitors to the

site.9 MyresOhnefalsch-Richter, 1899, 7.10 De Castillon 1891, 281318; BuitronOliver 2002, 4958.11 McFadden 1946, 449489.12 See also Kagans commentaries of the onomastics of Kourion in Kagan 1999,

3344.13 MyresOhnefalsch-Richter 1899, no. 4883, 140. I am grateful to Dr. Despo Pilides

for this information.14 Matthus 1985, no. 330 and pl. 19; Weinberg 1970, 1727; Tatton-Brown 2002,

95 and fig. 12.




5/24


this vessel as pottery and glass versions of some Achaemenid metalshapes may be later in date, though glass versions of Achaemenidmetal vessels, especially phiale and cups with flaring rims, occur asearly as their metallic counterparts.15)

Bowls with a hemispherical profile where the diameter is greaterthan the height, including the shallow phiale type, are much morecommon in both silver and bronze on the island in the later IronAge. The closest parallel to the vessel discussed here is a cup said toderive from Cesnolas excavations at Kourion.16 Similar undecoratedshapes are also attested in gold, such as a hemispherical bowl from

the Oxus Treasure and other Achaemenid sources.17 To this can beadded a now lost vessel found in Tomb 12 of the Royal Necropolisof Tamassos by Ohnefalsch-Richter in 1885 and dated to the CAII period. Significantly, Matthus has argued that the presence ofvessels of this kind denotes burials of very high social status, whichhas obvious implications for the interpretation of the example fromTomb 80.18 Although specific parallels for the Kourion vessel fromthe BM excavations remain elusive, the shape can reasonably be saidto be a variant of the hemispherical bowls just mentioned, rather thanthe strict mastos shape with a pointed base or conical profile whichappears to have flourished in the Hellenistic period (especially 2 ndand 1st centuries BC).19 As such, our cup belongs to a broad horizonof Achaemenid-type metal vessels of various types, which is alsorepresented by examples from the Curium Treasure and other findsCesnola attributed to the Kourion area, which flourished from the6th to the 4th century BC on Cyprus. There remains the possibilitythat it was deposited as late as the 3rd century BC, given the possiblechronological range of the surviving grave goods.20 At the same time,the date at which the vessel was actually made or incised is itselfimpossible to determine, as the object may have circulated as a prizedpossession for generations before being used as a grave offering. Anearly Hellenistic date for the vessel has implications for the date of

15 Oliver 1970, 916.16 Matthus 1985, 88 no. 280 and pl. 16 no. 280; also Gjerstad 1948, 160 no. 8,

where it is grouped with our vessel under his category no. 8 Hemispherical bowl

with round base and plain rim.17 Dalton 1964, no. 20 pl. III; CurtisTallis 2005, no. 99, 113. We are grateful to

Dr. N. Tallis and Dr. S. Razmjor of the BM Department of the Middle East fortheir advice on this subject matter.

18 Matthus 2007, 214 and fig 4.19 Weinberg 1970.20 Karageorghis 2000, 179.




6/24


the inscription, though the general survival of the Cypriot syllabicscript down into the 3rd century (as opposed to its specific employ-ment at sites such as Kafizin) is unproblematic in itself.21

The inscription (MP)A Cypriot syllabic inscriptionis incised around the base of the

silver mastos cup and has to be read from right to left, as usual inthe Common syllabary.

We will transliterate the inscription in Roman characters fromleft to right as follows:

o-na-sa-to-se to-i-e-re-wo-se ta-sa-

Fig. 3a. Detail of the inscription (Photo Stephen Dodd, BM)

Fig. 3b. Drawing of the inscription (M. Perna)

The space before the first sign confirms that the inscription is com-plete on the right side. On the left, the eroded surface makes it21 See HiggsKiely 2009, on the date of the bilingual CS and AG inscription to

Demeter and Kore (ICS no. 182) from the Temple Site at Kourion discoveredby Walters in the light of the recently rediscovered Hellenistic marble head whichwas found with it.




7/24


impossible for us to determine if there are any other signs. Even theX-ray image does not show any clear trace of signs.

The fragmentary state of the inscription and the state of preser-vation of the metal make it difficult to read four signs. These areunderlined or represented by a dot, where it is impossible to givean interpretation as in the case of the last visible sign of the inscrip-tion. An X-ray photograph solved some doubts and confirmed somereadings.22

22 We would like to thank Stephen Dodd for the high quality picture of the inscriptionand Janet Ambers (BM Department of Conservation and Science) for the X-Rayimages, both of which were of considerable help in elucidating the inscription.

