S. MÜLLER CELKA et J.-C. DAVID, Patrimoines culturels en Méditerranée orientale : recherche scientifique et enjeux identitaires. 1er atelier (29 novembre 2007) : Chypre, une stratigraphie de l’identité. Rencontres scientifiques en ligne de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, 2007.

THE HELLENISATION OF CYPRUS:

TRACING ITS BEGINNINGS (AN UPDATED VERSION)1

Anastasia LERIOU Post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Archaeology,

University of Athens

ABSTRACT

Should one wish to learn more about the cultural identity of Cypriot society during the Early Iron Age, he/ she would discover that almost all current textbooks on Cypriot history and archaeology supply us with the very same story: the island had been “colonised” and subsequently hellenised towards the end of the Late Bronze Age by numerous immigrants from the Aegean. The newcomers’ presence is substantiated by artifacts, tombs and architectural features of Aegean type as well as the introduction of the Greek language. Further support and inspiration for this hypothesis comes from various mythological traditions, according to which the historical Cypriot kingdoms were founded by Greek heroes that arrived at the island after the Trojan War.

Despite the scepticism, which is being expressed by many archaeologists during the last decades on the basis of the many problems and inconsistencies inherent in it, the Hellenisation hypothesis remains quite popular among scholars and, consequently, the general public. In an attempt to elucidate this phenomenon, one should investigate both the course of Cypriot archaeology’s advancement from the 19th century until the present day and the socio-political developments during the same period. This is particularly so, as the promotion of self-determination and the development of a national identity has been of outmost importance for Modern Cypriots as a result of the successive occupations and invasions that the island has suffered during the past nine centuries. Furthermore, the foreign scholars dominating Cypriot archaeology, at least during its initial phases, while introducing new theories and methods, carried their own academic and/ or political agendas. In this respect, Cyprus constitutes an excellent case-study of nationalism and politics interacting with archaeological practice.

The present paper aims at illuminating the interconnection between archaeological and socio-political development by means of reconstructing the course of the gradual formation and modification of the Hellenisation narrative from its first appearance during the 1840s until today. Special references will be made to the contributions of the19th century historians, the first antiquarians to excavate on the island, John L. Myres, the members of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition and Arne Furumark, Porphyrios Dikaios and the French excavators of Enkomi, the prolific Vassos Karageorghis, Susan Sherratt, Maria Iacovou and others.

1 This paper is part of the 04 EΡ 81 post-doctoral research project, undertaken in the Department of Archaeology, University of Athens, and implemented within the framework of the “Integration of PhD researchers from abroad in Greece’s R&T system – ENTER programmme” and co-financed by National and Community funds (25% from the Greek Ministry of Development-General Secretariat of Research and Technology and 75% from EU-European Social Fund) and the private sector according to the measure 8.3 of the Operational Programme “Competitiveness” – Community Support Framework 2000-2006. 

1

Past ethnic groups and modern politics in the Eastern Mediterranean

The close, multifaceted, and largely problematic connection between archaeology and contemporary

politics, a particularly common phenomenon in archaeological thought and practice focussing on the lands of

the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, has been long established and widely discussed during the past

decades (Gathercole and Lowenthal 1989; Kohl and Fawcett 1996; Meskell 1998; Kane 2003; Galaty and

Watkinson 2004; Kohl, Kozelsky and Ben-Yeruda 2008). One of this connection’s most frequent types of

manifestation is associated with studies aiming at the identification of past ethnic groups, as well as the detailed

reconstruction of their movements (Atkinson, Banks and O’Sullivan 1996; Díaz-Andreu and Champion 1996;

Díaz-Andreu, Lucy, Babic and Edwards 2005; Insoll 2007). The complicated relationship between past material

cultures and ethnic identities, in other words the ways in which archaeology may be employed towards the

realisation of these targets, was not properly theorised before the late 1970s, if not later; this is when

archaeologists acknowledged, with some help from the field of social anthropology, that ethnic groups should be

viewed as dynamic categories with ever-changing characteristics and attributes, primarily based on the

interaction between different groups (Barth 1969; McGuire 1982; Hall 1997, p. 19-26; Jones 1997, p. 56-60 and

72-74; Jenkins 1997, p. 9-15 and 90-91; Hall 2002, p. 9-29; Knapp 2008, p. 38-47 and 63-65). Until then, most

archaeologists attempted to locate, and subsequently categorize, past peoples through the study of

artefact/cultural trend distribution. This approach, generally known as « culture historical archaeology », has

been disproven on the basis of ethnicity’s dynamic fluidity, which comes in striking contrast to the static and

fragmentary nature of archaeological remains and categories (Trigger 1989, p. 161-174; Renfrew and Bahn

1991, p. 32 and 407; Hall 1997, p. 129-31; Leriou 2007, p. 565-66). The culture historical approach towards

material culture characterized European and North American archaeological thought until the mid-20th century;

one of the most important factors that prompted archaeologists and social anthropologists to invalidate it was its

close association with Nazi ideology through Kossina’s nationalistic research on the origins of the German

population (Trigger 1989, p. 163-67; Jones 1997, p. 2-5; Hall 1997, p. 129).

The systematic application of the culture historical approach towards material culture, a practice inherent in

the development of European nation states and their corporate identities during the late 19th and early 20th

centuries (Trigger 1989, p. 174-86; Sherratt 1992, p. 316-17; Díaz-Andreu 1996; Díaz-Andreu and Champion

1996; Díaz-Andreu 2007, p. 317-67), has resulted in the generation of several archaeological narratives

reconstructing past peoples’ movements, with special emphasis on migrations and colonisations. By narrowing

the focus of this discussion to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean context, one may

identify plenty of such narratives associated with, among others, the Minoans, the Mycenaeans, the infamous

Sea Peoples, the Philistines and the Phoenicians (Castleden 1993, p. 116-21; Erlich 1996; Oren 2000; Markoe

2001, p. 170-90; Castleden 2005, p. 182-96; Killebrew 2005). Many of them are related to the transitional phase

from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age, which has been traditionally connected to a series of post-

destruction population movements along the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean (Desborough 1964, 217-63;

Desborough 1972; Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Osborne 1996, p. 19-40; Morris 1997; Gitin, Mazar and Stern

1998; Snodgrass 2000, p. 304-27; Whitley 2001, p. 77-90; Karageorghis and Moris 2001; Dickinson 2006, p.

62-67), where the island of Cyprus seems to have had played a highly significant role (Karageorghis 2002, p.

71-117; Steel 2004, p. 187-213). It is since the early 20th century that archaeologists have been struggling to

study and categorise the material cultures excavated in areas of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Syro-Palestine, Cyprus

2

and Egypt, so as to employ them in their quest to recreate interconnections, commercial, political or other, and

population movements through different reasons and the reasons that caused them. As these reconstructions

have been largely based on the notorious equation between pots and people, which effectively summarises

culture historical archaeology, they contain several misunderstandings and mistakes, most commonly indicated

through classificatory problems and chronological inconsistencies.

Although the theoretical advancements briefly outlined above go back to the 1990s at the latest, the culture

historical approach seems to remain the dominant attitude towards ancient material culture in many countries all

over the world, since it may be employed to boost the pride, morale, self-determination and cohesion of ethnic

groups and nations. This is particularly so for peoples whose national unity and collective rights are threatened

by other, more powerful nations or serious internal division; it is also the case for ethnic groups whose past has

been neglected or denigrated by a colonial approach towards archaeology and history (Trigger 1984, p. 358-60;

Trigger 1989, p. 174-86, 205; Trigger 1995, p. 268-72; Skeates 2000, P. 90-92). Thus, the political turbulence

that several regions across the Eastern Mediterranean coasts have experienced since the 19th century provides

ample explanation for the strongly nationalistic character of archaeological practice, commonly manifested

through the application of the culture historical archaeology. This tendency has provided Eastern Mediterranean

with a rather conservative character; the latter is often evident even in the work of foreign researchers, who, of

course, carry their own academic and, sometimes, political agendas (Silberman 1989; Silberman 1990;

Silberman 1995, p. 256-60; Meskell 1998; Knapp and Antoniadou 1998, p. 31-32; Goode 2001; Meskell 2002;

Given 2004, p. 164-66).

The case of Cyprus

Against this background, the island of Cyprus appears an ideal case study for further exploring the

complicated relation of contemporary politics with the principle of archaeology. This is so, as the Cypriot

population has experienced a very long period of successive occupations, namely the Ottoman (1151-1878) and

the British (1878-1960), and, most importantly, the Turkish invasion (1974-present). These have endowed

Cypriot archaeology with a strongly political character, which accounts for the still on-going use of culture-

historical archaeology (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998, p. 19-23 and 29-32). Moreover, Cyprus has been

associated with a series of ancient colonisation and migration movements that are generally thought to have had

left perceptible cultural imprints on its people and material culture. The transition from the Chalcolithic period

to the Early Bronze Age has been associated with a migration from Anatolia (Knapp 2001, p. 35-39;

Mantzourani 2001, p. 83-87; Steel 2004, p. 126-28; Knapp 2008, p. 103-10). The final stages of the Late Bronze

Age have been associated with the dynamic activity of the Sea Peoples and the arrival of large numbers of

people from the Aegean, who settled several sites all over the island and eventually ‘hellenised’ it (Iacovou

1999; Karageorghis 2002, p. 71-141; Leriou 2002, p. 3-5; Steel 2004, p. 187-213; Knapp 2008, p. 249-51),

whereas the 9th century is generally thought to have viewed the establishment of Phoenicians at Kition (Reyes

1994, p. 18-21; Karageroghis 2002, p. 144-49).

The present contribution focuses on the archaeological narrative of the Hellenisation of Cyprus, which has

been subjected to plenty of criticism and reconsideration during the last decade, as it is thought to include many

problems of classification, contradictions and inconsistencies, as well as a number of ‘factoids’ (Maier 1985, p.

32; Leriou 2002, p. 6-7; Leriou 2007, p. 564); nevertheless, it remains widely established and essentially

3

unchanged (Leriou 2002, p. 3-4). What follows is an outline of the most significant incidents of interaction

between academic and political activity in the development of the Hellenisation narrative from the 1870s, i.e.

when the British rule was established in Cyprus, until the present day. One of the principal aims of this

discussion is the elucidation of a rather neglected aspect of the narrative’s development: its emergence from

neoclassicism and the idealisation of ancient Greece, which dominated the thought of European classicists and

historians during the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, the narrative’s beginnings, which can be traced back to

German historiography of the mid-19th century, will be reconstructed in detail.

The Early Iron Age of Cyprus and 19th – early 20th European scholarship

The Hellenisation narrative was primarily based on a group of foundation myths, the earliest mention of

which may be found in Herodotus’ Historiae (5.113). Analogous references describing the foundation of the

Cypriot kingdoms by Greek heroes after the Trojan War may be found in the texts of various Greek and Roman

authors, the latest being Stephanos Byzantios (Gjerstad 1944; Hadjiioannou 1971, p. 46-67; Demetriou 1989, p.

88-93). These constituted the very first evidence for the reconstruction of the Cypriot Early Iron Age.

The earliest academic attempts to compile a general history of the island were undertaken during the first

half of the 19th century. In 1841 the German classicist W. Engel published a monograph on Cyprus, containing

information about the geography, the history, as well as the religion and the myths of the island with special

emphasis on the cult of Aphrodite. Engel started his history from the ancient times and went as far as the Middle

Ages and modern history. He stated that the island had been colonised by the Greeks and subsequently

hellenised. This conclusion was supported by a detailed account of the foundation myths mentioned above.

Engel was thus the first researcher to produce a more or less complete collection of them (Engel 1841, p. 210-

29).

Some forty five years later a similar but not as detailed list of the foundation myths appeared in the studies

of another classicist from Germany, A. Enmann, who investigated the cult of Aphrodite on the island and

suggested that it was introduced by the Greek colonists (Enmann 1886; Enmann 1887). Furthermore, the

colonisation narrative together with extensive or more concise lists of the relevant myths are also to be found in

19th-early 20th century accounts of the history of the Greek world, usually in the chapter on the expansion of the

Greeks after the Trojan War and the coming of the Dorians (Hoffmann 1841, p. 1272-300; Busolt 1893, p. 318-

22; Beloch 1893, p. 50-52). According to Dowden the so-called « historical approach toward the myths » , that

is using myths as reliable historical sources, was a common practice in historical research during this early

period, especially as far as ancient tribal migrations and movements were concerned (Dowden 1992, p. 23-24;

Fitton 1995, p. 41-42). Moreover, as the principles and methods of archaeology were at elementary level, the

almost complete lack of any archaeological corroboration of the mythological data was to be expected at that

early stage (Trigger 1989, p. 65-67; Renfrew and Bahn 1991, p. 25-28). This was particularly so in regard to

Cypriot archaeology, which was in its infancy (Marangou 1986, p. 310-14; Balandier 2001, p. 4-6); thus, the

available archaeological information was particularly limited. It should be stressed though, that by the time of

Enmann (1886; 1887), Busolt (1895) and Beloch (1924) some archaeological activity did exist; nevertheless,

none of them considered it necessary to include material evidence in their arguments. The chronological

framework for the historical phenomena described by the foundation myths was the almost totally unexplored at

that time period following the Trojan War. On the basis of references in ancient literature the latter was

4

generally placed within the course of the 13th or the 12th centuries BC (Snodgrass 2000, p. 2-16; Vasilikou 1995,

p. 2; Fitton 1995, p. 15-25).

