Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 146

Some monumental buildings and structures documented in the western part of the island and dating from between the end of the Cypro‐Archaic and the Cypro‐Classical I period (that is, the fifth century BCE) are usually considered as the most eloquent evidence concerning the actual Persian presence in Cyprus.

The remains of what seems to be a siege mound discovered in the 1950s outside the northwestern gate of the Palaepaphos city wall (on the Marchello hill), are usually taken as the archeological confirmation of Herodotus' statement that after the repression of the Cypriot uprising in 498 BCE, all the rebellious Cypriot cities were besieged, the most dramatic siege being that of Soloi (Hdt. 5.115); the archeological material (ceramics, but also the great number of Cypriot sculptures and votive inscriptions apparently sacked from a sanctuary close to the walls and assembled to raise the ramp) indicates a dating of the mound to around 500 BCE (Maier 2008, Leibundgut Wieland and Tatton‐Brown 2019; here Figure 19.2). Nevertheless, the Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project seems to provide elements which contradict the interpretation of these remains as a siege ramp: the outside face of the city wall, against which the ramp leans, should in fact be interpreted as the inner side, and the ramp could better be considered as a votive deposit (Iacovou 2008, 2013b, 2019). As the urban organization of Palaepaphos is largely unknown, there is still general agreement around the traditional interpretation of the ramp as the relic of the Persian siege of Palaepaphos in 498 BCE, but the Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project will possibly lead to a complete revision of this as well as other monuments (Iacovou 2019).

Figure 19.2 The Persian siege ramp at Palaepaphos‐Marchello. Chronological phases of the fortification.

Source: Reproduced from Maier 2008, p. 21 fig. 18, by permission of Swiss‐German Archaeological Mission of Kouklia‐Palaepaphos; modified by C. Marcks‐Jacobs.

As a consequence of the rebellion of almost all the Cypriot kingdoms in the 490s, the Persian presence on the island is supposed to have increased in the years immediately following the repression of the revolt. Two monumental buildings are usually considered to illustrate this presence, both with military and administrative aims: the Hadjiabdoullah palace of Palaepaphos, and the Vouni palace close to Soloi.

The remains of a large monumental building, discovered and only partially excavated in the 1950s at Hadjiabdoullah (Palaepaphos), have been first interpreted as the residence of the Persian authority (the commander of a garrison?) imposed on the conquered city after the siege of 498 BCE. This interpretation mainly results from the analysis of the architectural and technical characteristics of the palace: ashlar masonry of fine quality; a plan with many small rooms and narrow corridors symmetrically arranged, close to the Achaemenid architecture habits without pointing to specific models (Schäfer 1960). However, since no Persian garrisons are archeologically documented not only in Palaepaphos but in all Cyprus (Petit 1991: pp. 161–169; see however Diodorus [Diod.] 11.44.2 and 12.4.1, which has not to be neglected), it seems more reliable to see in the Hadjiabdoullah palace the residence of the local king of Paphos, maybe built even before the revolt (the archeological context dating generically from the Cypro‐Archaic II period). After the collapse of the structure before the end of the fifth century BCE, the royal residence was possibly transferred to the site of Evreti, where a new, less sumptuous palace (also incompletely excavated) was erected at the same time (Maier 1989a: p. 17). Both sites have been the object of new excavations in the very last years, which will certainly lead to new conclusions in the future (Iacovou 2019).

