61
Review Article
The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, by
Nicola Schreiber. Culture and History of the An-
cient Near East, Volume 13. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Pp. xxx + 409, 16 figures, 7 tables, 25 maps.
Cloth. $106.00.
The study of Cypriote ceramics is beset by the
unusually long duration in production and circula-
tion of the island’s principal pottery fabrics. For
instance, Base Ring and White Slip, the two hand-
made Late Cypriote fine wares, were manufactured
for nearly half a millennium. Irrespective of their
murkiness as precise chronological indicators, be-
cause they were exclusively Cypriote products and
shared in Cyprus’s trade around the Mediterranean,
they have deservedly been described as the Cypri-
otes’ Late Bronze Age cartes de visite. Schreiber (S)
would have liked to claim the same for Black-on-Red
(BoR), which was widely distributed east and, sub-
sequently, even west of the island, for a considerable
length of time during the Iron Age. To achieve this
purpose, S has to prove that this highly distinctive
fine ware “of well-levigated clay, slipped red or
orange, usually carefully burnished and painted with
thin black horizontal lines” (p. ix) was not a “Cypro-
Phoenician” hybrid assigned “to one or other of the
regions or both” (p. xx) but, instead, an original
product of the island’s ceramic industry.
One may think that the longue durée problem of
Cyprus’s second-millennium wares could not possi-
bly become more accentuated in the first millen-
nium, but this would be a mistake. In fact, it is in
the Iron Age that this inherent cultural characteris-
tic grows—to the dismay (and despair) of absolute
chronology-minded scholars—into a major archaeo-
logical problem, because of the dearth of settlement
excavations. Known almost exclusively from tomb
groups, the White Painted (WP) wares of the Cypri-
ote Iron Age were produced during the better part of
the first millennium, from the Cypro-Geometric to
the Cypro-Classical periods. As established by Gjer-
stad (G), their typological classification provides the
foundation for Cyprus’s system of periods in the Iron
Age. Consequently, in the island where BoR is found
in much greater quantities than in the Levant, its
production has to be set in context against the over-
powering continuum of WP.
In an authoritative Introduction (pp. ix–xxx)—a
must for student curricula—S analyses the origin
and subsequent history of “Cypro-Phoenician” as a
cultural term, which was constructed by the archae-
ologists of a third cultural area, Palestine. Albright
used it first in 1924 to refer to a general region of pot-
tery production, but in 1932 he described the shape
most frequently encountered in the ware as the “im-
ported Cypro-Phoenician perfume juglet” (p. xxii).
Despite the fact that in 1948 G classified the ware
under the descriptive term BoR, “Cypro-Phoenician”
(a term not in use in the archaeology of Cyprus) “re-
mains a concept entrenched in Palestinian Iron Age
archaeology” (p. xx). Following the chronology of
biblical archaeology, the absolute dates accorded to
Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First
Millennium b.c.: Two Distinct Cultures in
Search of Their Distinct Archaeologies
Maria Iacouvou
Department of History and Archaeology
University of Cyprus
P.O. Box 20537
1678 Nicosia
Cyprus
mariai@ucy.ac.cy
62
MARIA IACOVOU
BASOR 336
imported specimens of the ware in excavation con-
texts in Palestine were from the start astonishingly
high (in the 11th century). G, who had ascribed the
development of BoR in Cyprus to imported (but not
Phoenician) prototypes, assigned the beginning of
its local production to the last of his three Cypro-
Geometric periods. Given that his absolute dates
for CG III—admittedly, the result of a largely circu-
lar argument—were 850–700 b.c. (later shortened to
850–750 b.c.), the chronological discrepancy fueled
a controversy that is still very much with us and re-
mains inextricably linked with BoR’s place of origin
and its export horizons.