The conclusions reached through the study of ancient written sources were firmly corroborated by

linguistics: the existence of a Greek dialect in Classical Cyprus was detected through numerous Greek

inscriptions, either in the Cypriot syllabary, which was deciphered around 1870, or less frequently the Greek

alphabet. Realising that the Cypriot syllabary had been used to write Greek caused great enthusiasm among

hellenocentric classicists; as a matter of fact, some of them exceeded the scholarly limits. Mitford notices that

« this enthusiasm was, however, speedily quenched by the uncritical approach of certain scholars, who

gave their profound learning and their high ability to extracting Greek where Greek did not exist »

(Mitford 1952, p. 153).

The Greek inscriptions had been found identified all over Cyprus, together with a limited number of

inscriptions in the indigenous Eteocypriot language. The latter were inscribed in the Cypriot syllabary as well

(Masson 1983, p. 18-19 and 48-51). The Greek-Cypriot dialect bore remarkable similarities to the one spoken in

ancient Arcadia (Meister 1889, p. 125-31; Thumb 1909, p. 267-84; Buck 1910, p. 132-34). One of the earliest

researchers of the Cypriot dialect (Thumb 1909, p. 279-80 and Buck 1910, p. 284-85 for references) was

Meister, whose monograph on the Greek dialects contained a long chapter on it (Meister 1889, p. 125-315). In

the introduction to this chapter the author tried to explain the presence of such a dialect and the consequent

presence of a Greek population on the island by going back to the period, when colonists from the Aegean

moved to Cyprus after the Trojan War. A brief account of the foundation myths with many references to the

ancient texts was also provided (Meister 1889, p. 125-31). Meister’s conclusions were repeated in other studies

of analogous content (Hoffmann 1891, p. 7-8; Thumb 1909, p. 282).

The hypothesis of a Greek colonisation of Cyprus was particularly welcomed in a period characterised by

the strong, ever-growing European fascination by Greek antiquity. The rediscovery of the latter was initiated

during the 17th century when the first European scholars, mainly French and English, undertook travels to

Greece in order to search for the remains of her glorious past (Constantine 1984, p. xii and 7-65; Etienne and

Etienne 1992, p. 34-41; Shanks 1996, p. 55-56). The great shift of interest from Rome to Greece did not occur

before the mid-18th century. The idealisation of Greek antiquity was given a powerful boost by the revolutionary

work of the German Johann Joachim Winckelmann. Through a stylistic examination of Greek statues, he

demonstrated the superiority and perfection of Greek art and civilisation. Roman art, on the other hand, was

characterised as decadent and imitative (Constantine 1984, p. 104-27; Etienne and Etienne 1992, p. 60-61;

Whitley 2001, p. 20-23; Shanks 1996, p. 56-58). Winckelmann’s ideas were highly influential: numerous artists,

poets, novelists, historians, philologists, philosophers, teachers, politicians etc. were deeply affected by them

and a remarkably strong classical tradition, particularly evident in higher education, was eventually established

in Germany (Shanks 1996, p. 68; Marchand 1996, p. 3-35; Morris 2000, p. 42-45; Díaz-Andreu 2007, p. 79-97).

Bernal and other researchers have proposed that Winckelmann’s great impact should be viewed as a result of

Protestant Germany’s cultural resistance to France, the self-proclaimed new Rome (Bernal 1987, p. 212-15;

Morris 1994, p. 16-17; Shanks 1996, p. 58).

5

It was within this cultural and academic milieu that Engel and Enmann compiled their studies of the history

and religion of ancient Cyprus. Their meticulous research focussing on ancient sources led them to the

conclusion that Cyprus had been colonised by the Greeks after the Trojan War. This scenario fitted very well

into the general idea that European, particularly German, scholars had about ancient Greeks: they were superior,

highly civilised humans, who would be more than able to ‘visit’ less sophisticated peoples in remote places like

Cyprus and establish colonies. This notion was effectively illustrated in a short study entitled Die Griechen als

Meister der Colonisation, which was produced by the historian and archaeologist Ernst Curtius (1883), one of

the initiators of the German excavations at Olympia during the last quarter of the 19th century (Trigger 1989, p.

196-97; Fitton 1995, p. 108; Hellenic Ministry of Culture 2005, p. 77-79). Thus, it does not seem coincidental

that all scholars mentioned in the first part of this section were German. The idealisation of ancient Greece,

however, was not an exclusively German academic phenomenon. As demonstrated below, British classicism

played an important role in the development of the Hellenisation narrative. The beginning of British scholars’

active involvement in Cypriot archaeology goes back to the late 1870s, when the administration of the island

was undertaken by Great Britain.

The emergence of Cypriot archaeology and the first scholarly discussions of the island’s Early Iron Age

Before the British rule’s establishment, the archaeological exploration of Cyprus was in the hands of

looters and treasure hunters; among the latter were many foreign officials, the most infamous being the

American consul Luigi Palma di Cesnola, who were undertaking excavations all over the island, while urging

the villagers to trace, collect and provide them with antiquities. The interest of private collectors and the large

museums of the West in Cypriot antiquities was gradually increasing; although not regarded as tasteful as the

finds from Greece, the Near East and Egypt, Cypriot discoveries were already considered of significant

academic value (Marangou 1986, p. 310-14, Goring 1988, p. 1-3 and 10-13; Åström 2000, p. 8-12; Balandier

2001). The British archaeologist Reginald Stuart Poole, in an article published at The Contemporary Review

(August 1878), maintains that the exploration of ancient Cyprus

« is interesting alone to the serious student of the remote annals of the Mediterranean. To him the

antiquities of the island are a precious connecting link between Egypt, Assyria and Early Greece and

the less attractive they are to the artistic eye the more valuable are they to his comparative vision »

(Poole 1878; also cited in Balandier 2001, p. 4).

The antiquarians mentioned above would often publish extensive descriptions of their explorations and the

antiquities they managed to accumulate (Sandwith 1877; Cesnola 1878; Land 1878; Goring 1988, p. 7-15).

However they would rarely go into any kind of classification and interpretation of their material. Such an

organised study was, of course, not to be expected at that early stage when Cypriot archaeology was a long way

off being a systematic discipline. Furthermore, due to the fact that Mycenaean studies were practically non-

existent at that time (Vasilikou 1995, p. 1-4; Fitton 1995; Fitton 2001), it would be too early for any associations

of the Mycenaean and/ or Mycenaeanising material found on the island with the Hellenisation hypothesis. This

is particularly evident in the fact that until the end of the 19th century researchers had been using the adjective «

Greek » in order to describe the colonisation movements referred to in the foundation myths. The very first to

6

mention the « Mycenaean colonisation of Cyprus » was Arthur Evans in 1900 (Evans 1900), in other words

some twenty six years after Schliemann had laid the foundation of Mycenaean archaeology through the

discovery of ancient Mycenae (Trigger 1989, p. 162; Etienne and Etienne 1992, p. 110-11; Fitton 1995, p. 71-

95; Fitton 2001, p. 149-50).

The first antiquarian to attempt a more systematic study was the British Thomas Backhouse Sandwith, who

was appointed Vice-Consul in Cyprus in 1865. Sandwith classified Cypriot pottery and attempted a distinction

between Bronze Age and the Iron Age vases. He also established a relative chronology for the various groups of

wares he distinguished. Sandwith, educated at St. Catherine’s College, Cambridge, demonstrated a good power

of observation and remarkable familiarity with the work of other investigators (Sandwith 1877; Goring 1988:

13-15; Merrillees 2001). Nonetheless, Sandwith’s work was quite amateurish. For this as well as for the reasons

mentioned in the previous paragraph, he was hardly in a position to discuss in detail the Aegean presence on the

island. He did, however, employ the term « colonisation » in an effort to explain the presence of red-figured

vases at Salamis. He stated that « Salamis was a Greek colony and the arts were introduced from Greece

herself » and placed this colonisation in the historic era, probably during the Classical period (Sandwith 1877, p.

137). Strangely enough he did not mention anything about the foundation myths and it seems that he was not

very familiar with them. However, he must have had been aware of them as well as of the colonisation

hypothesis in a rather general way, as the latter was a well-established story among classicists and historians

since the first half of the 19th century (Lang 1878, p. 19-23). Luigi Palma di Cesnola, for example, made

frequent references to them throughout his book (Cesnola 1878, p. 199, 219-20, 234 and 298-99). One could

attribute Cesnola’s thorough knowledge of Greek mythology on his desire to emulate Schliemann by making

great discoveries at important sites, namely the capitals of the kingdoms that had been founded by the Greek

heroes (Karageorghis, Mertens and Rose 2000, p. 4-6).

A further reason for the apparent hesitation to associate Cypriot antiquities with the Greek world might be

the fact that many of these antiquarians and early travellers regarded Cyprus with its palm-trees, minarets and

camels as part of the Orient (Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893; Lang 1878, p. 11-12; Stewart 1908, p. 106-107 and 229-

31; Louis Salvator of Austria 1983; Given 1998, p. 11-12). This tendency should be viewed in association with

the 19th century academic phenomenon of Orientalism in archaeological and historical studies. According to

Bernal, the majority of scholars during the years 1830-1885 were particularly willing to acknowledge influences

of the Phoenician culture everywhere (Bernal 1987, p. 337-66). The decline of this phenomenon around the end

of the century was observed also in Cyprus:

« Three related factors began to trouble this ideological self-confidence: Greek Cypriot claims to

Hellenic identity, growing philhellenism among educated Britons, and a dramatic fall in the prestige

of the Phoenicians » (Given 1998, p. 11).

The decisive hellenocentric push was given around the end of the 19th century by the fundamental work of

John Linton Myres, which ensued the British taking over the administration of the island.

The beginning of the British rule witnessed the promotion of Cypriot archaeology to an academic

discipline. Excavations increased in number, became more systematic and acquired a scientific character. This

resulted in the accumulation of a considerable amount of material; in 1883 the Cyprus Museum was established

7

in Nicosia (Marangou 1986, p. 315-19; Goring 1988, p. 17-24; Fitton 1995, p. 109-10; Balandier 2001, p. 8-10).

The excavated material included, as one would nowadays expect, plenty of Mycenaean pots. These were first

identified as early as 1886 by the German archaeologists Furtwängler and Löschke, who recorded thirty seven

pots and argued that there were many more in several private collections all over the island (Furtwängler and

Löschke 1886, p. 24-31). Furthermore they identified a remarkable typological difference between Cypriot and

mainland Greek Mycenaean vases, which they attributed to the special tastes of the Cypriot market:

« Kauften die Cyprier mit Vorliebe, wie es scheint, grosse Kratere, die mit Wagenscenen bamahlt

waren und Flaschen, die durch Imitationen der Jahresringe des Holzes an « Geometrischen »

Decorationen errinnerten » (Furtwängler-Löschke 1886: 24-31).

They did not go as far as exploring the possibility that these pots were of local manufacture and almost

automatically assumed that they were Aegean imports. The study of Mycenaean pottery had not yet reached the

sophistication required for the distinction of regional styles and imitations. All that early researchers, such as

Furtwängler and Löschke, could say was that this pottery was made in Late Bronze Age Mainland Greece.

However they neither speculated about how it reached the island of Cyprus nor did they connect it with

colonists from the Aegean.

The reasons for this rather surprising omission in the light of the then current views are not clear. The

hypothesis that Furtwängler and Löschke were totally unfamiliar with the theory of the Greek colonisation of

Cyprus seems highly improbable given their German academic background. Furtwängler’s work falls within a

period when « the process of de-throning the Classical » had began (Whitley 2000, p. 37). Archaeological

material of Mycenaean, Geometric and Archaic date was coming up in large numbers in the various

excavations, conducted mainly by Germans, in Greece. Whitley maintains that

« such objects simply could not be fitted into Winckelmann’s idea of Classical Art. They had to be

studied for different reasons and with different methods. So German scholars (notably Furtwängler and

Dörpfeld) applied the ‘scientific’ principles of taxonomy and philology to the material remains of

Ancient Greece » (Whitley 2000, p. 37; also Marchland 1996, p. 75-115).

Furtwängler’s early studies focused on inventorying thousands of bronzes, potsherds, figurines etc. and

resulted into the development of a method for historical stylistic categorising and an eye particularly keen for

stylistic distinction (Marchand 1996, p. 87 and 105-106; Whitley 2001, p. 34). It is believed that his reliance on

these « tools » resulted into a relative disdain for written sources (Marchand 1996: 145), which is very obvious

in the discussion of the Aegean pottery that was found in Cyprus. Whatever the case, Furtwängler and

Löschke’s contribution was of great importance: the identification of pottery from the Aegean within Cypriot

contexts would soon be employed to materially support the colonisation hypothesis, in a period when all

archaeologists would accept without any hesitation the equation between pots and peoples.