Table I




8/24


The inscription consists of 12 visible signs and 2 more, re and wo,which are only identifiable in the X-ray image.

Between the words o-na-sa-to-se, to and i-e-re-wo-se there are noseparation signs but a clear space.

Height of signs varies from 2.00 to 3.00 mm. The inscription isapproximately 6.5 cm.

o The first sign allows us to attribute the inscription to theCommon Cypriot syllabary. As is well known, o is one of the threesigns (o, so and to) with a different shape in Paphian. The sign o isvery frequent it appears in 309 documents and is drawn here in

a common way. na This is a very common sign. As in this inscription, it usuallyconsists of two parallel strokes above a vertical stroke at a perpen-dicular angle. It is attested in 159 documents in the Common Cypriotsyllabary.

sa This is a very simple sign. It usually consists of an upward-facing open acute angle and it has no significant variations. It appearsin 131 documents in the Common Cypriot syllabary and twice inthis inscription.

to The oblique stroke is not visible to the naked eye, but theX-ray image clearly shows its traces. The trace remains deep in metalbut has totally vanished from the surface (fig. 4). This very commonsign occurs in 242 documents in the Common Cypriot syllabary andtwice in this inscription.

Fig. 4. Detail of the X-ray image

se The sign appears in a standard way. It consists of three verti-cal and parallel strokes. The middle stroke has partly disappearedwhile the right one appears to be swollen. This effect is caused bythe oxidation and the accretion of sediments, which are detectableon other signs. Because se/-s/is a very frequent ending of the nomi-

native case, this is the most common sign in the Cypriot syllabary. to The sign is just partly preserved. The lower part of the verticalstroke and the most of the oblique one are missing on the surface,but they are visible on the X-ray image (fig. 5).




9/24


Fig. 5. X-ray image of the inscription

i The sign is well preserved and it is therefore easily identifiable.It is a very common sign, attested in 240 documents in the Com-mon Cypriot syllabary. In this inscription, the vertical stroke is wellseparated from the two oblique ones and does not merge with them,as is usual in many inscriptions.

e The sign is easily identifiable. The vertical stroke and the centralones are usually straight, but here they curve markedly towards theleft. On a stele from Marion too (ICS no. 100) there is a suggestion ofa curvature, though not so marked, but the most persuasive parallelis ICS no. 153 from Marion.

In the sign, the two oblique strokes on the right side are usually

well separated, but here they appear to be merged in a single verticalstroke, as in ICS no. 165a. It should be noted that, as with the sediscussed above, oxidation and accretion of sediments have adulter-ated the signs. The sign appears in 207 documents in the CommonCypriot syllabary.

The ninth and the tenth signs have totally disappeared. In bothcases, the X-ray image shows two strokes that form an acute angleand are consistent with signs re and wo (see figs 5 and 6). A secondphotograph (see a detail in table I) shows a better evidence for signre. The proposed integration is based on the evidence of the signswhich is also consistent with the word i-e-re-wo-se priest (gen.).I propose i-e-re-wo-se because the eleventh sign is consistent with se.

se The sign is well preserved only in the lower part. The upperpart usually consists of three vertical strokes but here just a smallpart of them is visible to the naked eye. The X-ray image clearlyshows the first and the third vertical strokes (figs 56 and table I),confirming the interpretation as se.




10/24


Fig. 6. Detail of X-ray image

ta The sign is not clearly identifiable but it is not inconsistent

with the sign ta. The X-ray image seems to confirm this interpreta-tion (fig. 6). sa The sign does not seem to present interpretational problems.

? The sign is only partly preserved and in this case the X-rayimage does not help to confirm the reading (fig. 6). What we can seeis probably the upper part of a sign with an open, downward-facingangle such as in wo, re, ka, si or ti, but caution dictates against afirm interpretation.

The epigraphic context (MP)This silver mastos cup is the third inscribed document which

clearly derives from the Ayios Ermoyenis cemetery at Kourion. Thefirst document was the well-known rock crystal seal (ICS no. 183)from Tomb 73 (Site B) of the Turner Bequest excavations and is nowpreserved in the British Museum, while the second one was the funer-ary stele (ICS2 no. 183i) today kept in the Limassol District Museum.There are also ten documents probably from tombs at Kourion butit is not possible to specify their exact origin. The most importantamong them are four silver vessels with incised inscriptions: ICS 177,178, 179 and ICS2 180a. In this last document, surely coming fromthe necropolis sector dug by Luigi Palma di Cesnola and thereforein the vicinity of Tomb 80 (see fig. 2) there were engraved boththe partly erased inscription of Akestor, king of Paphos, and that ofTimokretes, king of Kourion.23

Commentary on the inscription (MP)The inscription consists of three clearly legible words and a fourthsequence, whose preserved part (ta-sa-) does not allow us to suggesta definitive interpretation.