Thus, to meet her target of demonstrating the
origin and chronology of BoR, S has to fight two
battles. She needs, first, to disassociate the wide geo-
graphical distribution of the ware from assumptions
that arose from using the term “Cypro-Phoenician”;
and second, to define the ware against a confusing
clutter of terms that break it up into local variants
(Cypriote, Phoenician, Syro-Palestinian) and then
establish a single BoR type “meaningful as a re-
cognisable and marketable commodity” (p. 1). On
the first issue, S identifies an array of misinterpre-
tations, which escalate into the notion that BoR
is “a trademark ware of Phoenician commercial
enterprise, particularly connected with Phoenicians
in Cyprus” (p. xx). In fact, since the book’s title is
bound to render it uninviting to historians and theo-
retical archaeologists, it must be stressed that this is
not a dry, single-track study on pottery classifica-
tion. The book seriously questions the validity of en-
trenched “historical” facts—particularly the myth
of a Phoenician monopoly of commercial networks
in the Aegean (Conclusion: p. 312)—and rejects the
construct of a “Cypro-Phoenician” period (p. xx)
or a “homogeneous Cypro-Levantine cultural prov-
ince” (p. xxiv), which has for long denied both
Phoenicia and Cyprus their distinct Early Iron Age
histories. If in the end S makes scholars think twice
before they use the term “Cypro-Phoenician,” this
will be one of her book’s long-term contributions to
Mediterranean archaeology. Having said this, how-
ever, one cannot avoid commenting on the paradox:
S chose for the title the term she so successfully
deconstructs.
The second obstacle S has to overcome is de-
fining BoR vis-à-vis the “existence of a number of
so-called Black-on-Red wares” (p. 1). This must be
settled before she can concentrate on the initial ap-
pearance of the ware, which is the main theme of
chapter 1 (pp. 1–23). After a complicated analysis
of the prevailing confusion—the mere enumeration
of other related types makes the trouble that Eriksson
(1991) took to defend the Cypriote origin of Late
Bronze Age Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware seem
like “a piece of cake”—S decides that “the pottery
type to be investigated in this book is that described
by Gjerstad” (p. 3). Hereafter, the contents of the
book become quite daunting and much depends on
one’s stamina to follow the thread of the argument
from chapter to chapter. The purpose of the discus-
sion under “Earliest Appearances of BoR” (p. 5) is to
disprove the association of BoR with mainland lev-
els dated to the 11th century (“mainland” refers to
southeast Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine,
Jordan, and Egypt: p. xviii). From this point onward
S’s attentiveness to absolute chronology becomes
painfully evident and begins to gnaw on her method-
ology. Instead of confining her argument to relative
terms, with reference to strata, floors, deposits and
shared diagnostics, she focuses from the start on the
10th century b.c. (p. 8) as the ware’s birth date.
Nevertheless, the discussion on the possible ante-
cedents of BoR (further developed in chapter 4) is
decisive, as S recognizes that various traits associ-
ated with Phoenician pottery could have inspired
BoR’s production in Cyprus. At the same time, S
acknowledges that the shapes and decoration of the
latest Late Cypriote pottery (LC IIIB) and the ear-
liest of early Cypro-Geometric (CG IA) could not
have contributed to the creation of BoR. This vital
observation (p. 15), a natural point of departure for
S to show her understanding and command of the
painted pottery of Cyprus upon which a ware of
foreign inspiration was grafted, remains elliptical
throughout the book.
S prudently underlines the limitations presented
by the often overlooked fact of the lack of exca-
vated sites in modern Lebanon; she returns to this
in chapter 2 to remind us that “the only settlement
sites so far excavated from the period of Iron Age
in Phoenicia proper are Tyre and Sarepta, both of
which were limited soundings” (p. 26). This leads
her to lose confidence in “the uncertain chronology
for Phoenician ware, which is largely typological
and based on tomb groups” (p. 13)—an assessment
that also fits Cypro-Geometric like a glove. The fact,
however, that the two cultural areas suspected to have
been involved in producing BoR both lack strati-
graphic settlement excavations does not preclude
the need to approach their respective Early Iron Age
2004
PHOENICIA AND CYPRUS IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C.
63
tomb assemblages with the aim of isolating the ho-
rizon in which BoR appears. Moreover, the sheer
quantities of BoR in the confined island space of Cy-
prus are conducive to formulating a model of the
ware’s development. Instead, S attempts to establish
three precarious phases (in chapter 3, pp. 180, 212)
from BoR’s distribution on the mainland, where she
identifies “a broad but relatively minimal distribu-
tion, over a lengthy period of time” (p. 80).