The hellenocentric scholarship of John Linton Myres

8

The very first scholar to clearly and directly associate the Mycenaean and Mycenaean-looking pottery

found within Cypriot contexts with a colonisation of the island by Aegean people was Sir John Linton Myres

(Megaw 1988, p. 282-83; Åström 2000, p. 12-13; Koelsch 1995; Coldstream 1998, p. 5). This happened at the

end of the 19th century, in other words more than ten years after the publications of Heinrich Schliemann’s

excavations of the legendary Mycenae, Tiryns, Orchomenos and the site identified as Homer’s Troy had

appeared (Runnels 2002, p. 28-58). During the last decade of the 19th century, Myres, a promising young

student at the British School of Athens, went to Cyprus to supervise some of the British excavations

(McGillivray 2000, p. 113). In 1894 he was asked by the High Commissioner to examine, classify and organise

the ever growing collection of antiquities in the Cyprus Museum. Myres’ work with the collaboration of the

German archaeologist Max Ohnefalsch-Richter (Marangou 1986, p. 317; Goring 1988, p. 18; Buchholz 1989;

Fivel 1996; Merrillees 2000, p. 13-15) resulted in the first scholarly catalogue of the material in the Cyprus

Museum (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899). The catalogue constitutes the earliest major scientific

classification of the Cypriot material, which was further refined in the guidebook to the famous Cesnola

collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art published fifteen years later (Myres 1914; Karageorghis, Mertens

and Rose 2000, p. 8).

Through extensive study Myres became highly familiar with the antiquities of Cyprus. Being an

archaeologist with a strong Aegean background, he attempted to distinguish between the « genuine »

Mycenaean pots from the local imitations on the basis of fabric description (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter

1899, p. 40; Myres 1914, p. 50-53) and focused almost exclusively on the problem of the formers’ precise

provenance: they could have been manufactured in Mainland Greece, Rhodes, Crete or in Cyprus itself by

Mycenaean potters. The last hypothesis seemed more probable, as there were some Cypriot peculiarities in the

shape repertory of the vases. Thus ignoring completely possibilities associated with trade and exchange, Myres

regarded these vases as the tangible result of/ proof for the colonisation of the island by people from the shores

and the islands of the Aegean Sea and Crete at the time of the collapse of the Minoan world around 1400. These

populations « brought with them their own remarkable culture and industries » (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter

1899, p. 40, 180-82 and 183-86; Myres 1914, p. 45-46 and 374). Subsequently, the Aegean artefacts that were

found along the Syro-Palestinian coast lead Myres to the conclusion that

« similar colonies founded on the Syrian coast rather later, became eventually the seat of the

Philistine power…Thus in the Late Bronze Age, not Cyprus only, but all this end of the

Mediterranean became for a while a strong outpost of Western civilisation » (Myres 1914, p. xxx).

His strong belief in the historicity of mythological information, for which he would be criticised by later

researchers (Myres 1930, p. 297-99; Gjerstad 1944, p. 107 note 1), left no space for doubts that the legendary

Greek colonisation of Cyprus had actually occurred.

Myres’ conclusions were quite typical of the period, in which they were formulated. The major academic

trends that have significantly influenced him, as well as the majority of European archaeologists during the late

19th-early 20th century were a) the culture-historical approach towards material culture, b) the idealisation of

ancient Greeks and c) the belief in the historical value of mythological tradition. The former was established in

Great Britain through the fundamental work of Gordon Childe (Trigger 1980; Trigger 1989, p. 167-74), who

9

happened to be one of Myres’ fellow-students at the University of Oxford (Trigger 1989, p. 169). Myres’ studies

on the Cypriot material (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899; Myres 1914) predate Childe’s Dawn of the

European Civilisation (1925), through which « the archaeological culture became the working tool of all

European archaeologists » (Trigger 1989: 169). Nevertheless the concept of archaeological culture does appear,

although not as systematically (Trigger 1989: 168), in the catalogues of the Cyprus Museum (Myres and

Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 17-20) and the Cesnola collection (Myres 1914, p. xxviii-xxxiii). The belief that

archaeological remains are inevitably a reflection of ancient ethnicity is inherent in Myres’ work, through which

the equation of pots with peoples was implemented within the context of Cypriot archaeology. The

Hellenisation of Cyprus was promoted from a historical reconstruction based on literary, that is to say

intangible, evidence to an established archaeological fact.

Myres admired the Greek world and devoted his life to the study of its culture (Myres 1930). Like Engel,

Enmann and the rest of their German fellow-scholars mentioned above, he believed deeply in the superiority of

the Greeks, which would have made the colonisation of Cyprus a simple venture. The strong hellenocentric

character of Myres’ scholarship should be viewed against the background of 19th century British classicism.

Myres was born in Preston, Lancashire, in 1869. He studied and later taught at the University of Oxford in a

period when, as mentioned above, Western Europe was trying to revive ancient Greece (McGillivray 2000, p.

81-82). Britain was also actively involved in this intellectual movement: degrees focussing on the ancient Greek

language, literature and history were established in Oxford and Cambridge as early as 1807 and 1824

respectively. The same subjects became central in upper and upper-middle class secondary education (Bernal

1987, p. 318-21; Morris 1994, p. 19; Hingley 1996, p. 137). The British Museum, as well as the other big

museums in Britain, had a strong interest in acquiring antiquities from Greece (Etienne and Etienne 1990, p. 67-

75; Whitley 2000, p. 35-37). Neoclassical architecture was very popular and ancient Greece had become the

source of inspiration for numerous British artists and writers (Jenkyns 1980, p. 1-20; Turner 1981; Clarke 1989).

The idea of a Greek colonisation of Cyprus was firmly corroborated by ancient literature and also by the

archaeological material, which was however examined last and through the already sizeable colonisation lens.

Myres’ conclusions illustrate perfectly the above-mentioned historical approach towards the myths (Dowden

1992, p. 23-24). The physical remains of the past, if there were any available, would simply have to fit into the

already constructed historical scenario. This attitude seems to originate from the ancient Greeks’ belief that «

myths preserve the great deeds of the past » (Buxton 1994, p. 182; Dowden 1992, p. 39-53). Another typical

example of it is the initiation and development during the 19th century of the research into the heroic age of

Early Greece, as a result of the rising interest in Greek mythology and particularly in the Homeric poems (Fitton

1995, p. 41-46). In other words it was the very same attitude that urged Homer-struck Schliemann to identify the

settlement at Hissarlik with legendary Troy (Fitton 1995, p. 46-103) and also placed the foundation myths on the

basis of the construction of the colonisation theory.

Arthur Evans and the Cypro-Minoan script

The decipherment of the island’s Iron Age syllabic script gave great impetus to Cypriot epigraphy. The

similarities between a number of characters of the Cypriot syllabary and some signs of the Minoan linear writing

systems, which had been observed by Arthur Evans as early as 1895 (Evans 1895, p. 79-80 and 83-85), provided

further emphasis to the connections between Cyprus and the Aegean world. Some ten years later, Sayce

10

demonstrated that the Late Bronze Age Cypriots were using a script, which was similar to the Classical

syllabary (Sayce 1905, p. 254; Evans 1909, p. 72; Casson 1937, p. 72). In 1909, Evans undertook a more

detailed study of this Late Bronze Age script, which he named « Cypro-Minoan » , and concluded that it was a

provincial offspring of the Minoan linear scripts (Evans 1900, p. 216-17; Evans 1909, p. 68-77; Daniel 1941, p.

249; Hirschfeld 2001, p. 187-88).

The development of the Cypro-Minoan script was regarded by Evans as the result of an extensive influx of

settlers from the Aegean and Crete during the Late Minoan period (Evans 1909, p. 68-72). Quite similarly to

Myres, who happened to be a close friend and colleague in Oxford (Myres 1941; Trigger 1989, p. 168-69; Fitton

1995, p. 122; McGillivray 2000, p. 81, 103 and 252), Evans admired deeply the prehistoric civilisation of

Greece (Fitton 1995, p. 120) and regarded it as much more advanced than its Cypriot counterpart:

« The indigenous Bronze Age culture of Cyprus was incomparably behind that of Minoan Crete. It

was from a Minoan source that the first elements of high civilisation reached its shores » (Evans

1909, p. 68).

Consequently, the presence of the Aegean newcomers, who brought the Cypro-Minoan script on the island,

could be easily identified through the significant changes that were observed in the material culture:

« Side by side with survivals of the old barbaric products of the Cypriot potters we now note the

wholesale intrusion of new ceramic types of finer fabric, which in their paste, glaze and decoration

are inseparable from the Late Minoan and Mycenaean class » (Evans 1909, p. 69).

Evans eventually realised that there was a big chronological gap between the Aegean/ Minoan colonisation

and the one that occurred after the Trojan War and was described in « Greek foundation sagas » (Evans 1909, p.

74-75). His historical approach towards mythological information, as well as the identification of many Aegean

elements in the archaeological record from the Early Iron Age led him to the conclusion that there had been two

waves of Aegean immigrants into Cyprus (Evans 1909, p. 76).

The date of the introduction of the Cypro-Minoan script and consequently its connection to the colonisation

narrative became a subject of great controversy after Evans’ initial suggestions. When publishing the results of

the excavation at Knossos, Evans argued for an Early Bronze Age date and proposed that the Cypro-Minoan

script should be viewed as a local development (Evans 1935: 758-63). An Early Bronze Age chronology was

suggested also by the Cypriot archaeologist Porphyrios Dikaios (Dikaios 1940, p. 82). Casson and Persson on

the other hand were supporting a Late Bronze Age date and relating the introduction of the script with an

immigration-wave from the Aegean. Following Myres’ reconstruction, Casson dated this wave around the end

of the 15th century on the basis of ceramic evidence (Casson 1937, p. 59-60), while Persson placed it before the

Dorian invasion, which was thought to have had occurred some time after 1225 BC, according to a number of

inscriptions from Boghazköi (Persson 1930, p. 13-16; Daniel 1941, p. 250-51).

The main reason for this disagreement was the extremely limited amount of available material (Evans

1935, p. 759; Casson 1937: 75-76). Thus, the discovery of more examples of the Cypro-Minoan script at the

Late Bronze Age settlement of Episkopi-Bamboula near Kourion, which was excavated during the late 1930s

11

(Daniel 1939; Daniel 1940), as well as the systematic re-classification of the material by Daniel (1941), the

excavator of Bamboula, put an end to this debate: the script seemed to have developed during the course of the

Late Cypriot I period (Daniel 1941, p. 251-52; Mylonas 1948, p. 218; Mitford 1952: 151). Later discoveries,

mainly from Enkomi, justified Daniel’s conclusions fully (Dikaios 1971, p. 882-83; Chadwick 1987, p. 50-51;

Merrillees 1993, p. 13-15). Furthermore, the firm establishment of a Late Cypriot III date for the arrival of the

Mycenaean immigrants that was achieved by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition during the 1930s disconnected the

two historical phenomena completely.

British colonialism and hellenised Cyprus

The classical past played a special role for Britain, as it offered ample excuse for her colonial activity:

Winckelmann and many others after him regarded ancient Greece as the childhood of Europe. Ancient Greeks

were generally considered as the spiritual and intellectual ancestors of Europeans, who consequently thought

themselves as the descendants of an ideal and superior civilisation (Herzfeld 1987, p. 1-5; Shanks 1996, p. 82-

86). This assumption was widely used to legitimise European colonialism in areas with a supposedly primitive,

inferior civilisation. The aim of colonial archaeology is to substantiate the existence of a « huge » cultural gap

between the colonisers and the native population. This is achieved through the systematic glorification of the

past of the former and the simultaneous demonstration of the primitiveness and lack of accomplishments of the

latter (Trigger 1984, p. 360-63; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002).

The case of Cyprus was particularly complicated as the greater part of its population was Greek-Cypriots

(Knapp and Antoniadou 1998, p. 20), who consciously related themselves to Greece and its glorious past.

Cyprus had been under Turkish occupation since 1571 (Hunt 1990a). When Britain undertook the island’s

administration in 1878, the Greek Cypriots reacted with great enthusiasm. They regarded Britain as a great

philhellenic power that would liberate them from the « barbaric » Turkish yoke and help them unite with mother

Greece (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998, p. 21). When Sir Garnet Wolseley, the first High Commissioner, arrived

at the port of Larnaca, he was welcomed warmly by Sophronios, Archbishop of Kition, who declared:

« We accept the change of government inasmuch as we trust Great Britain will help Cyprus, as it did

the Ionian islands, to be united with mother Greece, with which it is naturally connected » (cited in

Hunt 1990, p. 265).