23 See also Kagan 1999, 3940 and fig. 2.




11/24


1. O-na-sa-to-se /On!sa(n)tos/ is the genitive singular of the mansname On!s!s, attested several times over the entire island: six timesin the Paphian syllabary and four times in the Common syllabaryone. The examples are the following:

o-na-sa-to-se is attested on a stone graffito in Karnak24 as well ascarved on two stone stelai from Stavros Mytou25 and Marion26. Italso appears on an unprovenanced seal27.

o-na-sa-to /On!sa(n)to/ (with /-s/ > ) is attested in Salamis28 asgraffito on a vessel fragment and in both Kouklia29 and Rantidi30 asan inscription incised on a block of stone.

o-na-sa-se /On!s!s/ is the nominative and it is attested on twostone graffiti in Karnak31 and on a stone stele in Marion32.

The mans name /On!s!s/is attested in Cyprus from the 4th tothe 1st century BC. In addition to the above mentioned nine syllabicattestations, there are two examples in alphabetic Greek too. Oneof them comes from Paphos and it is dated at 125100 B.C., theother one comes from Amathous and is dated at 3rd/4th century AD.

2. to/t'/represents the article in the genitive singular masculine form.

3. i-e-re-wo-se/ier#wos/is the genitive singular ofi-e-re-u-se /iereus/priest which exists also in the more recent form i-e-re-o-se /ier#os/,with loss of intervocalic /w/.

The nominative form i-e-re-u-se is attested on a marble base fromKouklia33. This Paphian syllabic inscription relates to Nikokles,king of Paphos and priest ofWanassa Aphrodite. There is anotherattestation of the word in ICS no. 90, a stone inscription carved inPaphian syllabary and today kept in the Ayia Moni Church as partof its front. This inscription too is a dedication to king Nikokles forthe local shrine of Hera.

The genitive form in our inscription, i-e-re-wo-se, is attested bothon a box of calcareous stone from Chytroi with a dedication from

24 Masson 1981, no. 43 (ICS no. 444b).25 Masson 1983, no. 83.26 ICS no. 154.1.27 ICS no. 362.28 ICS no. 317.29 MassonMitford 1986, no. 26.30 MitfordMasson 1983, 8991. Masson, ICS no. 18b.31 Masson 1981, nos 42 and 44 (= ICS nos 444b and 444c).32 ICS no. 132.33 ICS no. 6.1.




12/24


the priest Pr'tot%mos to Aphrodite Paphia and on a bronze cup fromPyrga with just the name of the priest. The reading of the latter text,however, is problematic.34 Both inscriptions, which come from theLarnaka district, are written in the Common Cypriot syllabary, havethe article to before the word i-e-re-wo-se.

The genitive form i-e-re-o-se is only attested in an inscription fromthe necropolis of Kouklia.35 In this case too, the article to precedesthe word i-e-re-o-se, as in our inscription from BM.

In Mycenaean Greek the word priest is written i-e-re-u/i-je-re-uin the nominative case and i-je-re-wo in the genitive.

4. ta-sa- Among the last three signs of the inscription, only the read-ing of the middle one is certain. By textual logic and by analogy withother attestations of the word i-e-re-wo-se, what would be expectedis the article in the genitive form followed by the name of a divinity:priest of the .... The spelling could be the genitive singular

/t!s/of the article, followed by another word. In this case, it wouldbe not the usual spelling ta-se, but the so-called graphie continue.A probable parallel is ta-sa-pa-i/t!s p!i/(ICS no. 261, Golgoi). Herethe article is followed by an enclitic particle. It would be attractive tosuppose that in our case the vowel a in the sign is the beginningof the next word, the article thus being proclitic. Because of the poorpreservation of the vessel, no visible trace remains of this word. Itcould however be a female deity, whose name begins with a.