Having discarded tomb groups in Cyprus and
Phoenicia, S turns to Israel, where far more settle-
ment sites have been excavated, and, in chapter 2
(pp. 25–81), begins to analyze the distribution of
BoR in the Levant and the nature of its trade. S fol-
lows her evidence systematically, making a clear dis-
tinction between cultural areas (Palestine, Phoenicia,
Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt) and successfully de-
picts the geography of the distribution of BoR and
its relative amounts per region. The idea of compar-
ing the distribution of BoR with that of WP and
Bichrome (p. 34) on the mainland is brilliant and
allows for sensitive conclusions: WP and Bichrome
began earlier than BoR but continued alongside it;
from the moment of its introduction, BoR exceeds
WP and Bichrome in popularity (p. 38). While this
phenomenon is clearly related to the popularity of
the BoR juglets (and/or their contents), she shows
well that the less popular open shapes are not absent
from the ware’s first phase on the mainland. This
correlates with the evidence from Cyprus, where
“BoR bowls begin contemporaneously with BoR
juglets” (p. 47). How do we then define this phase,
which has to be more or less contemporary in both
areas? S does not commit herself on the relative date
of the WP/Bichrome pottery found in mainland lev-
els before the appearance of BoR, despite the fact
that this has been clarified in Gilboa’s recent reas-
sessment: with the exception of a few pieces from
Tel Dor, which are safely dated to CG IA, the rest
of the WP from the mainland cannot be associated
with material in Cyprus that is earlier than CG IB/
II; “neither is Black-on-Red attested in any of the
assemblages that could safely be attributed to this
horizon” (Gilboa 1999: 124). This has direct reper-
cussions on the initial production horizon of BoR. It
is quite obviously a post-CG I phenomenon. But is it
CG II, or post-CG II? This is still the crux of the
problem.
Next, S identifies the most prominent pottery in
the early Phoenician repertoire (Phoenician Bichrome
and Phoenician Red Slip shapes) and traces its dis-
tribution on the mainland in order to see whether “it
appears in context with BoR with any consistency”
(p. 48). Had BoR pottery been produced or distrib-
uted through Phoenician trade, it would have accom-
panied these early Phoenician shapes; but it does
not. In fact, outside Phoenicia proper the distribu-
tion of Phoenician pottery is minimal. In this in-
genious way, S undermines the traditional view that
“proposed Phoenicia as a candidate for the earliest
manufacture and export of BoR pottery” (p. 48) and
concludes that it is unlikely that it was distributed by
the Phoenicians (p. 51).
A study on packaging and size standardization
of BoR juglets for the trade in oils (pp. 65–66) and
a survey of ancient perfumes and perfume produc-
tion recipes (pp. 69–70) are among the highlights of
this chapter in which S’s command of classical ar-
chaeology is made evident. S masterfully relates the
replacement of BoR juglets by Corinthian aryballoi
with the late currency of BoR in the Dodecanese
(p. 66). Do not miss the climax of this accomplished
study in chapter 5 (pp. 281–306), on the later his-
tory of BoR and its dispersal to the West. One must
point out, however, that the statement regarding Lin-
ear B tablets at Knossos which “record Cyprus as an
exporter” of this or that commodity (p. 69) propa-
gates a false impression: the name of the island of
Cyprus has not been identified as such in Linear B.
“The earliest Greek attestation of Cyprus is in Ho-
mer,” John Bennet declares in his analysis (in Knapp
1996: 52) of Linear B references to Kuprios (but not
Kupros). Also, S describes the Cypro-Syllabic in-
scription on the scapula from Tel Dor as “still un-
deciphered” (p. 76) when both the script and this
particular inscription have been deciphered. In fact,
Stern states in the opening paragraph of his article
(1994: 1) that the scapula “bears an inscription in a
Greek Cypro-Syllabic script,” which Olivier Masson
reads and discusses.