At the beginning, the British colonisers made no attempt to belittle the natives’ past, but rather tried to

emphasise its Greek character as much as possible. Myres, the first scholar to interpret Cypriot antiquities in the

light of the Mycenaean colonisation, not only was British but had also been employed by the High Commission.

His conclusions became immediately widely accepted by all researchers working in Cyprus, whose great

majority was of British nationality. Cypriot archaeology was literally in the hands of the colonial authority, who

showed strong interest in protecting and conserving the island’s heritage through a series of laws controlling

excavation and prohibiting massive exportation of antiquities (Marangou 1986, p. 319-22; Goring 1988, p. 21-

22). In 1887, the British School of Athens together with the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic studies and

the University of Cambridge founded the Cyprus Exploration Fund, which supported financially various

research-projects including Myres’ study (Megaw 1988, p. 281; Goring 1988, p. 22-23; Knapp and Antoniadou

1998, p. 30). During the last decade of the 19th century, the British Museum conducted a series of excavations at

12

various sites like Kourion, Enkomi, Maroni that were mainly chosen for their apparent association with the

Mycenaean/ Greek world (Evans 1900; Fitton 2001). Steel emphasises that these excavations established

irrevocably the connection between the Aegean and Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age and maintains that

much of the confusion and misunderstanding pertaining to the Hellenisation narrative is a result of these early

British excavators who « too readily ascribed a Mycenaean identity to their Late Bronze Age finds » while

almost totally ignoring indigenous development during the same period (Steel 2001, p. 163-64).

The British attitude towards the past and the antiquities of Cyprus may be viewed as one aspect of a more

general scheme to establish a good rapport with the colonised population, which was officially still under the

sovereignty of the Turks. Unlike the latter, the British were (= thought and/ or presented themselves as) liberal

philhellenists, bearers of justice and equality (Given 1997, p. 11-12). This policy was mainly reflected in the

remarkable autonomy that the Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish, were enjoying in the field of education. They

were entitled to use their own languages and manage their schools, appoint teachers of their choice, compile the

curricula and choose or even produce schoolbooks (Hunt 1990, p. 266-67; Pavlides 1993, p. 244-48; Merrillees

1993, p. 4-5; Given 1997, p. 64-65).

The Greek Cypriots used these liberties wisely to reinforce their Hellenic identity, thus supporting the ever-

growing nationalistic movement demanding « enosis » with Greece: they followed the curricula and used the

books of the Greek schools and very frequently appointed Greek teachers. Consequently, Greek Cypriot

students were being taught classical Greek language and literature, Greek history and geography (Hill 1952, p.

492-93). This hellenocentrism in Cypriot education was particularly evident in the architecture of school

buildings, which acquired neoclassical characteristics like columnar facades, pediments, sculptured decoration

etc. (Given 1997, p. 66-69). The Pancyprian Gymnasium in Nicosia, constructed in 1893, was the best example

of this kind of architecture and was, thus, considered the flagship of Greek education in Cyprus (Given 1997, p.

67 fig. 1).

The ever-growing Cypriot nationalism, which culminated in the burning down of the Government House at

Nicosia in October 1931 (Hill 1952, p. 548; Hunt 1990, p. 270-73; Pavlides 1993, p. 297-304), urged the British

to undertake drastic action: their liberal educational policy became more controlled and centralised, while

further measures preventing straightforward association with the Greek world were taken, e.g. the flying of the

Greek flag was prohibited (Hill 1952, p. 553; Given 1997, p. 65 and 69-71). Given has proposed that this

climate of political unrest caused by the development of the Cypriot nationalism urged the colonial authority to

consider ways of minimising the connection of the island’s early history with ancient Greece, as the Greek

Cypriot intelligentsia drew upon it in order to legitimise its demands (Peristianes 1910; Zannetos 1910, p. 102-

218; Given 1998, p. 3-4 and 12-15). The only possible way that this could be achieved was through the

identification of an ancient autochthonous population that remained largely unaffected by more recent

colonisation and immigration and would make ancient Cyprus look less Hellenic. The coincidence of the

discovery of the Eteocypriots by the Swedish scholars that had been excavating on the island since 1927 must

have been a happy one (Given 1998, p. 18-20). Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that it does not seem to

have been anything more than that. The evidence does not suffice to support the possibility of a conscious

collaboration between the colonial authority and the Swedish expedition in order to manipulate the ethnic

identity of the Cypriots according to the former’s best interest. However both the Swedes and the British

13

administrators were coming from the same intellectual background that favoured the superiority of the ancient

Greek and consequently Western world over the Orient.

The Swedish contribution to the Cypriot Hellenisation

The members of the Swedish Expedition reached Cyprus in 1927, after an invitation by Luke Zenon

Pierides, the Swedish consul in Larnaca. For four years they conducted numerous excavations and surveys all

over the island in order to

« determine the main historical outlines, with a periodic division that could be compared to with

those of nearby countries, and to elucidate the chronology of Cyprus until the Christian era »

(Westholm 1994, p. 7-8).

The Swedes, born, bred and educated in a Western European country and within a climate of academic

positivism, came to Cyprus with clearly set, although rather optimistic, scientific targets. Through their

fieldwork they introduced a new approach towards archaeological material that was based on stratification and

systematic chronological association. The publication of the Swedish finds and results was done in four massive

volumes and was combined with a thorough reconstruction of the Cypriot history from the Neolithic down to

the Roman period (Gjerstad 1933; Karageorghis 1993, p. 334-35; Westholm 1994; Windbalch 1997; Åström

2000, p.14-18).

The members of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition mostly interested in researching and reconstructing the

Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages were Einar Gjerstad (Åström 1971, p. 35-37; Åström 1985; Åström 1994;

Karageorghis 1985), and Erik Sjöqvist (Åström 1971, p. 72). Together, they managed to work out a sequence of

events for the 12th and 11th centuries (Gjerstad 1926; 1944; 1944a; 1948; Sjöqvist 1940). Their basic research

tool was detailed pottery analysis. Gjerstad believed that pottery could be regarded as the most positive evidence

for connections between different cultures, as it is

« fragile and of little value and therefore unsuitable as an exchange article and is not carried too far

from the place of manufacture: it proves the closest and direct relations. Whole and precious things

often pass from hand to hand: in themselves consequently they only give evidence of indirect

relations, but on the other hand they may supplement the evidence given by pottery » (Gjerstad

1926, p. 292).

Gjerstad’s methodology was very similar to that employed by Myres; both researchers positioned pottery

analysis in the centre of their study, as the key to identifying different ethnic groups. His results, however, were

remarkably different. Myres had proposed that all Mycenaean pots, the earliest of which dated from the 14th

century BC, had been locally produced; he consequently placed the date of the Aegean colonisation as early as

the 14th century BC. His conclusions were based on the relatively limited amount of archaeological data that was

available at his time. The Swedes, on the other hand, had excavated a remarkable amount of material, which

allowed ample space for observation and comparison. They suspected that the large number of Aegean pots

could not have been wholly produced on Cyprus and therefore focused on the question of their provenance.

14

Were they imported, the result of trade, or locally manufactured, the product of immigrants from the Aegean?

After careful observation and scrutiny resulting in detailed typologies of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

wares (Gjerstad 1926, p. 88-228; Gjerstad 1944a; Sjöquist 1940, p. 28-97), Gjerstad and Sjöquist managed to

establish some distinctions between imported and local ceramic products.

Einar Gjerstad examined closely the fabric, shape and decoration of the 14th-13th century pots and

concluded without any doubt that they were of Aegean provenance. He did not accept the possibility that some

Mycenaean pots might have been produced locally and suggested that they had all been imported, thus proving

Myres’ suggestion for a 14th century colonisation from the Aegean invalid. Consequently he attributed the

peculiarities of some of the Mycenaean vases found in Cyprus to special preferences of the Cypriot market as

Furtwängler and Löschke had suggested forty years before him (Furtwängler and Löschke 1886, p. IX; Gjerstad

1926, p. 218-20 and 326-27).

Erik Sjöqvist, on the other hand, suggested that the Mycenaean pottery of Cyprus although very close to the

wares of Mainland Greece (Sjöqvist 1940, p. 65-73), presented considerable differences, which hinted to its

provincial nature. Furthermore, a number of Cypriot and Syrian characteristics in the shape repertory led him to

regard this ware of Levantine origin and therefore named it « Levanto-Helladic » The fact that numerous

similar pots had been found also in Cicilia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt offered further support to this hypothesis

(Sjöqvist 1940, p. 94-96). Levanto-Helladic pottery was most probably produced in many « different littoral

localities in the Levant working under much the same conditions in a lively intercourse with each other »

(Sjöqvist 1940, p. 96). The manufacture of this pottery was considered as the result of interaction between small

groups of peoples from the Aegean, mainly merchants and artists, who had settled in the Levantine centres and

the indigenous population. This settlement was of small scale and mercantile character and in no way a major

colonisation movement from the Aegean world (Sjöqvist 1940, p. 205-206). Sjöqvist went as far as

corroborating his conclusion with anthropological evidence: a group of skulls from various tombs at Agios

Iacovos and Enkomi dating from the Middle Cypriot IIIC down to the Late Cypriot IIC periods was found to be

of more or less the same type suggesting that

« the racial stock of Cyprus underwent no material changes from the Middle Bronze Age down to

the close of the LCIIC; these skulls belong to the Armenoid brachycephalic type and « show no

affinities to the contemporary Achaean population of the Greek mainland » (Sjöqvist 1940, p. 205).

The Mycenaean colonisation of Cyprus was placed both by Gjerstad and Sjöquist within the course of Late

Cypriot III, as the local wares of this period were characterised by a remarkable fusion of Aegean and Cypriot

elements. At the same time the production of the traditional Late Bronze Age Base Ring and White Slip wares

appeared to have completely stopped (Gjerstad 1926, p. 278-85; Kling 1989, p. 79). Sjöquist identified a group

of Levanto-Helladic pots that seemed to have been produced locally during this period and were consequently

classified as « Painted Submycenaean » (Sjöqvist 1940, p. 73-74 and 97). According to Sjöqvist, this local ware

as well as the rest of the material culture of Late Cypriot III Cyprus featured considerable Anatolian affinities.

This led him to the conclusion that the newcomers included a large population from Anatolia (Sjöqvist 1940, p.

207-209); in an effort to combine both elements, he suggested that

15

« the scattered Achaeans, who in small bodies, had been resident on Anatolian soil for a century or

more, headed the tribes of the Phrygians and other Anatolians, and accompanied the migrating

hoards towards the South-East, raided Cyprus and gradually settled in newly established petty

principalities » (Sjöqvist 1940, p. 208).

Gjerstad, on the other hand, managed to distinguish two distinctive classes of pottery within the Late

Cypriot III ceramic production

« the first representing a debased variety of Levanto-Helladic pottery, and the second being a

forerunner of the White Painted ware of the Iron Age. I therefore suggest calling the first class

Debased Levanto-Helladic and the second class Proto-White Painted » (Gjerstad 1944a, p. 75).

Various chronological correlations between groups of the excavated material allowed Gjerstad to establish

that the Debased Levanto-Helladic ware was typical of the first half of the Late Cypriot III while the Proto-

White Painted pottery was common during the second half of the period. Both wares were characterised by a

fusion of Aegean and Cypriot elements; the latter, however, was thought to reflect a more advanced stage of this

fusion. Based on his three stages of contact between two different cultures and the way these are reflected

through pottery (Gjerstad 1926, p. 293-94), Gjerstad claimed that both classes of pottery reflected a colonisation

from the Aegean, but in the second case this movement was more fundamental (Gjerstad 1944a).

Besides pottery, the Swedish excavations unearthed more categories of evidence supporting the

Hellenisation hypothesis. At Lapithos-Kastros a new type of tomb of clearly Mycenaean origin was discovered:

chamber tombs with long dromoi that were dated to the beginning of the Iron Age on the basis of the pottery

they contained (Gjerstad 1931, p. 61; Gjerstad 1933, p. 267; Gjerstad 1980, p. 44-45; SCE I, p. 172-265). A

relatively large number of similar chamber tombs would later be located at various sites all over the island and

subsequently constitute one of the strongest arguments for a Mycenaean colonisation. Moreover the sanctuaries

at Aghia Irini and Idalion with their small roofed shrines seemed completely different from the earlier Cypriot

cult places and reminded Gjerstad of the domestic sanctuaries in the Minoan palaces and houses (Gjerstad 1933,

p. 267).

Further corroboration of the colonisation theory came from Gjerstad’s analytical study of the foundation

myths (Gjerstad 1944). Although he believed that there was some historical essence in mythological

information, Gjerstad did not, in emphasised contrast to J. L. Myres (Gjerstad 1944, p. 107 note 1), consider all

myths of the same « historical » / documentary value. He thus attempted a critical examination of the foundation

myths, in order to evaluate their « historicity » . The results of this examination enabled Gjerstad to arrange the

myths in two groups: the first one contained legends reflecting some historical truth while the second consisted

of legends « that are instances of political mythology and of aetiological speculation » (Gjerstad 1944, p. 122).