To identify this deity there are two main possibilities: Aphrodite/(W)anassa and Athena. However, the syllabic inscriptions indicateonly priests of the first, not under the name of Aphrodite (which isalmost absent in these inscriptions), but under the name ofWanassa.In our inscription one has to suppose the more recent form Anassa,favoring also a not very ancient date for the inscription. Thus onecould guess that the inscription is to be completed as , comparable to the attestation of such a priest in ICS 4.

It is not possible to advance detailed hypotheses about the priestssocial status, but on the basis of two observations it could be saidthat he belonged to the aristocracy. Three of the seven inscriptions

on metal vessels from Kourion show a king as owner. Other two(maybe three) vessels further are dedicated to a divinity.In the context of Matthus comments on the social significance

of silver and other metal vessels in the Royal Tombs at Tamassos

34 ICS no.234.12 and no. 255.35 ICS no. 17.3.




13/24


mentioned above, and indeed throughout the Near East during thistime, it can further be argued that the cup indicates the elevated socialbackground of the owner.

It is not possible to provide a precise date on palaeographicgrounds, because most of the signs do not show significant varia-tions (e.g. i, na, sa). The chronological horizon suggested above forthe vessel itself (6th4th/earlier 3rd century BC) does not contradictthe palaeographic data, though the admittedly limited contextualinformation favours the latter part of this range.

B) An Inscribed Unprovenanced Plain White Ware Jug from theSandwith Collection (BM GR 1869,6-4.18)

Description (TK)Plain White VIVII jug; wheel-made; globular-piriform body on

a conical disc base (fig. 7); tall narrow neck, slightly concave, withan incised groove at the junction with the body; thick, everted rimwith rounded edges; single handle with an oval section arching fromshoulder to rim; made of fairly fine white to cream clay (Munsell 2.5Y (8/4)); on the shoulder, to the right of the handle-base, are threeincised characters in the Cypriot Syllabic script. Dimensions: H: 19.5cm; D (body): 12.8 cm.

Fig. 7. The Plain White Ware jug (BM GR 1869,6-4.18)




14/24


Provenance (TK)The jug was part of a lot of 53 antiquities purchased for 20 in

1869 by the British Museum from Thomas Sandwith, H. M. Vice-Consul in Larnaka. The group was registered in 1869 in the sequenceBM GR 1869,6-4.153 (GR Registers Volume 2, 18671875).Although Sandwith is well known for his seminal contribution to theclassification of ancient Cypriot vases based on a paper delivered tothe Society of Antiquaries in 1871,36 he clearly did not pioneer therecording of objects in situ as very few of the items from his collec-tion which are identifiable today can be assigned to an individual

site, let alone a specific archaeological context.The group is completely heterogeneous in terms of material,object type and date and offers no indications as to the origin of thejug discussed here. They comprise mainly clay vases and terracottafigurines ranging in date from the Middle Cypriot down to Cypro-Classical and Hellenistic times, but also include several MCLCbronze weapons and a single item of stone sculpture. The BronzeAge pottery and metal objects may have come from the cemeteriesaround Dali where Sandwith was introduced to archaeology by hisfriend Robert Hamilton Lang and which he mentions several timesin his paper;37 he appears to have conducted his own excavationshere as well, but few details are recorded.38 Sandwith also notes theexistence of other cemeteries around Larnaka in particular, with theimplication that he was acquainted with them as well; his networkof antiquarian contacts, which is likely to have included Pierides,Palma di Cesnola and other members of the foreign commercial andconsular community in addition to Lang no doubt alerted himto the archaeological sites being excavated at the time and providedhim with sources of objects for his collection.

Several of the larger clay heads resemble those from the Sanctu-ary of Aphrodite investigated by Ohnefalsch-Richter in the 1880sat ancient Idalion and were probably made in an Idalion workshop,if not actually found at the site itself.39 However, numerous otheritems in the Sandwith acquisition represent generic Iron Age ceramictypes of (White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red etc.). Furthermore,

the smaller figurines in terracotta and stone constitute a variety oftypes which originate in various regions of south-eastern and eastern

36 Sandwith 1880; Merrillees 2001; Goring 1988, 13.37 Cf. Lang 1878, 331332.38 See Merrillees 2001, 226227.39 Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, 16; Karageorghis 1993, passim; Fourrier 2007, chapter 2.




15/24


Cyprus such as around Larnaka (the Artemis Paralia sanctuary andother cult places of ancient Kition), Athienou or other sites in theMesaoria which were known and exploited by amateur diggers atthe time. This reinforces the impression that the overall group rep-resents a disparate sample of Sandwiths collection so the jug cannotbe related with any certainty to a particular site.