The reader now expects the author to proceed to
examine the more plausible view, which assigns “to
Phoenicia the inspiration behind BoR’s production
in Cyprus” (p. 48); but S commits, instead, a tactical
error. She introduces in chapter 3 (pp. 83–213) the
argument on chronology and steps right into the con-
troversy over historical dates (the notorious problem
of Shishak: p. 85) and their association with specific
destruction levels in a swathe of sites on the main-
land. This chapter, the longest by far as it contains
the masterpiece of S’s research—a systematic pre-
sentation of BoR pottery found in stratified levels
64
MARIA IACOVOU
BASOR 336
on mainland sites, with bibliography and much more
(pp. 92–212)—may deservedly win the author the
title of BoR’s acclaimed authority. It is also bound
to win her as many critics as supporters from the
Palestinian archaeology front. The standard practice
for archaeology monographs is to leave the discus-
sion on chronology, especially absolute chronology,
to the very end. Why does S make it the centerpiece
of her work? What the reader has begun to suspect
since chapter 1 (a hang-up on absolute chronology)
is clearly manifested in chapters 3 and 4. S works on
the assumption that BoR is “a ‘hallmark’ of the 10th
century” (p. 84) on the mainland; but, if she is to
prove that BoR originated in Cyprus, she cannot have
it appear on the mainland as early as 950 b.c. and on
the island after 850 b.c. So S tries to prove G wrong:
the production of BoR did not commence in Cyprus
in CG III but in CG II, as it may very well have, but
all this fuss is in the name of the absolute dates with
which G associated CG II (950–850 b.c.). Amazing
though it sounds for this otherwise decisively impor-
tant work, S takes the traditional absolute chronolo-
gies of the mainland and Cyprus at face value and
cast in stone. Her argument, therefore, is driven by a
crusading effort to reconcile “the two chronological
trends” (p. 221) and to close the gap between a high
(Palestinian) and a low (Cypriote) absolute chronol-
ogy, both of which, for all we know, may share in
any errors.
It is not for this reviewer to comment on the
former, but one can think of few things in Cypriote
archaeology that have a lower degree of credibility
than the absolute dates accorded to the three peri-
ods of Cypro-Geometric (100 years each). In fact,
the only absolute date worth trusting, which is close
enough to Cypro-Geometric, is the start of LC IIC
around 1300 b.c. (Manning et al. 2001). The length
in years (or 25-year-long generations) of LC IIC,
IIIA, and IIIB, which come before CG I, remains
nebulous. The stylistic dependency of the White
Painted Wheelmade III fabrics on LH IIIC pottery
renders the dates of the last phases of Late Cypriote
sensitive to the fluctuations of Late Helladic chronol-
ogy. Thus, 1050 b.c. for the beginning of CG IA is
no more than a conventional date—after which we
are in the dark.
Chapter 4 (pp. 221–80) sets out to investigate
the origin of BoR in terms of its inspiration and
main place of manufacture but returns instead to a
tedious analysis of G’s work and to Post-Gjerstad-
Reassessments (p. 226). When S begins to deal with
the origin of the ware, the keynote is borrowed from
Bikai. Having come to Cyprus with an intimate
knowledge of early Phoenician material culture on
the mainland—after excavation and publication of
the Tyre sounding, where BoR was found to be an
alien element, “clearly an import” (p. 231)—Bikai
was able to identify the true Phoenician imports and
group them into four horizons on the basis of their
Cypriote contexts (Bikai 1987). Later, she expressed
her amazement at “the suggestion that Black-on-Red
is Phoenician” (p. 231). Given S’s strong support for
BoR’s Cypriote origin, this quotation ought to have
been the book’s frontispiece. Despite the fact that
S adopts Bikai’s suggestion—endorsed by Karageor-
ghis (1983: 374)—that the inspiration for BoR may
lie in the Phoenician “Red Ware” imports identified
in CG I tombs (pp. 259, 275), she rejects Bikai’s
relative chronology scheme as “ultimately no more
satisfactory than that of Gjerstad” (p. 233). Granted
that in the same chapter S devotes a section to “De-
constructing” Gjerstad (p. 239), only to re-endorse
his typology (because “examination of the general
sequence of White Painted development suggests
that the typology established by Gjerstad for these
wares is satisfactory”: p. 256), the reader is bound to
run out of patience. Since only a handful of scholars
will have the stamina to get to the bottom of this frus-
trating argument, it may be worth trying to identify
the reasoning behind S’s stubborn adherence to G’s
sequence of WP and her rejection of post-G studies
that attempt to refine G’s typologies, especially with
regard to CG I. They are principally a series of arti-
cles (1965; 1966; 1972) and a monograph (1973) by
the erudite Pieridou, whose work remains the back-
bone of the study of PWP and WP I; Catling’s (1976)
groundbreaking discussion of the “telescoping” of
WP/Bichrome pottery in a review of Salamis Tomb I
(Yon 1971); and Adelman’s (1976) contribution on
refinements in classification and ware compression.