Although the second group’s myths were altogether dismissed as unoriginal, the first group was thought to

contain enough information to adequately support the Hellenisation hypothesis (Gjerstad 1944, p. 122-23).

Moreover, the Mycenaean origin of Cypriot kingship during the Classical period was characterised «

indisputable » and was corroborated by the 4th century use of the Homeric title « anaktes » for the kings’

brothers and sons (Gjerstad 1948, p. 445-46 and 498; Hadjiioannou 1971, p. 172-75 nos. 66.43-66.43c; Iacovou

16

1999, p. 14-15). Gjerstad’s conclusions concerning the myths illustrate effectively the Expedition’s

determination to establish an assumption-free archaeology of Cyprus, based on pure archaeological data

(Westholm 1994, p. 7-8; Given 1998, p. 7-8).

Elucidating the details of the colonisation narrative was one of the major objectives of the Swedish Cyprus

Expedition. At the same time they were interested in the interaction between the newcomers and the native

population. Were the Mycenaeans ruthless invaders or had they come in peace? Did the native Cypriots resist

them? Did they maintain their identity or were they absorbed by the Greek culture? After thorough study of the

material culture of Early Iron Age Cyprus Gjerstad concluded that as soon as they arrived, the newcomers

became the « Herrscherklasse » and imposed their culture on the natives (Gjerstad 1933, p. 267-68; 1980, p. 44-

47). In the final publication of the Expedition’s results he stated:

« The Mycenaean colonists and conquerors were the lords of the country, but the descendants of the

Late Bronze Age inhabitants, whom we may call the Eteocyprians, formed the majority of the

population, and for some time parts of the island still remained entirely Eteocyprian. No foundation

legends refer to cities in the interior of the island or to places on the south coast between Kourion in

the West and Salamis in the East. In the interior of the island there were « barbarian » , i.e.

Eteocyprian cities at least down to the Classical period » (Gjerstad 1948, p. 429).

What led Gjerstad to the above conclusions seems to had been his academic view of the Greek civilisation

as a superior one rather than the excavated material itself, which does not support any kind of strict distinction

between the newcomers and the « urkyprisch » indigenous peoples. The latter’s presence is substantiated solely

by a relatively small group of indecipherable inscriptions, which were assumed to have been produced by them.

On the basis of the concentration of these inscriptions in the area of Amathus, Gjerstad and his colleagues

concluded that after the arrival of the Mycenaeans the Eteocypriots concentrated in an ethnic pocket in the city

of Amathus.

The Swedes’ eagerness to identify and study the indigenous population and its culture must have made

them particularly welcome by the British administrators of the island. Ronald Storrs, the High Commissioner

during that period, supported the Swedish research in all possible ways. He helped with land appropriation,

provided police to guard excavation sites and even went as far as changing the Antiquities Law so that the

excavators could take a proportion of the finds to Sweden (Storrs 1945, p. 491; Given 1998, p. 16). The Swedes,

on the other hand

« considered themselves objective scholars who used scientific procedures to establish historical

truth. Nonetheless they were clearly sympathetic to the colonial regime, and were working in the

same general European ideological system of cultural history and racial hierarchy » (Given 1998, p.

16).

Einar Gjerstad, the leader of the expedition, is responsible for the establishment and systematic use of the

term « Eteocypriots » in parallel with/ opposition to the term « Greeks of Cyprus ». His belief in racial

17

hierarchy, as well as his classical education had led him to the conclusion that the mythical colonisation of

Cyprus by the superior Greeks was an incontrovertible historical fact (Gjerstad 1933, p. 267-68).

The systematic research undertaken by the Swedes upgraded the hypothesis of the Mycenaean colonisation

to a widely published and therefore most probably true historical fact. A detailed account of it appeared in the

comprehensive A History of Cyprus that was written by the British George Hill and published in 1949. Hill

based his reconstruction mainly on the results of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Furthermore, he corroborated

the conclusions of Gjerstad and Sjöqvist through many references to classical or even later Greek and Cypriot

texts, which demonstrated that besides their language and arts, the Mycenaeans had introduced place names,

institutions and a variety of cults (Hill 1949, p. 82-94). It should be mentioned, however, that in the epilogue of

the chapter entitled « The Greek Colonisation » Hill wondered « how far the Cypriot nation was Greek » (Hill

1949, p. 93). This politically sensitive question was answered by means of referring to the famous passage from

Aeschylus’ Suppliants (Reyes 1994, p. 12 note 8), where the Cypriots are presented as a distinctively foreign

population with its own peculiar customs and features. Hill regarded this passage as enough evidence to

counterbalance the numerous excerpts that he himself had used to prove the historicity of the Greek colonisation

and concluded that

« Obviously, in the face of such a fact, attempts, which have been made, and will doubtless

continue to be made, to prove that the Cypriots were pure Greeks, must be futile » (Hill 1949, p.

94).

This statement smells strongly of politics and should be viewed against the background of the British

colonial policies concerning the demand of the Cypriots to unite with Greece (Given 1997, p. 69), which were

thoroughly discussed in the previous section.

The Eteocypriots and their language: development of the argument

The decipherment of the Cypriot syllabary around 1870 revealed that this script had been used to write both

Greek as well as an unidentifiable non-Hellenic language. This conclusion was based on a relatively small

number of unintelligible syllabic inscriptions, which had been most probably found in the area of Amathus

(Masson 1983, p. 85 and 203-206 nos.192-195; Given 1998, p. 19). In 1914, the German linguist Kretschmer

suggested that through the inscriptions

« ist nicht nur eine vorgriechische Bevölkerung von Cypern, sondern auch das Fortbestehen ihrer

Sprache bis mindestens ins V. Jahrhundert v.Chr. gesichert, ähnlich wie das der eteokretischen

Sprache auf Kreta durch die Inschriften von Praisos » (Kretschmer 1914, p. 260).

During the same year Sittig, another German linguist, published a 4th century bilingual inscription from

Amathus written in Greek and an unknown language (Masson 1983, p. 206-209 no.196). Sittig examined this

unknown language against the background of various ancient literary sources, which maintained that the

Amathusians were the indigenous, pre-Greek population of Cyprus (Sittig 1914, p. 1-2). He concluded that this

inscription proved beyond doubt that during the 4th century the autochthonous Amathusians were speaking an

18

unknown, pre-Hellenic language, which might have been related to the Minoan (Sittig 1914, p. 2; Kretschmer

1917, p. 252). The direct association of Amathus with an indigenous population challenged its Phoenician

character (Sittig 1914, p. 2) that was until then a common belief (Cesnola 1878, p. 249-51; Myres 1914, p.

xxxix; Hill 1937, p. 485-86; Given 1998, p. 19; Petit 1999, p. 110). Given notices that Sittig’s suggestions fall

into line with the rising anti-Semitism that characterised the beginnings of the 20th century and was partly

responsible for the hellenocentric attitude of the researchers who established the Mycenaean colonisation

hypothesis (Given 1998, p. 11-12, 19; Papadopoulos 1997, p. 194).

In 1932, the German linguist Johannes Friedrich coined the term « Eteokyprier » , i.e. « True Cypriot » , to

distinguish the autochthonous population of Cyprus, who used this unknown language, from the Greek

immigrants (Friedrich 1932, p. 49). Until the arrival of the Swedes, the available evidence for the existence of

the Eteocypriot population was exclusively linguistic. The Swedish excavations at Amathus located a

considerable number of tombs of a peculiar shape and construction consisting of a rectangular rock-cut shaft

roofed with stone slabs. These shaft graves dated from the Cypro-Geometic I to the Cypro-ArchaicI (Gjerstad et

al. 1935, p. 138-41; Westholm 1942, p. 31). Westholm compared these tombs with the Mycenaean-style

chamber that were thought to be the norm in most of the Cypriot cemeteries during Cypro-Geometric I-II and

suggested that the Amathusian tombs were older on typological grounds. Consequently they should be attributed

to the oldest inhabitants of the island. This conclusion was supported through references to ancient Greek texts

maintaining that the Amathusians constituted the autochthonous population of Cyprus, as well as Hill’s rejection

of Amathus’ Phoenician character (Westholm 1942, p. 30-31 and 52-53). Gjerstad added some analogous

Cypro-Geometric I tombs found at Lapethos-Plakes to the Eteocypriot material and maintained that while the

native community was using the cemetery at Plakes the newcomers buried their dead in the chamber tombs at

nearby Kastros. This separation was regarded as indicative of a remarkable differentiation between the two

ethnic groups at this early level of interaction. The gradual moderation of this contrast in burial architecture,

which was illustrated by the appearance of Eteocypriot shaft tombs at CGII Kastros, was thought to denote

gradual assimilation of the Mycenaean and Eteocypriot cultures (Gjerstad 1948, p. 432-33).

Since Gjerstad’s conclusions, the presence of the native Eteocypriots in Early Iron Age Cyprus has been

regarded as an established historical fact (Hill 1937; Hill 1949, p. 53-54 and 101; Karageorghis 1968, p. 68;

Karageorghis 1982, p. 114; Karageorghis 1990, p. 109-110; Coldstream 1990, p. 52-53; Pavlides 1991, p. 67-

68; Iacovou 1995, p. 102-103 and 107; Courtois 1997, 305-307; Karageorghis 2002, p. 136-37; Iacovou 2003, p.

84). The Eteocypriot hypothesis was viewed as corroborative of the Hellenisation narrative, since the presence

of a native population, who was forced to concentrate in the area of Amathus after the Mycenaeans had

overwhelmed the island, made the arrival of the latter a much more convincing story. Consequently, their

position was significantly modified: initially considered by Gjerstad as a culturally strong and resistant majority

(Gjerstad 1948, p. 429-31), the Eteocypriots were eventually attributed a minor role and were viewed as

« remnants of a past that was radically changed by the superior Greek colonising forces during the Late

Bronze Age, the Golden Age for the Greek Cypriot national myth » (Hamilakis 1998, p. 109).

Epilogue: the Hellenisation of Cyprus in the 20th century

19

The fundamental work of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition promoted Cypriot archaeology to a systematic

academic discipline and attracted the attention and interest of several researchers and institutions all over the

world (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998, p. 30). In 1935, the Department of Antiquities was founded. Finally, a

local specialised institution would protect and preserve the antiquities, establish local museums throughout the

island and conduct excavations. The first director of the Department was Arthur H. S. Megaw, a Dubliner

educated at the University of Cambridge, who was assisted by the Cypriot archaeologist Porphyrios Dikaios

(Dikaios 1961, p. ix-xvi; Åström 1971, p. 27-29; Karageorghis 1972; Nicolaou 1973; Marangou 1986, p. 331-

32).

By the mid-1940s, Gjerstad’s two-wave Hellenisation narrative was widely established among

archaeologists and historians, despite the objections expressed by some scholars, principally Casson, Schaeffer

and Daniel. Based on the assumption that Mycenaean pottery was being locally manufactured on a large scale

from as early as the 14th century, they were arguing, similarly to Myres, that the Aegean colonisation occurred

during that period (Casson 1937, p. 41-71; Schaeffer 1936, p. 75-80; Daniel 1940, p. 11-12; Daniel 1942, p.

290-93; Schaeffer 1973, p. 287-89). The controversy associated with the origin of the large numbers of 14th and

13th century Mycenaean pots found in Cypriot contexts would not be definitively settled before the systematic

application of scientific methods investigating clay provenance during the 1960s; this is when Hector Catling

and a group of pottery scientists managed to ascribe an Aegean, mostly Argolic, provenance to the vast majority

of the Mycenaean pots that the Swedes had classified as imported (Catling and Jones 1986, p. 603-609;

Wijngaarden 2002, p. 125-28).

It was well before these developments, however, that Gjerstad’s narrative had become widely accepted.

After the foundation of the Department of Antiquities, research had become more organised. The provenance

issues mentioned above, were being tackled through numerous typological discussions, which were being made

on the basis of the steadily increasing excavated material (Stubbings 1951, p. 31-44). Furthermore, the

uncovering of the sites of Sinda and Enkomi during the 1940s and 1950s respectively constituted one of the

most decisive points in the development and establishment of the Hellenisation narrative. Sinda, a small inland

settlement in the Mesaoria plain excavated by the Swede Arne Furumark, produced large amounts of a ‘pure’

Mycenaean ware that was clearly locally produced. This pottery, classified as Mycenaean IIIC:1b by Furumark,

was typical in Greece during the period 1200-1150 (Furumark 1941, p. 541-75; Furumark 1941a, p. 110-15;

Mountjoy 1993, p. 90-91; Furumark 1965, p. 100; Kling 1989). At Sinda, it was found in association with the

reoccupation level that was covering an extended destruction stratum. The settlement had been destroyed and

consequently repaired. The people who repaired it were thought to had been producing and using Mycenaean

IIIC:1b pots (Furumark 1965).