The Vouni palace (Figure 19.3) is better known. Excavated by the Swedish Expedition in 1928–1929, the well‐preserved remains of the ground plan of a large residential building are situated on the top of a hill on the northwestern coast, close to Soloi (4 km to the east) and Marion (40 km to the west). Together with the palace, a sanctuary, fortifications, and necropolis have been found (Gjerstad et al. 1937: pp. 76–290). The large palatial complex has been interpreted by Gjerstad as a control point built by the Persians after the repression of the Cypriot revolt, and occupied by the Persophile dynasty of Marion in order to keep a close watch on the rebellious kingdom of Soloi (Gjerstad et al. 1937: pp. 286–288). Two main phases would be identifiable: the first, running from c. 500 to c. 450/440 BCE, would be characterized by a typical Cypriot (“Eteocypriot”) plan, influenced by Anatolian and Syrian architecture; a second phase, from c. 450/440 to c. 380 BCE, would be marked by the “Hellenization” of the architecture of the palace, combining Cypriot and Greek elements. This interpretation, reflecting, in Gjerstad's ideas, the political history of the island (the shift to the second phase of the palace corresponding to Kimon's expedition of 449 BCE, and the rising of an Hellenophile dynasty in Marion), has been radically challenged by Maier (1985 : pp. 36–37), and recent studies try to analyze the architecture of the palace underlining its adherence to the eclectic Achaemenid architectural style (Zournatzi forthcoming), and its function as a fortress during the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries BCE under the control of the Persians (Hellström 2009) or of Marion (Hermary 2013).

Figure 19.3 Plan of the palace of Vouni, Swedish excavations.

Source: Reproduced from Gjerstad et al. 1937, fig. 119, by permission of National Museum of World Culture, Sweden.

The monetary, gold, and silver treasure found in a coarse jar under a staircase of the palace, and dating from the destruction of the palace, around 380 BCE, adds some interesting elements to the hypothesis of Vouni as a Persian fortress or administrative center. Following a recent proposition (Zournatzi 2017), not only the monetary hoard (composed of 248 minted coins, almost all Cypriot, and four darics) but also the gold and silver objects (bracelets, pendants, bowls, and four pieces of cut gold) would have to be considered as elements of the official fiscal contribution the Cypriot kings had to send annually to the Persian authorities. Particularly relevant to this hypothesis are the three Achaemenid‐style silver bowls, which would clearly echo the “tribute bowls” of the Neo‐Assyrian times; a stone model of such kind of bowls could be identified in a limestone artifact found in the royal palace of Amathus (Zournatzi 2017: pp. 7–9).

If the Vouni palace is still the only plausible evidence for a permanent official presence linked to the Persian control of the island, other Cypriot palaces of the Classical period can be conveniently cited as elements of comparison for the analysis of the architecture of Vouni, which is most plausibly the original combination of local elements rather than the imitation of foreign models. At Soloi, nothing certain is known: some monumental walls, whose technique and quality suggest a public or royal destination, have been discovered on the northern side of the acropolis, but the interruption of excavations in 1974 has hindered further investigations (Maier 1989a: p. 16). At Polis Chrysochous, the site of ancient Marion, excavations on the Peristeries plateau have brought to light the remains of a late Archaic building, possibly a royal palace; some aspects of its plan and construction techniques can be tentatively compared to those of the palace of Vouni (Papalexandrou 2006, 2008). The royal palace of Amathus, excavated since 1975 on the southern hillside of the acropolis has some technical and ornamental elements directly pointing to the Vouni palace (T. Petit in Aupert 1996: pp. 99–107; Hermary 2013). In the inland kingdom of Idalion, conquered around the mid‐fifth century BCE by Kition, the monumental remains of a public building have been identified as the seat of the Phoenician administration of the city in the Classical period (Hadjicosti 1997: pp. 57–60; Hadjicosti 2017; Amadasi Guzzo 2017). For other cities of Cyprus, which certainly had a royal palace – Kition, Kourion, and Salamis – no concrete evidence exists: in what concerns Salamis, it is only possible to cite a double‐bull‐protome capital of Achaemenid inspiration, discovered out of context in 1890, and possibly Hellenistic (Roux 1980; Petit 1991: pp. 173–174; Zournatzi 2008: p. 241 and note 10, with further references).

Nothing in the archeological material, except the architectural evidence shortly mentioned (whose interpretation is not always obvious), allows presuming a permanent Persian presence in Cyprus: should we believe Diod. 11. 44. 2 and 12. 4. 1, Persian garrisons in the island were short‐living, and probably left no real monumental traces. The few Persian objects found on the island – some darics, seals, and metal bowls (Petit 1991: pp. 171 with references; Zournatzi 2008) – can be interpreted as signs of the (limited) circulation of Persian luxury objects in the island, probably through diplomatic or official channels.