Only this last is found in S’s bibliography—where,
by the way, no distinction is made between the pub-
lications of the same author which happen to have
the same date (e.g., Bikai 1987 in the text refers to
one of three entries with the same date in the Bibli-
ography: p. 366).
S’s ulterior motive is to raise the absolute date for
the introduction of BoR to the mid-tenth century.
CG II is traditionally dated 950–850 b.c. S, there-
fore, wants BoR to become a characteristic of CG II
tomb groups. Groups that do not contain BoR have
to be pushed out of CG II; and the only way to do
2004
PHOENICIA AND CYPRUS IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C.
65
this is by updating them to CG I. To achieve this, S
follows G’s seriation of tomb groups from Amathous
and Lapithos (p. 222), unperturbed by the fact that
they have been at the heart of the compression of
WP I and WP II shapes into a seemingly contempo-
rary CG I burial horizon. “Compression of wares is
the result of interpreting multiple burial deposits
. . . as one burial stratum dating to a specific point in
time. Large groups of pottery from tombs that Gjer-
stad classified as CG IA included CG IB and, at
times, CG II types” (Iacovou 1988: 7). Thus, S claims
that Aupert and Tytgat’s (1984) dating of the two
North Cemetery Amathous tombs to CG II is too late
(they do not contain BoR) and suggests that they
“belong to a pre-BoR phase” (p. 263). By the same
token, S could update to CG I a whole series of
semi-published Amathous tomb groups (pp. 263–
64), which Tytgat (1989: 201–3) has assigned to
CG II. S describes Tytgat 1989 as “[t]he most recent
publication of Iron Age tombs at Amathus” (p. 263),
despite the fact that Amathous Tomb 194, another
Iron Age group, was published in Tytgat 1995. S
is also unaware of Amathous T. 521 (Karageorghis
and Iacovou 1990) and Amathous Diplostrati T. 109
(Hermary and Iacovou 1999).
What does S wish to define as a pre-BoR phase,
since on this issue she disagrees with G? For him
CG II is a pre-BoR phase. Had S explored the devel-
opment of PWP, which is largely LH IIIC in origin
and, therefore, largely monochrome, into WP, she
would have isolated the ceramic phase in which the
globular neck-ridged jug is incorporated into the
WP I repertoire. This is a Phoenician shape which
in bichrome or polychrome represents, as S herself
notes (p. 14), the earliest phase of Phoenician pottery
production in Lebanon—a phase that does not con-
tain BoR. S could have also noted that the rare ap-
plication of a second, red color on PWP vases was
discontinued in CG I; it was replaced by a new style,
which was formalized in Bichrome ware (Pieridou
1966: 11; Iacovou 1991: 202). This new style (solid
red bands) was introduced via the early Phoenician
imports in CG I assemblages from which BoR is ab-
sent. It was therefore possible, indeed necessary, for S
to have specified the pre-BoR phase(s) in local terms.
Through them she would have gained an under-
standing of the temporal and stylistic developments
of the WP/Bichrome shapes that have to be accom-
modated in CG I–III. This in turn would have made
her more appreciative of recent attempts to remedy
the compression phenomenon, such as the study of
Steel (1996), whom S charges with uncritical re-
adjustment (p. 265) of the Kaloriziki groups. Finally,
it must be understood that a definitive move away
from G’s tomb seriation and decisive refinements in
the classification of WP I into early, advanced, and
late CG I shapes was quietly accomplished in 1983 in
Karageorghis’s magnum opus on the Early Iron Age,
the publication of the Palaepaphos-Skales cemetery,
which S uses as her test case (p. 255).
In the end, although all in Cyprus suspect that
BoR starts earlier than G suggested, S fails to anchor
its production horizon to a revised and secure se-
quence of WP. Nor can S suggest a substitute for
G’s phases of BoR: based on the ware’s circulation
on the mainland, S’s Phases 1–3 are useless in a Cyp-
riote context. With the development of the WP wares
being manipulated to fit the demands of a mainland-
based (and not altogether unbiased) absolute chro-
nology, the contextual history of BoR in Cyprus has
not been adequately addressed. There is not even a
list of the published tomb groups that contain BoR.