A quite similar picture emerged during excavations at Enkomi in eastern Cyprus, conducted by a French

mission in collaboration with Porphyrios Dikaios and the Department of Antiquities. According to Dikaios,

Enkomi was destroyed around 1230 BC. The date of the destruction was estimated on the basis of ceramic

evidence (Dikaios 1971, p. 511). A short time after its destruction the town was repaired and reoccupied: the

reoccupation level is characterized by the introduction of locally produced Mycenaean IIIC:1b style pottery

(Dikaios 1967; 1969; 1971). Both Furumark and Dikaios associated the Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery, which was

coming up in impressively large numbers, with an extended influx of people from the Aegean. They were not

certain whether that the newcomers were also to be held responsible for the destruction of the settlements or not.

20

The Mycenaeans’ involvement in the subsequent rebuilding, repairing and general reorganizing of the towns

was undisputed. Dikaios correlated the destruction of Enkomi with the destruction of Troy VIIA (while

Mycenaean IIIB style pottery was still in use) and the consequent but slightly later (Mycenaean IIIC:1b) arrival

of Achaean heroes on the island as colonists (Dikaios 1971, p. 512-520).

The results of the excavations at Enkomi and Sinda promoted the colonization narrative into an established

archaeological fact beyond doubt. Such was the enthusiasm of archaeologists that they completely overlooked

the fact that Furumark had excavated only a small proportion of the settlement at Sinda and that Enkomi had

not been fully investigated. Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery from several other sites throughout the island, i.e. Pyla-

Kokkinokremos, Maa-Palaeokastro and Kition (Dikaios 1971, p. 895-912; Karageorghis 1976; Kling 1989, p.

40-44), added further strength to the argument (Kling 1989, p. 1).

Since the excavation of Enkomi the Hellenisation hypothesis has been developed and refined gradually,

particularly under the light of more discoveries during the 1960s and the 1970s. It received a remarkably

powerful boost when Vassos Karagorghis (Åström 1971, p. 44-47 and 85; Åström 2000, p. 24-25; Hadjiioannou

1992) became director of the Department of Antiquities at 1963, three years after the establishment of the

independent Republic of Cyprus (Hunt 1990b). Karageorghis had a strong classical background. Born in 1929,

in Trikomo, a village under Turkish occupation since 1973, he grew up in a period when the demand for enosis

with Greece was particularly intense (Hunt 1990, p. 273-79; Karageorghis 2007, p. 1-11). He studied at the

Pancyprian Gymnasium of Nicosia that provided him with a classical education. The latter constituted the basis

for the construction of his hellenocentric identity, which is evident everywhere in his written work

(Karageorghis 1999, p. 56-59). An illustrative example: while discussing the occurrence of many ancient Greek

words in the modern Cypriot dialect he states:

« These and many other similar incidents (of coming across ancient Greek words within the colloquial dialect) made a great impression on my youthful mind and I vowed that the purpose of my career as an archaeologist would be to investigate the Hellenic physiognomy of Cyprus and to come to a better understanding of this, in many ways odd phenomenon of a Greek island in the far reaches of the Eastern Mediterranean, 500 miles away from Athens » (Karageorghis 2002a, p. 31, parenthesis mine).

Karageorghis, however, is not only a Greek Cypriot with a strong ethnic identity. He is also an inspired

man, who was particularly keen in promoting Cypriot archaeology abroad; thus, he placed much emphasis on

the Greekness of the Cypriot culture in order to make it look more interesting and attractive to foreign

archaeological institutions. Prestigious Greek antiquities seemed to be the main focus of research while Cypriot

studies were more or less underdeveloped. As director of the Department of Antiquities (1963-1989),

Karageorghis systematized archaeological activity and organised excavations at numerous sites throughout the

island, many of which he conducted himself. Additionally, he strongly encouraged foreign missions to

undertake research projects (Karaheorghis 1994-1995, p. 853-65; Karageorghis Karageorghis 2000;

Karageorghis 2002b, p. 34; Karageorghis 2007, p. 71-93).

Karageorghis’ efforts were intensified after the Turkish invasion in 1974 (Hunt 1990c: 289-90). Since the

early 1970s, he has organised several international conferences, most of them concentrating on the relations

between Cyprus and the Aegean throughout antiquity. Moreover, Karageorghis has participated in numerous

colloquia with enthusiastic papers focusing on the transitional period between the Late Bronze and the Early

21

Iron Age and the Hellenisation of Cyprus. Being a prolific writer he has produced a significant number of books

and articles (Karageorghis 2007, p. 140-42 and 206-11) on, among many others, the same topic.

Following the footsteps of Gjerstad and Dikaios, Karageorghis regarded the arrival of Mycenaeans during

the 12th-11th centuries as an established historical fact and studied systematically their material culture. His

excavations at the Late Bronze Age urban centre of Kition (1962-1981; Karageorghis 1976; Karageorghis and

Demas 1985) enabled him to contribute towards the development of the general historical framework for the

Late Cypriot IIC-IIIA period as well as its refinement on the basis of new discoveries. He later excavated the

fortified outposts at Maa-Palaeokastro (1979-1986; Karageorghis and Demas 1988) and Pyla-Kokkinokremos

(1981-1982; Karageorghis and Demas 1984), which had been initially investigated by Dikaios. Karageorghis

followed Dikaios’ interpretative line and ingeniously incorporated his results into the Hellenisation hypothesis.

Further information came from the 11th century cemeteries at Alaas (Karageorghis 1975) and Palaepaphos-

Skales (Kageorgis 1983) and various small-scale excavations over the island, which he undertook during the

course of his long service at the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Under the light of the archaeological

discoveries and typological advancements made by Karageorghis, as well as other researchers the narrative had

evolved to an elaborate construction, much more complex and multifaceted than Gjerstad’s reconstruction, as

the Hellenisation was no more considered the result of a clean-cut, two-episode procedure; it was viewed as a

series of intertwined developments that affected all aspects of human life on Cyprus during the period in

question (Iacovou 1999; Karageorghis 2002, p. 71-141).

Systematic fieldwork and prompt publication of its results, easy access to various classes of archaeological

material as well as the determination to demonstrate the Hellenic roots of the Cypriot civilisation have pushed

Karageorghis into the protagonist’s role in the construction of the colonisation narrative for the last forty years.

His method is similar to that of his predecessors, namely Myres, Gjerstad and Dikaios. By applying the culture-

historical approach to the archaeological record from the Late Cypriot III-Cypro-Geometric I period and

expanding it beyond the limits of pottery analysis (Karageorghis 1990a, p. 1-2), he has managed to assemble a

seemingly effective historical framework, where all classes of data seem able to fit (Karageorghis 1990a;

2000a;). Tireless repetition in numerous articles has promoted the colonisation hypothesis into a series of

incontrovertible, historical facts.

During the past twenty years a relatively large number of studies challenging the ‘official’ Hellenisation

narrative have seen the light of day. Given the problems associated with the narrative’s theoretical basis, i.e. the

culture-historical approach towards material culture, as demonstrated in the first section of this paper, this is

something that one should by all means expect. These studies consist of systematic reassessments of various

classes of archaeological evidence, the results of which indirectly question various parts of the narrative (Hult

1983, p. 62 and 88-90; Kling 1989; Sherratt 1991; Pilides 1994; Webb 1999; Leriou 2002, p. 6-7; Leriou 2007,

p. 564). Moreover, there are several new readings and interpretations of the archaeological record achieved

through the adoption of different perspectives or methodological tools (Voyatzis 1985; Maier 1986; Negbi 1986,

p. 111-14; Cook 1988; Sherratt 1992; Sherratt 1994; Sherratt 1998; Negbi 1998; Sherratt 1999; Webb 1999;

2001; Hitchcock 2000; Iacovou 1999, p. 10-11; Iacovou 2001; Iacovou 2005; Iacovou 2006; Leriou 2007, p.

564-65; Collard 2008; Knapp 2008, p. 250-52). Although many, the researchers attempting to promote a

reconsideration of the Hellenisation hypothesis have not managed to instigate a proper debate between them and

the ‘official’ narrative’s supporters, who seemingly chose to ignore the discussions mentioned above. Only two

22

sub-issues have so far become subjects of controversy: the existence of the Eteocypriots (Reyes 1994, p. 13-17;

Given 1998, p. 15-24; Petit 1999) and the date of the Cypriot kingdoms’ establishment (Rupp 1987; Rupp 1989;

Steel 1993). Nevertheless, this controversy was not strong enough to have a palpable impact on the

Hellenisation narrative, the strength of which derives largely from its nationalistic character (Leriou 2002, p. 3-

6). Thus, it is going to take more than a couple of decades until a drastically revised version of the Hellenisation

hypothesis will be making the headlines, particularly the non-academic ones.

REFERENCES ÅSTRÖM P. 1971, Who’s who in Cypriote Archaeology; biographical and bibliographical note, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 23, Göteborg. ÅSTRÖM P. 1985, « Einar Gjerstad’s Cypriote publications. A bibliography by Paul Åström », Archaeologia Cypria I, p. 9-14 ÅSTRÖM P. 1994, « Cyprus is Alpha and Omega for me; Einar Gjerstad », in P. Åström (ed.), The fantastic years on Cyprus. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition and its members, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-book 79, Jonsered, p. 24-32. ÅSTRÖM P. 2000, A century of international cyprological research, Nicosia. ATKINSON J. A., BANKS I. and O’SULLIVAN J (eds.) 1996, Nationalism and archaeology, Glasgow. BALANDIER C. 2001, « Cyprus, a new archaeological frontier in the XIXth century: the struggle of European museums for Cypriot antiquities », in V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, fancy and fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium, December 1998, Oxford, p. 3-12. BARTH F. 1969, « Introduction », in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organisation of cultural difference, Boston, p. 9-38. BELOCH K. J. 1893, Griechische Geschichte, Band I, Bis auf die sophistische Bewegung und den Peloponnesischen Krieg. Strassburg. BERNAL M. 1987, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic roots of Classical civilisation, Volme I, The fabrication of ancient Greece 1785-1985, London. BUCK. D. 1910, Introduction to the study of the Greek dialects, Boston, New York, Chicago and London. BUCHHOLZ H.-G. 1989, « M. Ohnefalsch-Richter als Archäologe auf Zypern », Cahier du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 11/ 12, p. 3-27. BUSOLT G. 1893, Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeronia, Band I, Bis zur Begründung des pelloponnesischen Bundes, Gotha. BUXTON R. 1994, Imaginary Greece; the contexts of mythology, Cambridge. CASSON S. 1937, Ancient Cyprus, its Art and Arhaeology, London. CASTLEDEN R. 1993, Minoans. Life in Bronze Age Crete, London and New York. CASTLEDEN R. 2005, Mycenaeans, London and New York. CESNOLA L. P. DI 1878, Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs and temples. A narrative of researches and excavations during ten years’ residence in that island, New York. CATLING H.W. and JONES R. E. 1986. « Cyprus, 2500-500 BC; the Aegean and the Near East, 1500-1050 BC », in R. E. Jones (ed.), Greek & Cypriot pottery. A review of scientific studies, Athens, p. 523-625.

23

CHADWICK J. 1987, Linear B and related scripts, London. CLARKE G. W. (ed.) 1989, Rediscovering Hellenism: the Hellenic inheritance and the English imagination, Cambridge. CONSTANTINE D. 1984, Early Greek travellers and the Hellenic ideal, Cambridge. COLLARD D. 2008, Function and ethnicity: ‘Bathtubs’ from Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 171, Sävedalen. COLDSTREAM J. N. 1990, « Early Iron Age (Cypro-Geometric); the rise of the ancient kingdoms c. 1100-700 BC » , in D. Hunt (ed.), Footprints in Cyprus, London, p. 47-64. COLDSTREAM J. N. 1998, Light from Cyprus on the Greek « Dark Age » ? The nineteenth J.L.Myres memorial lecture, Oxford. COOK V. 1988, « Cyprus and the outside world during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age », Opuscula Atheniensia 17: 2, p. 13-32.