Type and Date (TK)The form of the jug does not fit exactly within the typology for

Plain White wares presented in SCE IV/2, though it probably belongs

in group VI or perhaps VII of Gjerstads classification.40 The bodygenerally resembles the depressed globular shapes of group VI, butthe piriform lower portion of the vase gives it a rather more elegantprofile than is usually encountered in this group and can sometimesbe found in group VII. The relatively tall neck and the shape of therim are also fairly close to examples within group VI, though withoutrecalling a precise match. Regardless of the specific classification,and in the absence of an archaeological context, it is reasonable toassign the jug to a date sometime in the mid-fifth or fourth centuryBC (CC III, ca. 475/450300 BC).

The chief interest of this vase, therefore, resides in the Cypriot Syl-labic inscription which is published here for the first time. Althoughnoted in the original register, the characters escaped the attentionof subsequent researchers, including Olivier Masson in his opusmagnum on the subject.

The inscription (MP)The inscription consists of three signs of the Cypriot syllabary. The

first and the third signs are syllabic, the middle one is a separationsign. They were all incised after firing.

Height of the signs: 1.00 cm ca.

Fig. 8. The Cypriot syllabic inscription (photo and drawing M. Perna)

40 Gjerstad 1948; Gjerstad 1960, 105121.




16/24


The first sign ispap.The second sign is a vertical stroke. It is obviously to be regarded

as a separation sign.The third sign is sas. In this case too, its shape is plain, and drawn

in a very standard way. This sign is often drawn as an acute angleonly, yet in this inscription the oblique right-hand stroke descendsafter crossing the left-hand stroke.

Similar inscriptions incised on clay vases are usual in Cypro-Minoan too. In fact, at least 11 inscriptions carved on vases sharethe same pattern: two syllabic signs separated by a vertical stroke41.

Fig. 9 shows the Cypro-Minoan inscription KITI Avas 014.

Fig. 9. Cypro-Minoan inscription KITI Avas 014 (from J.-P. Olivier2007, 210)

The pattern observable in our inscription is not a rare occurrence indocuments in the Cypriot syllabary. This pattern is conventionally

shown by the abbreviation 1 + 1 and it is attested in at least 26inscriptions (see table 2), carved mainly on stone (24) but also onmetal (1) and clay (1) vessels.

Table 2

Area Material Editio princeps Text

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 115, p. 7576, pl. 19 e | kePaphos Stone block Kouklia # 116, p. 76, pl. 19 e | ti

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 117, p. 7677, pl. 19 ke | ki

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 118, p. 77, D, pl. 19 o | i|

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 119, p. 77, D, pl. 19 o | uPaphos Stone block Kouklia # 120, p. 77, D, pl. 19 pi | pu

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 121, p. 77 and 80, D, pl. 19 se | pa

41 The same pattern recurs in at least 18 documents on different materials, from stoneto metal. See J.-P. Olivier, dition holistique des textes chypro-minoens, 2007.They are the following: ENKO Apla 001, ENKO Avas 011, 013, 014, KITI Avas006, 008, 009, 010, 013, 014, 018, TOUM Avas 001, KITI Mexv 001, PPAP Mins002, ENKO Mlin 001, 003, PPAP Pblo 001 and 002.




17/24


Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 122, p. 80, D, pl. 19 ta | ta

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 124, p. 80, D, pl. 20 ta | tiPaphos Stone block Kouklia # 125, p. 81, D, pl. 20 ta | zo

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 126, p. 81, D, pl. 20 .1 te | e.2 te | e

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 127, p. 81, D ti | rePaphos Stone block Kouklia # 128, p. 81, D, pl. 20 su | ke

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 129, p. 82, D, pl. 20 wa | i

Paphos Stone block Kouklia # 130, p. 82, D (ICS 015g) wo | toPaphos Stone stele Kouklia # 232, p. 103, D, pl. 24 (ICS 335g) ma | pa

Paphos Clay vessel Kouklia # 236, p. 105, pl. 24 (ICS 018b/1) te | pu

Paphos Bronze sieve Kouklia # 233, p. 104, D a | tiRantidi Stone block Rantidi # 065, p. 7375 .1 pe | ti

.2 ti | pe

Rantidi Stone block Rantidi # 066, p. 75, pl. 23 e | na

Rantidi Stone block Rantidi # 067, p. 75, pl. 23 e | naRantidi Stone block Rantidi # 068, p. 7576, pl. 23 ti | ke