Consequently, a chapter is still missing from this
otherwise impressive research. One sincerely hopes
that S will persevere, as few synthetic works in the
archaeology of Iron Age Phoenicia and Cyprus ever
come this far. The book awaits its companion vol-
ume on BoR in Cyprus, in the name of which this
hopefully constructive criticism has been written in
goodwill. S has an ideal opportunity to accomplish
this with her study on “The Black-on-Red Pottery
from Kition” in the forthcoming Excavations at
Kition (Volume VI), edited by Karageorghis.
references
Adelman, C. M.
1976
Cypro-Geometric Pottery: Refinements in Clas-
sification. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeol-
ogy 47. Göteborg: Åström.
Aupert, P., and Tytgat, Ch.
1984
Deux tombes géométriques de la nécropole
nord d’Amathonte (NT 226 I-II). Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique 108: 619–53.
66
MARIA IACOVOU
BASOR 336
Bikai, P. M.
1987
The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia:
Leventis Foundation.
Catling, H. W.
1972
Review of Salamine de Chypre II: La tombe T.I
du XIe s. av. J.C., by M. Yon. American Jour-
nal of Archaeology 76: 222–28.
Eriksson, K.
1991
Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A Product
of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Pp. 81–96 in
Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric
Record, eds J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and
B. Kling. University Museum Monograph 74;
University Museum Symposium Series 2.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.
Gilboa, A.
1999
The View from the East—Tel Dor and the
Earliest Cypro-Geometric Exports to the Le-
vant. Pp. 119–39 in Cyprus: The Historicity
of the Geometric Horizon, eds. M. Iacovou
and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of
Cyprus.
Hermary, A., and Iacovou, M.
1999
Amathous-Diplostrati Tomb 109. Report of the
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 151–62.
Iacovou, M.
1988
The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century b.c.
Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
79. Göteborg: Åström.
1991
Proto-White Painted Pottery: A Classifica-
tion of the Ware. Pp. 199–202 in Cypriot
Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record,
eds. J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and B.
Kling. University Museum Monograph 74;
University Museum Symposium Series 2.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.
Karageorghis, V.
1983
Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in
Cyprus. 2 vols. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag
Konstanz.
Karageorghis, V., and Iacovou, M.
1990
Amathus Tomb 521: A Cypro-Geometric I
Group. Report of the Department of Antiqui-
ties, Cyprus: 75–100.
Knapp, A. B., ed.
1996
Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third
to the First Millennia BC. Sources for the His-
tory of Cyprus 2. Altamont, NY: Greece and
Cyprus Research Center.
Manning, S. W.; Weninger, B.; South, A. K.; Kling, B.;
Kuniholm, P. I.; Muhly, J. D.; Hadjisavvas, S.;
Sewell D. A.; and Cadogan G.
2001
Absolute Age Range of the Late Cypriot IIC
Period on Cyprus. Antiquity 75: 328–40.
Pieridou, A.
1965
An Early Cypro-Geometric Tomb at Lapethos.
Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cy-
prus: 75–111.
1966
A Tomb-Group from Lapithos “Ayia Anasta-
sia.” Report of the Department of Antiquities,
Cyprus: 1–12.
1972
TavfoÍ up’ ar.
503 ek Laphvqou, AgÇa Anasta-
sÇa.
Report of the Department of Antiquities,
Cyprus: 237–50.
1973
O PrwtogewmetrikovÍ RuqmovÍ en Kuvprw
. Athens:
Athens Archaeological Society.
Steel, L.
1996
Transition from Bronze to Iron at Kourion: A
Review of the Tombs from Episkopi-Bamboula
and Kaloriziki. Annual of the British School at
Athens 91: 287–300.
Stern, E.
1994
A Phoenician-Cypriote Votive Scapula from
Tel Dor: A Maritime Scene. Israel Exploration
Journal 44: 1–12.
Tytgat, Ch.
1989
Les nécropoles sud-ouest et sud-est d ’Ama-
thonte, Vol. 1: Les tombes 110–385. Études
Chypriote 11. Nicosia: Service des Antiquités
de Chypre.
1995
La Tombe NW 194 de la nécropole nord d’Ama-
thonte. Report of the Department of Antiqui-
ties, Cyprus: 137–85.
Yon, M.
1971
La tombe T. I du XIe s. av. J.C. Salamine de
Chypre 2. Paris: de Boccard.