COURTOIS J.-C 1997, « Η Γεωμετρική εποχή (1050-τέλος του 8ου αιώνος π.Χ.) » in Th. Papadopoulos (ed.), Ιστορία της Κύπρου, volume I, Αρχαία Κύπρος. Part A, Φυσικογεωγραφική εισαγωγή, προϊστορικοί χρόνοι, σχέσεις προς όμορους χώρους, Nicosia, p. 287-349. DANIEL J. F. 1939, « Kourion: the Late Bronze Age settlement », University of Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin 7:3, p. 14-21. DANIEL J. F. 1940, « The Achaeans at Kourion », University of Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin 8:1, 3-14. DANIEL J. F. 1941, « Prolegomena to the Cypro-Minoan script », American Journal of Archaeology 45, p. 249-82. DANIEL J. F. 1942, « Review of Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age by Erik Sjöqvist », American Journal of Archaeology 46, p. 286-93. DEMETRIOU A. 1989, Cypro-Aegean relations in the Early Iron Age, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 83, Göteborg. DESBOROUGH R. V. D’A. 1964, The last Mycenaeans and their successors; an archaeological survey 1200-1000BC, Oxford. DESBOROUGH R. V. D’A. 1972, The Greek Dark Ages, London. DÍAZ-ANDREU M.1996, « Constructing identities through culture: the past in the forging of Europe », in P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural identity and archaeology. The construction of European communities, London and New York, p. 48-16. DÍAZ-ANDREU M. 2007, A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology. Nationalism, colonialism and the past, Oxford. DÍAZ-ANDREU M. and CHAMPION T. 1996 « Nationalism and archaeology in Europe: an introduction », in M. Díaz-Andreu and T. Champion (eds), Nationalism and archaeology in Europe, Boulder, p. 1-23. DÍAZ-ANDREU M., LUCY M., BABIC S. and EDWARDS, N. (eds.) 2005, The archaeology of identity: approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion, London and New York. DICKINSON O. 2006, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and change between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC, London. DIKAIOS P. 1940, « New light on prehistoric Cyprus », Iraq 7, p. 69-83.

24

DIKAIOS P. 1961, A guide to the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. DIKAIOS P. 1967, « Excavations and historical background: Enkomi in Cyprus », Journal of Historical Studies, p. 41-49. DIKAIOS P. 1969, Enkomi, excavations 1948-1958, Volume I, The architectural remains. The tombs, Mainz. DIKAIOS P. 1971, Enkomi, excavations 1948-1958, Volume II: Chronology, summary and conclusions, catalogue and appendices, Mainz. DOWDEN K. 1992, The uses of Greek Mythology, London and New York. ENGEL W. H. 1841, Kypros. Eine Monographie, Berlin. ENMANN A. 1886, Kypros und der Ursprung des Aphroditenkultus, Petersburg. ENMANN A. 1887, Kritische Versuche zur ältesten griechischen Geschichte, Volume I, Kypros und der Ursprung des Aphroditenkultus, Stuttgart. EHRLICH C. S. 1996, The Philistines in transition. A history from ca. 1000-730 BCE, Leiden, Koln and New York. ETIENNE R. and ETIENNE F. 1992, The search for ancient Greece, London. EVANS A. J. 1895, Cretan pictographs and prae-Phoenician script, London and New York. EVANS A. 1900, « Mycenaean Cyprus as illustrated in the British Museum excavations », The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 30, p. 199-220, EVANS A. J. 1909, Scripta Minoa. The written documents of Minoan Crete with special reference to the archives of Knossos, Volume I: The hieroplyphic and primitive linear classes with an account of the discovery of the pre-Phoenician scripts, their place in Minoan story and their Mediterranean relations, Oxford. EVANS A. J. 1935, The palace of Minos at Knossos, Volume IV: part II, London. FITTON J. L. 1995, The discovery of the Greek Bronze Age, London. FITTON J. L. 2001, « Excavations in Cyprus and the Mycenaean question », in V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium, December 1998, Oxford, p. 149-52, FIVEL L. 1996, « Ohnefalsch-Richter, vendeur d’antiquités chypriotes (1885) », Cahier du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 25, p. 29-35. FRIEDRICH J. 1932, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 163, Berlin. FURTWÄNGLER A. and LÖSCHKE G. 1886, Mykenischen Vasen. Vorhellenischen Thongefässe aus dem Gebiet des Mitelmeeres, Berlin. FURUMARK A. 1952, « Utgrävningarna vid Sinda. Nagra historiska resultat », in Arkeologiska forskningar och fynd. Studier utgivna med anlending av H.M.Konung Gustaf VI Adolfs sjuttioårdag 11.11.1952, p. 59-69. FURUMARK A. 1965, « The excavations at Sinda. Some historical results », Opuscula Atheniensia 6, p. 99-116. FURUMARK A. 1941, The Mycenaean pottery: analysis and classification, Stockholm. FURUMARK A. 1941a, The Chronology of Mycenaean pottery, Stockholm. GALATY M. L. and WATKINSON C. (eds.) 2004, Archaeology under dictatorship, New York.

25

GATHERCOLE P. and LOWENTHAL D. (eds.) 1989, The politics of the past, London and New York. GITIN S., MAZAR A. and STERN E. (eds.) 1998, Mediterranean peoples in transition, thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, Jerusalem. GIVEN M. 1997, « Star of the Parthenon, Cypriot melange: education and representation in colonial Cyprus », Journal of Meditarranean Studies 7:1, p. 59-82 GIVEN M. 1998, « Inventing the Eteocypriots: imperialist archaeology and the manipulation of ethnic identity », Journal of Meditarranean Archaeology 11:1, p. 3-29.

GIVEN M. 2004, The archaeology of the colonised, London and New York. GJERSTAD E. 1926, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala. GJERSTAD E. 1931, « Summary of the Swedish excavations in Cyprus », Syria 12, p. 58-66. GJERSTAD E. 1933, « Die schwedischen Ausgrabungen auf Cypern », Die Antike 9, p. 261-81 GJERSTAD E. 1944, « The colonisation of Cyprus in Greek legend », Opuscula Archaeologica 3, p. 107-23. GJERSTAD E. 1944a, « The initial date of the Cypriote Iron Age », Opuscula Archaeologica 3, p. 73-106. GJERSTAD E. 1948, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Volume IV: 2, The Cypro-Geomertic, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods, Stockholm. GJERSTAD E. 1980, Ages and day in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 12, Gothenburg. GJERSTAD E., LINDROS J., SJÖQVIST E. and WESTHOLM A. 1935, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931, Volume II, Stockholm. GOODE J. 2001, Negotiating for the past: archaeology, nationalism and diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919-1941, Austin GORING E. 1988, A mischievous pastime; digging in Cyprus in the 19th century, Edinburgh. HADJIIOANNOU K. 1971, Η αρχαία Κύπρος εις τας ελληνικάς πηγάς, Vol. I, Τα θρυλούμενα, ιστορία και εθνολογία από των προϊστορικών χρόνων μέχρι του 395 μ.Χ., Nicosia. HADJIIOANNOU K. 1992, « Βάσος Καραγιώργης », in G. C. Ioannides (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, Kypriakai Spoudai 54-55, p. 1-6. HALL J. 1997, Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge. Hall J. 2002, Hellenicity; between ethnicity and culture, Chicago and London. HAMILAKIS Y. 1998, « Comments and responses to M.Given, ‘Inventing the Eteocypriots: imperialist archaeology and the manipulation of ethnic identity’ (JMA 11.1, June 1998). 1. Archaeology and the politics of identity in Cyprus », Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11:1, p. 107-111.

HELLENIC MINISTRY OD CULTURE 2005, Foreign archaeological schools in Greece, Athens. HERZFELD M. 1987, Anthropology through the looking-glass: critical ethnography in the margins of Europe, Cambridge. HILL G. F. 1937, « Amathus », Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 5, p. 485-91.

26

HILL G. F. 1949, A History of Cyprus, Volume I: To the conquest by Richard Lion-heart, Cambridge. HILLL G. F. 1952, A history of Cyprus, Volume IV: The Ottoman province, the British colony, 1571-1948, Cambridge. HINGLEY R. 1996, « The shared moral purposes of two empires and the origin of Romano-British archaeology », J. A. Atkinson, I. Banks, and J. O’Sullivan (eds.), Nationalism and archaeology, Glasgow, p. 135-42. HIRSCHFELD N. 2001, « Die kyprominoische Schrift: Texte und Kontexte », in A. Kyriatsoulis (ed.), Kreta & Zypern: Religion & Schrift. Von der Frühgeschichte bis zum Ende der archaischen Zeit. Altenburg, p. 187-203. HITCHCOCK L. A. 2000, « One cannot export a palace on board a ship; studying Aegean elements in Cypriot Late Bronze Age architecture », Backdirt (www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ioa/pubs/backdirt/fall00/cypriot.html). HOFFMANN O. 1891, Die griechischen Dialekte in ihren historischen Zusammenhange, Volume I: Der süd-archäische Dialekt. Göttingen. HOFFMANN S. F. W. 1841, Griehenland und die Griechen im Alterthum, Volume VI: Die Inseln und Kolonien der Griechen, Leipzig. HULT G. 1983, Bronze Age ashlar masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 66, Göteborg. HUNT D. 1990, « The British period, 1878-1960 », in D. Hunt (ed.), Footprints in Cyprus, London, p. 255-79. HUNT D. 1990a, « The Turkish period, 1571-1878 », in D. Hunt (ed.), Footprints in Cyprus. London, p. 226-54. HUNT D. 1990b, « Independence and invasion, 1960- », in D. Hunt (ed.), Footprints in Cyprus. London, p. 280-90. JENKINS R. 1997, Rethinking ethnicity: arguments and explorations, London. JENKYNS R. 1980, Victorians and ancient Greece, Oxford. JONES S. 1997, The archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present, London and New York. IACOVOU M. 1995, « Κυπριακή Πρωτοϊστορία. Η Κύπρος πριν από τα βασίλεια », Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, p. 95-110. IACOVOU M. 1999, « The Greek exodus to Cyprus: the antiquity of Hellenism », Mediterranean Historical Review 14 (2), p. 1-28. IACOVOU M. 2001, « Cyprus from Alashiya to Iathana- the Protohistoric interim », in S. Böhm K.-V. von Eickstedt, ΙΘΑΚΗ. Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer zum 75.Geburtstag am 25. April 2001, Würzburg, p. 85-92. IACOVOU M. 2003, « The Late Bronze Age origins of Cypriot Hellenism and the establishment of the Cypriot kingdoms », in S. Chadjisavvas (ed.), From Ishtar to Aphrodite: 3,200 years of Cypriot Hellenism. Treasures from the museums of Cyprus, New York, p. 79-85. IACOVOU M. 2005, « Cyprus at the dawn of the first millennium BC: cultural homogenisation versus the tyranny of ethnic identifications », in J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, Oxford, p. 125-34. IACOVOU, M. 2006, « ‘Greeks’, ‘Phoenicians’ and ‘Eteocypriots’. Ethnic identities in the Cypriote kingdoms », in J. Chrysostomides and Ch. Dendrinos (ed.), « Sweet land... » , lectures on the history and culture of Cyprus, Surrey, p. 27-59. INSOLL T. (ed.) 2007, The archaeology of identities: a reader, London and New York.

27

KANE S. (ed.) 2003, The politics of archaeology and identity in a global context, Boston. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1968, Cyprus, Geneva. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1969, Salamis in Cyprus, Homeric, Hellenistic and Roman, London. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1972, « Porphyrios Dikaios », Kadmos 11, p. 177-79. K ARAGEORGHIS V. 1976, Kition, Mycenaean and Phoenician discoveries in Cyprus, London.

ARAGEORGHIS V. 1975, Alaas, a Protogeometric necropolis in Cyprus, Nicosia.

K ARAGEORGHIS V. 1982, Cyprus from the Stone Age to the Romans, London. K

ARAGEORGHIS V. 1983, Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus, Konstanz. K

KARAGEORGHIS V. 1985, « O Einar Gjerstad και η Κυπριακή Αρχαιολογία », Archaeologia Cypria 1, p. 3-8. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1990, Les anciens Chypriotes entre Orient et Occident, Paris. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1990a, The End of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus, Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS V 1993, « Εκατό χρόνια κυπριακής αρχαιολογίας », Στασίνος 10, p. 333-38. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1994-1995, « Archaeology in Cyprus: the last sixty years », Modern Greek Studies Yearbook (University of Minnesota) 10/ 11, p. 849-95. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1999, « The art of Cyprus at the end of the Late Bronze Age », in J. A. Koumoulides (ed.), Cyprus: the legacy. Historical landmarks that influenced the Art of Cyprus, Late Bronze Age to AD 1600, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 47-69. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2000, « Cypriote archaeology: 125 years after Cesnola », Cahier du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 30, p. 239-41. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2000a, « Cultural innovations in Cyprus relating to the Sea Peoples », in D. E. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and their world: a reassessment, Philadelphia, p. 255-79. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2002, Κύπρος, το σταυροδρόμι της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου, 1600-500 π.Χ., Athens. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2002a, « Hellenism beyond Greece: Cyprus », in Greek archaeology without frontiers, Athens, p. 31-43. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2002b, « Some thoughts on the Past, Present and Future of Cypriot studies », Ancient West and East 1:1, p. 34-38. KARAGEORGHIS V. 2007, A lifetime in the archaeology of Cyprus KARAGEORGHIS V. and MORRIS C. (eds.) 2001, Defensive settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 BC. Proceeding of an international workshop held at Trinity College Dublin, 7th-9th May, 1999, Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS V. and DEMAS M. 1984, Pyla-Kokkinokremos; a late 13th century BC fortified settlement in Cyprus, Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS V. and DEMAS M. 1985, Excavations at Kition, Volume V, The pre-Phoenician levels (part I), Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS V. and DEMAS M. 1988, Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979-1986, Nicosia.