Rantidi Stone block Rantidi # 069, p. 76 pi | ti

Rantidi Stone block Rantidi # 070, p. 76 po | na

Rantidi Stone block Rantidi # 071, p. 77 ti | aRantidi Stone block Rantidi # 102, p. 86 pu | ka

It seems very likely that the two syllabic signs of our inscription,as well as those of its Cypro-Minoan antecedents, are nothing butacrophonic abbreviations of two words. After all, signs used as acro-phonic abbreviations are quite usual, in addition to the mentionedinscriptions (pattern 1 + 1), in the Cypriot syllabary too, in differ-ent texts and on different objects from graffiti on vessels to the coins.It is interesting to notice that our inscription attests to the persistenceof writing customs that are typically Cypro-Minoan and do notchange from the second to the first millennium BCuntil the time ofour jug (ca. 475300 BC).

C) Two Inscriptions from the Lawrence-Cesnola Collection

These two documents, currently registered as BM GR 1884.4-19.9and 1884.4-19.10, were acquired by the British Museum in 1884as part of a lot of material which included several other Cypriotsyllabic inscriptions purchased from the Lawrence-Cesnola col-




18/24


lection.42 This collection comprised a large and diverse quantity ofobjects that A. Palma di Cesnola excavated or collected on Cyprus,especially in the Salamis region, between 1876 and 1878, in financialcollaboration with the London financier Sir Edwin Lawrence.43 Mas-son mentioned both documents but did not discuss them in detail.44

Limestone tablet (BM GR 1884.4-19.9)

Description and Provenance (TK MP)Fragment of what appears to be a limestone tablet. The stone is

clearly mutilated on two sides, but two original surfaces meeting atan angle (top right as illustrated) are preserved suggesting a quadri-lateral shape (fig. 10). Dimensions: L: 6.7 cm, W: 4 cm, T: 1.7 cm.This inscription is shown in plate XIV of the photographic recordof the Lawrence-Cesnola collection first issued in 1881 (henceforthCypriot Antiquities), which included several additional Cypriot syl-labic inscriptions acquired by the British Museum at the same time(see below fig. 14). A drawing of the present inscription is includedin the volume Salaminia, A. Palma di Cesnolas popular account ofhis excavations first published in 1882 (but reissued in several edi-tions, including one in Italian in 1887). Cesnola also relates that hediscovered the inscription which he described as some Phoeniciannumeration or calculation at Cerina or Cyrene on the Northcoast of Cyprus (i.e. Kyrenia), though Masson demonstrated thatthe findspots given for some of the objects mentioned in this volumeare not always specific or reliable.45

Fig. 10. Limestone tablet, BM GR 1884.4-19.9 (photo and drawing M. Perna)

42 The lot of items (1884,4-19.110) was originally acquired by the Departmentof Oriental Antiquities, in whose registers they were first accessioned, butsubsequently transferred to Greek and Roman Antiquities.

43 For a detailed account of this collection and its owner see Hetherington 2000, inaddition to Masson 1996, 1819.

44 Masson 1996, 21.45 Palma di Cesnola 1882, 84 fig. 77; Masson 1996, 1921.




19/24


Fig. 11. Drawing from A. Palma di Cesnola 1882, fig. 77

The inscription (MP)

.1 ]-la-[

.2 ]-la[inf. mut.

The inscription comprises two lines, each of which with just onelegible sign. The two signs are neither deeply nor accurately carved(fig. 10).

Height of the signs is 1.00 cm ca.In the first line, the interpretation of the sign as lal is preferable

to mi, because the sign seems to be lacking the oblique left strokethat constitutes the distinction between the two signs. The horizontallower stroke of the sign la seems to be carved even less deeply than the

others strokes. To the left of the sign la there are other carved strokes,but they cannot be related to known sign of the Cypriot syllabary. Itis uncertain if there any traces of another sign to the right of the la.

The sign in the second line seems to have the same shape as theone in the first. In this case too, the oblique left stroke is not visible.For this reason, the preferable interpretation is once again a la. Onthe left of the sign there is an angle that seems to be the upper partof a second incomplete sign interrupted by the break in the stone.Both signs appear without important differences in the Paphian andin the Common syllabary.

Limestone fragment (BM GR 1884.4-19.10)

Description and Provenance (TK MP)Irregularly-shaped fragment of limestone, almost certainly detach-

ed from a larger object, bearing three Cypriot Syllabic signs on oneface (fig. 12).

Dimensions: L: 8.2 cm; W: 6.9 cm; T: 2.5 cm.