28

KARAGEORGHIS V., MERTENS R. and ROSE M. E. 2000, Ancient art from Cyprus. The Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. MAIER F. G. 1986, « Kinyras and Agapenor », in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Symposium « Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident » , Nicosia 8–14 September 1985, Nicosia, p. 311-20. KILLEBREW, A. 2005, Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines and Early Israel, 1300-1100 BCE, Atlanta. KNAPP B.A. 2001, « Archaeology and ethnicity: a dangerous liaison », Archaeologia Cypria 4, p. 29-46. KNAPP B. A. 2008, Prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus. Identity, insularity and connectivity, Oxford. KNAPP B. A. and ANTONIADOU S. 1998, « Archaeology, politics and the cultural heritage of Cyprus » , in L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under fire, London and New York, p. 13-43. KLING B. 1989, Mycenaean IIIC:1b and related pottery in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 87, Göteborg. KOELSCH W. A. 1995, « John Linton Myres 1860-1954 », Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies 16, p. 53-62. KOHL P.L., KOZELSKY M. and BEN-YEHUDA N. (eds.) 2008, Selective rememberances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration and consecration of national pasts, Chicago. KOHL P. L. and FAWCETT C. (eds.) 1995, Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge. KRETSCHMER P. 1914, « Review of Meister, R., Kyprische Syllabar-Inschriften in nichtgriechischer Sprache (1911) », Glotta 5, p. 260-61. KRETSCHMER P. 1917, « Review of Sittig, E., Amathountos diglossos epigraphi (1914) », Glotta 8, p. 252. LANG R.H. 1878, Cyprus: its history, its present resources, and future prospects, London. LERIOU A. 2002, « Constructing an archaeological narrative: the Hellenisation of Cyprus », Stanford Journal of Archaeology 1, (available at http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/leriou/paper.pdf). LERIOU A. 2007, « Locating identities in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age: the case of ‘hellenised’ Cyprus », in S. Antoniadou and A. Pace (eds.), Mediterranean crossroads, Athens, p. 563-91. LOUIS SALVATOR OF AUSTRIA 19832, Levkosia, the capital of Cyprus (originally published in 1881), London. LYONS C. L. and PAPADOPOULOS J. K. 2002, « Archaeology and colonialism », in C. L. Lyons and J. K. Papadopoulos (eds.), The archaeology of colonialism, Los Angeles, p. 1-23. MAIER F.G. 1985, « Factoids in ancient history », Journal of Hellenic Studies 105, p. 32-39.

MANTZOURANII E. 2001, Η αρχαιολογία της προϊστορικής Κύπρου, Athens. MARANGOU A. 1986, « Η Κυπριακή αρχαιολογία και οι ξένες αποστολές 1878-1955 », in G. K. Ioannides (ed.), Κυπριακά 1878-1955, Nicosia, p. 309-39. MARCHAND S. 1996, Down from Olympus: archaeology and philhellenism in Germany 1750-1970, Princeton. MARKOE G. 2001, Phoenicians (Peoples of the Past), Berkeley and Los Angeles. MASSON O. 19832, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et commenté, Paris. MCGILLIVRAY J. A. 2000, Minotaur. Sir Arthur Evans and the archaeology of the Minoan myth, London.

29

MCGUIRE R. 1982, « The study of ethnicity in historical archaeology », Journal of Anthropological Arcaeology 1, p. 159-78. MEGAW A. H. S. 1988, « The British School at Athens and Cyprus », Report of the Department of Antiquities, p. 281-86. MEISTER R. 1889, Die griechischen Dialekte auf Grundlage von Ahrens’ Werk: « De Graecae linguae dialectis », Band II, Eleisch, Arkadisch, Kyprisch. Göttingen. MERRILLEES R. S. 1993, « The languages of Cyprus », Cahier du Centre d’Etudes Chypriotes 20, p. 3-17. MERRILLEES R. S. 2000, « Max Ohnefalsch-Richter and the British », in P. Åstrom and D. Sürenhagen (eds.), Periplus. Festschrift für Hans-Günter Buchholz zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag am 24. Dezember 1999, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127, Jonsered, p. 107-17. MERRILLEES R. S. 2001, « T.B.Sandwith and the beginnings of Cypriote archaeology », in V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium, December 1998. Oxford, p. 222-35. MESKELL L. (ed.) 1998, Archaeology under fire. Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, London and New York. MESKELL L. 2002, « The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology », Annual Review of Anthropology 31, 423-41. MITFORD T. B. 1952, « The status of Cypriot epigraphy; Cyrpiot writing, Minoan to Byzantine », Archaeology 5, p. 151-56. MORRIS I. 1994, « Archaeologies of Greece », in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge, p. 8-47. MORRIS I. 1997, « Homer and the Iron Age », in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A new companion to Homer, Leiden, New York and Köln, p. 535-59. MOUNTJOY P. A. 1993, Mycenaean pottery; an introduction, Oxford. MYLONAS G. E. 1948, « Prehistoric Greek scripts », Archaeology 1, p. 210-20. MYRES J. L. 1897, « Excavations in Cyprus in 1894 », Journal of Hellenic Studies 17, p. 134-73. MYRES J. L. 1914, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of antiquities from Cyprus, New York. MYRES J. L. 1930, Who were the Greeks?, Berkeley. MYRES J. L. 1940-45, « Excavations in Cyprus, 1913 », Annual of the British School of Archaeology in Athens 41, p. 53-96. MYRES J. L. 1941, « Sir Arthur Evans 1851-1941 », Proceedings of the British Academy 27, p. 323-57. MYRES J. L. and OHNEFALSH-RICHTER M. 1899, A catalogue of the Cyprus Museum with a chronicle of excavations undertaken since the British occupation and introductory notes on Cypriote Archaeology, Oxford. NEGBI O. 1986, « The climax of urban development in Bronze Age Cyprus », Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, p. 97-121. NEGBI O. 1998, « Reflections on the ethnicity of Cyprus in the eleventh century BC », in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in transition, thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, Jerusalem, p. 87-93.

30

NIKOLAOU K 1973, « Porfyrios Dikaios » , Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, p. 226-29. OHNEFALSH-RICHTER M. 1893, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, Berlin. OREN D. E. (ed.) 2000, The Sea Peoples and their world: a reassessment, Philadelphia, p. 255-79. OSBORNE R. 1996, Greece in the making, 1200-479 BC, London and New York. PAPADOPOULOS J. K. 1997, « Phantom Euboeans », Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10:2, p. 191-219. PAVLIDES A. 1991, Ιστορία της νήσου Κύπρου, Volume 1: Από την αρχή μέχρι το 58 π.Χ., Nicosia. PAVLIDES A. 1993, Ιστορία της νήσου Κύπρου, Volume 4 : Από το 1571 μέχρι το 1964, Nicosia. PERISTIANES I. K. 1910, Γενική ιστορία της νήσου Κύπρου από των αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μέχρι της αγγλικής κατοχής, Nicosia. PERSSON A. W. 1930, Schrift und Sprache in alt-Kreta, Uppsala. PETIT T. 1999, « Eteocypriot myth and Amathusian reality », Journal of Meditarranean Archaeology 12:1, p. 108-20. PILIDES D. 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 105, Jonsered. POOLE R. S. 1878, « Cyprus: its present and future », The Contemporary Review, p. 150. RENFREW C. and BAHN P. 1991, Archaeology. Theories, methods and practice, London. REYES A. T. 1994, Archaic Cyprus, a study of the textual and archaeological evidence, Oxford. RUNNELS C. N. 2002, The archaeology of Heirich Schliemann: an annotated bibliographic handlist, Boston. RUPP D. W. 1987, « Vive le roi: the emergence of the state in Iron Age Cyprus », in D. W. Rupp (ed.), Western Cyprus: Connections. An archaeological symposium held at Brock University, St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada, March 21-22, 1986, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 77, Göteborg, p.147-68. RUPP D. W. 1989, « Puttin’ on the Ritz: manifestations of high status in Iron Age Cyprus », in E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus, Edinburgh, p. 336-62. SILBERMANN N. A. 1989, Between past and present: archaeology, ideology and nationalism in the modern Middle East, New York. SANDWITH TH. B. 1877, « On the different styles of pottery found in ancient tombs in the island of Cyprus », Archaeologia 45, p. 127-42. SCHAEFFER C. F. A. 1936, Missions en Chypre 1932-1935, Paris. SCHAEFFER C. F. A. 1973, « Remarks and conclusions », in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium « The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean » , Nicosia 27th March-2nd April 1972, Nicosia, p. 285-89. SILBERMAN N. A. 1990, « The politics of the past: archaeology and nationalism in the Eastern Mediterranean », Mediterranean Quarterly 1, p. 99-110. SILBERMAN N. A. 1995, « Promised lands and chosen peoples: the politics and poetics of archaeological narrative », in P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, p. 249-62. SHANKS M. 1996, Classical Archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline. London and New York.

31

SHERRATT E. S. 1991, « Cypriot pottery of Aegean type in LCII-III: problems of classification, chronology and interpretation », in J. Barlow, D. L. Bolger and B. Kling (eds.), Cypriot Ceramics: reading the prehistoric record, Philadelphia, p. 185-98. SHERRATT E. S. 1992, « Immigration and archaeology: some indirect reflections », in P. Åström (ed.), Acta Cypria II. Acts of an International Congress on Cypriot Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22-24 August 1991, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 120, Jonsered, p. 316-47. SHERRATT E. S. 1994, « Patterns of contact between the Aegean and Cyprus in the 13th and 12th centuries BC », Archaeologia Cypria III, p. 35-46. SHERRATT S. E. 1998, « Sea people and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the Eastern Mediterrnean », in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in transition, thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, Jerusalem, p.292-313. SHERRATT S. E. 1999, « E pur si muove: pots, markets and values in the second millennium Mediterranean », in J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.), The complex past of pottery: production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC), Proceedings of ARCHON international conference held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996, Amsterdam, p. 163-211 SITTIG E. 1914, « Amathountos diglossos epigraphi », Efimeris Archaiologiki, p. 1-2. SJÖQVIST E. 1940, Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Stockholm. SKEATES R. 2000, Debating the archaeological heritage, London. SNODGRASS A.M. 20002, The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh. STEEL L. 1993, « The establishment of the city kingdoms in Iron Age Cyprus: an archaeological commentary », Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, p. 147-56. STEEL, L. 2001, « The British Museum and the invention of the Cypriot Late Bronze Age », in V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium, December 1998, Oxford, p. 160-67. STEEL L. 2004, Cyprus Before History. From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age, London. STEWART B. 1908, My experiences of Cyprus, London and New York. STORRS R. 1945, Orientations, London. STUBBINGS F. H. 1951, Mycenaean pottery from the Levant, Cambridge. TRIGGER B. 1980, Gordon Childe: revolutions in archaeology, London. TRIGGER B. 1984, « Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist », Man 19, p. 355-70. TRIGGER B. G. 1989, A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge. TRIGGER B. G. 1995, « Romanticism, nationalism and archaeology », in P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, p. 263-79. THUMB A. 1909, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, Heidelberg. TURNER F. M. 1981, The Greek heritage in Victorian Britain, New Haven and London. VASILIKOU D. 1995, Ο Μυκηναϊκός πολιτισμός, Athens. VOYATZIS M. E. 1985, « Arcadia and Cyprus: aspects of their interrelationship between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC », Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, p. 155-63.

32

33

WARD W. A. and JOUKOWSKY, M. S. (eds.) 1992, The crisis years: the 12th century, Dubuque. WEBB J. M. 1999, Ritual architecture, iconography and practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 75, Jonsered. WEBB J. M. 2001, « The sanctuary of the Ingot God at Enkomi. A new reading of its construction, use and abandonment », in P. Fischer (ed.), Contributions to the archaeology and history of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in honour of Paul Aström, Wien, p. 69-82. WESTHOLM A. 1942, « Built tombs in Cyprus », Opuscula Archaeologica 2, p. 29-58. WESTHOLM A. 1994, « The fantastic years on Cyprus; Swedish archaeological excavations in Cyprus », in P. Åström (ed.), The fantastic years on Cyprus. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition and its members, SIMA pocket-book 79, Jonsered, p. 7-23 WHITLEY J. 2000, « Why study Greek Archaeology? A brief history of some British rationalizations », in R. Etienne (ed.), Les politiques de l’Archéologie du milieu du XIXe siècle à l’orée du XXIe. Colloque organisé par l’Ecole française d’Athènes à l’occasion de la célébration du 150e anniversaire de sa fondation, Athens, p. 33-42. WHITLEY J. 2001, The archaeology of ancient Greece, Cambridge. WINDBALCH M.-L. 1997, An archaeological adventure in Cyprus: the Swedish Cyprus Expedition 1927-1931; a story told with contemporary photographs and comments, Stockholm. ZANNETOS F. 1910, Ιστορία της νήσου Κύπρου από της αγγλικής κατοχής μέχρι σήμερον, Volume I : Larnaca.