20/24


Fig. 12. Limestone fragment, BM GR 1884.4-19.10 (photo V. Guida anddrawing M. Perna)

The inscribed (outer) surface is convex on one end, but a consid-erable part (over 50 percent) is broken away on the left side of thesurviving line of syllabic characters: the fracture here almost certainlyruns through a sign, so the inscription may not be complete in thisdirection. The stone also breaks off on the right side of the survivinggroup of characters. The inner surface of the fragment has a distinctcurvature with a rounded, rim-like edge above and what appears tobe a flattened base on the bottom. This might conceivably be part ofa vessel, quite shallow but with a projected diameter of c. 1516 cm.

The break of the fragment on one side veers away obliquely from thecurve of the conjectured vessel, suggesting that it was attached to alarger object at this point. Tentatively we might suggest a stand foran incense burner or other stone vessel or a bowl held by a statueof a votary.

Unlike the previous inscription, this document is not mentioned inSalaminia but does appear in Cyprus Antiquities alongside the docu-ments of the Lawrence-Cesnola collection (see below fig. 13 and 14).

Fig. 13. Limestone fragment. Vue cavalire (photo T. Kiely)




21/24


The inscription (MP)The inscription consists of three signs and has to be read from

right to left, as usual in the Common syllabary. We will transliteratethe inscription in Roman characters from left to right as follows46:

]e-re-[

Height of signs varies from 1.6 to 2.00 cm ca.The first sign, an e, is only partly preserved. Because of the break

in the stone, the right part is absent. On the left the small horizontalstroke that separates the two vertical strokes is lacking as in ICS 94.

The second sign can be read as a re.The third sign consists simply of an oblique stroke (sa not impos-

sible).

***

The preliminary work on the Corpus of Cypriot syllabic writingmade it possible to find a lot of unpublished or lost inscriptions.Many other documents from the Museo di Antichit (Turin), fromthe Medelhavsmuseet (Stockholm), from the Fitzwilliam Museum(Cambridge) and from the Museum of Nicosia (Cyprus) may beadded to those from the British Museum here published. Thanks tothe zeal and help from the staff of these Museums, it was possible tofind these documents and we are very grateful to them.

Select Bibliography

Bailey, D. 1965, Lamps in the Victoria and Albert Museum, OpusculaAtheniensia VI, 183.

Bailey, D. and Hockey, M. 2001, New objects from British Museum Tomb73 at Curium, in V. Tatton-Brown ed., Cyprus in the 19th Century AD.Fact, fancy and fiction, London, 10933.

Buchholz, H.-G. and Matthus, H. 2003, Zyprische Bronzeschalen dergeometrischen und archaischen Periode. Eine Studie zu Typologie, Chro-nologie, Epigraphik und kultureller Auenwirkung zyprischen Metall-handwerks des frhen ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr., CCEC 33, 99148.

Buitron, D. and Oliver, A. 2002, The Vicomte de Castillon Saint-Victor atKourion, in A. Clark and J. Clark eds, Essays in honour of Dietrich vonBothmer, Amsterdam, 4958.

46 It should cautiously be noted that if the inscription is rotated by 180 degrees, thesecond sign could formally be api. In this case the inscription should be read asfollows: ]-pi-e[, but the position of the stone fragment seems to exclude it (seefig. 13).




22/24


Fig.

14.

FromP

almadiCesnola1881,pl.XI




23/24


Carstens, A. 2006, Cypriot chamber tombs, in L. Wriedt Srensen and K.Winther Jacobsen eds., Panayia Ematousa II. Political, cultural, ethnicand social relations in Cyprus. Approaches to regional studies, Athens,125179.

de Castillon, E. 1891, Rapport M. le Ministre de lInstruction Publique etBeaux-Arts sur les fouilles de Curium, Nouvelles Archives des Missionsscientifiques et littraires I, 281318.

Christou, D. 1996, Kupro-arxak mnhmeiak tafik arxitektonik,Lefkosia.

Curtis, J. and Tallis, N. eds 2005, Forgotten empire. The world of ancientPersia, London.

Dalton, O. 1964, The treasure of the Oxus with other examples of earlyoriental metal-work (3rd edition), London.Fourrier, S. 2007, La coroplastie chypriote archaque. Identits culturelles

et politiques lpoque des royaumes. Travaux de la Maison de lOrientet de la Mditerrane 46, Lyon.

Gjerstad, E. 1948, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Volume IV. Part 2.The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods,Stockholm.

Gjerstad, E. 1960, Pottery types. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical,Opuscula Atheniensia III, 105121.

Goring, E. 1988, A mischievous pastime. Digging in Cyprus in the Nine-teenth Century, Edinburgh.

Hetherington, P. 2000, The Larnaka Tympanum and its origins, RDAC,361380.

Higgs, P. and Kiely, T. 2009, Four unpublished marble sculptures of Hel-lenistic date from Cyprus in the British Museum, CCEC 39, 420424.Kagan, J. 1999, The Archaic and early Classical coinage of Kourion, CCEC

29, 3344.Karageorghis, V. 1993, The coroplastic art of ancient Cyprus III. The Cypro-

Archaic period large and medium size sculpture, Nicosia.Karageorghis, V. (with J. Mertens and M. Rose) 2000, Ancient art from

Cyprus. The Cesnola Collection, New York.Kiely, T. 2009, The Kourion Notebook in the British Museum. Excavating

an old excavation, in T. Kiely ed., Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum.Essays in honour of Veronica Tatton-Brown, British Museum ResearchPublication 180, London, 62100.

Kiely, T. 2011, Kourion, in T. Kiely ed., Ancient Cyprus in the BritishMuseum. British Museum Online Research Catalogue, http://www.

britishmuseum.org/system_pages/holding_area/ancient_cyprus_british_museum.aspxLang R. 1878, Cyprus. Its history, its present resources, and future pros-

pects, London.




24/24


Masson, O. 1981, Les graffites chypriotes alphabtiques et syllabiques, inC. Traunecker, F. Le Saout, and O. Masson, La chapelle dAchris Karnak II, Paris.

Masson, O. 1983, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Addenda nova,Paris.

Masson, O. 1984, Cesnola et le Trsor de Curium, CCEC 1-2, 1625; 115.Masson, O. 1996, La dispersion des antiquits chypriotes: les deux collec-

tions Cesnola, CECC 25-1, 327 and pl. IVI.Masson, O. and Mitford, T. B. 1986, Les inscriptions syllabiques de Kouklia-

Paphos, Konstanz.Matthus, H. 1985, Metallgefe und Gefunterstze der Bronzezeit, der

geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern, Munich.Matthus, H. 2007, The Royal Tombs of Tamassos. Burial gifts, funeralarchitecture and ideology, CCEC 37, 211230.

McFadden, G. 1946, A tomb of the necropolis of Ayios Ermoyenis atKourion, AJA 50:4, 449489.

Merrillees, R. S. 2001, T. B. Sandwith and the beginnings of Cypriot archae-ology, in V. Tatton-Brown ed., Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, fancyand fiction, Oxford, 222238.

Mitford, T. B. and Masson, O. 1983, The syllabic inscriptions of Rantidi-Paphos, Konstanz.

Myres, J. L. and Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. 1899, A catalogue of the CyprusMuseum, Oxford.

Oliver, A. 1970, Persian export glass, Journal of Glass Studies XII, 916.Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. 1893, Kypros, the Bible and Homer, London.

Palma di Cesnola, A. 1881, Lawrence-Cesnola Collection. Cyprus antiquitiesexcavated by Major Alexander Palma di Cesnola. 1876 to 1879, London.Palma di Cesnola, A. 1882, Salaminia (Cyprus). The history, treasures, &

antiquities of Salamis in the Island of Cyprus, London.Palma di Cesnola, L. 1877, Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs and temples,

London.Pfrommer, M. 1993, Metalwork of the Hellenized East, Malibu.Sandwith, T. 1880, On the different styles of pottery found in ancient tombs

in the Island of Cyprus, Archaeologia 45, 127142.Sparkes, Br. A. and Talcott, L. 1970, The Athenian Agora XII: Black and

plain pottery of 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., Princeton.Tatton-Brown, V. 2002, Hellenistic glass in the British Museum, in G.

Kordas ed., Hyalos=Vitrum=Glass: history, technology and conservationof glass and vitreous materials in the Hellenic world, Athens, 9199.

Walters, H. B. 1900, Kourion, in A. S. Murray et al., Excavations in Cyprus.Bequest of Miss E. T. Turner to the British Museum, London, 5786.Weinberg, G. 1970, Hellenistic glass from Tel Anafa in Upper Galilee,

Journal of Glass Studies XII, 1727.

Documents

Kiely-Perna Four Unpublished Isdcriptions in Cypriot Syllabic Script, Kadmos 2010