Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:17:09.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cypriote surrender to Persia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Henry Jay Watkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At present there appears to be general agreement that Cyprus entered the Persian Empire some time between c. 545 and 539. It will be argued here that this event did not occur until 526 or 525. The point involves other, much broader issues. Any power wishing to control Cyprus must possess a substantial navy. When, then, did Persia acquire sufficient naval strength to control the eastern Mediterranean? This last problem in turn raises the question of when the Persians annexed the countries of the Levant and Asia Minor from which they drew the whole of their fleet. Finally, because elaborate theories concerning the development of sixth century Cypriote sculpture have been built upon the conclusion that Cyprus submitted to Persia c. 545, a revision of that date will have important repercussions upon the history of Cypriote art.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 107 , November 1987 , pp. 154 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hdt. ii 182.2 records the conquest of Cyprus by Amasis. I accept the common assumption that Egyptian control continued until the Persian take-over.

2 HC 111. This error regarding the date of Babylon's fall still appears from time to time: cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica iv (Jerusalem 1971), 34,Google Scholar s.v. ‘Babylon’; Forsdyke, John, Greece before Homer (London 1956, Norton ed., 1964), 70Google Scholar. The correct date is, of course, Tashritu (Sept.–Oct.) 539; cf. Thompson, A. Campbell, CAH iii 224,Google Scholar with n. 1. The confusion may arise from the fact that by the Babylonian system of reckoning the period from Cyrus' assumption of the throne to the following New Year's Day was counted as his ‘accession year’, the year after as his ‘year 1’. Cyrus' ‘year 1’ thus began Nisanu 538.

3 HC 111, n. 2.

4 Cf. Engel, W., Kypros i (Berlin 1841) 260;Google ScholarOberhummer, E., PW xii I102Google Scholar.

5 HC in, n. 2.

6 SCE 471, with n. 3.

7 Bury, J. B.—Meiggs, R., History of Greece 4 (London 1975) 148;Google ScholarHammond, N. G. L., History of Greece 2 (Oxford 1967) 176Google Scholar. Hammond tacitly corrects Hill's dating of the fall of Babylon to 539. Both authors seem not to notice that Hill used the Babylonian campaign only as a terminus ante and that he thought the Cypriotes had surrendered by the time of the Karian war.

8 Karageorghis, V., CAH 2 iii 3, 69Google Scholar. Cf. also Yon, M., Ktema vi (1981), 51Google Scholar who as a compromise between Hill and Gjerstad says ‘vers 540 a.C.’ Fine, J. V., The Ancient Greeks (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), 256Google Scholar merely paraphrases Hdt. iii 19.3 and assigns no date to the Cypriote surrender. Only two recent writers have favored a date in the time of Kambyses. Maier, F. G., Cypern, Insel am Kreuzweg der Geschichte (Stuttgart 1964) 32Google Scholar gives the year as 525 but offers no argumentation. M. L. Chaumont, ‘Chypre dans l'empire achéménide’ in ΠΡακτικά τοῦ πρώτου διεθνοῦς κυπριολογικοῦ συνεδρίου ί (Nicosia 1972) 180 says ‘probablement 526’, relying mainly on the reasoning of O. Leuze (on whom cf. below n. 13).

9 Cf. SCE 208.

10 SCE 362.

11 SCE 370.

12 HC in, n. 2; SCE 471, n. 3.

13 Cic. Q.Fr. i 1.23; cf. Dion. Hal. Pomp. 4.1. After completing this article I discovered that very similar arguments concerning the Cyr.'s reliability had been made by Leuze, O., Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und im Zweistromlande von 520–320 (Halle 1935) 6–9Google Scholar. Leuze, however, takes for granted that Hdt. iii 19.3 proves that the Cypriotes surrendered to Kambyses. Since Leuze's remarks seem to have gone unnoticed (except by Chaumont [n. 8]) it seems useful to restate the arguments here. My own observations are largely dependent on Breitenbach (cf. next n.).

14 PW ix a 2 1707–42.

15 Ibid. 1708.

16 Ibid. 1709.

17 Ibid. 1709–17.

18 Ibid. 1709.

19 Ibid. 1710–12.

20 Ibid. 1716.

21 Cf. in particular the retrojection of persons from Xenophon's time to that of Cyrus, and the appearance of names otherwise unattested: ibid. 1713–14. Breitenbach believes this last group represents unknown contemporaries of Xenophon, but it is just as likely that they are wholly inventions.

22 He is even right where Herodotus is wrong. He correctly states that Cyrus' father was king of Persia (cf. ibid. 1709), though he may have said so out of a desire to legitimize and aggrandize Cyrus rather than out of knowledge. The report, not found in Herodotus, that Gobryas, a vassal of the ‘Assyrian’ (i.e., Babylonian) king, defected to Cyrus may also be correct, though there are problems: cf. ibid. 1712.

23 SCE 471, n. 3; Hdt. i 77; 81; 82. Gjerstad claims that the report of Cypriote aid to Croesus is also contradicted by Cyr. ii 1.5, but that passage merely states that the Karians, Kilikians, and Paphlagonians refused Lydia's appeal for aid.

24 Cf. Breitcnbach, PW ix a 2 1711: plans formed and never fulfilled by Croesus are actually carried out in the Cyr. ‘zur Steigerung des Erfolges von Kyros’.

25 The whole of Cyr. viii 8 is condemned as spurious by some, but cf. Breitenbach, , PW ix A 21741–42Google Scholar.

26 Ibid. 1716.

27 Adousios bears a purely Greek name (cf. Bechtel, F., Die historische Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit [Halle 1917] 510)Google Scholar, as does Pantheia, the Susian heroine of the Cyr.'s love story (outline and reff. Breitenbach PW ix a 2 1717–18). The giving of Greek names to oriental persons no doubt served as a signal to Xenophon's readers that the characters in question were purely fictional.

28 Cf. Lehmann-Haupt, C. R., PW ii A 85Google Scholar. Lehmann-Haupt, coll. 85–90, is overly credulous in evaluating the Cyr.'s testimony on satrapies before Darius. Cf. Breitenbach's remarks (next n.).

29 Breitenbach, , PW ix a 2 1714–15Google Scholar.

30 Ibid. 1714.

31 For the continued existence and activity of the Cypriote kings under Persian rule cf., inter al., Hdt. v 104; 108–15. On the ‘Syennesis’ kings who ruled Kilikia for the Persians cf. How and Wells i 94; Kahrstedt, U.PW iv A 1023–24Google Scholar. Vassal kings of Paphlagonia: Cook, J. M., The Persian Empire (London 1983) 182Google Scholar. That no satrap was put in charge of Cyprus—though it was considered part of the fifth satrapy—is indicated not only by the continuance of native Cypriote rulers throughout the Achaemenid period, but also by the fact that on the three occasions when Cyprus revolted from the Persians, the task of suppressing the rebellion did not automatically fall to any particular governor but was assigned by the Persian court to persons specially commissioned for the task. When Cyprus joined the Ionian revolt of 499, Darius sent an obscure person named Artybios to reduce the island (Hdt. v 108.1; he is described merely as ἄνδρα Πέρσην). The job of suppressing Euagoras I's revolt was entrusted to Heka-tomnos, dynast of Karia, and Autophradates, satrap of Lydia (FGrH 115 F 103; cf. Diod. xiv 98.3); later the command was transferred to Tiribazos (satrap of Asia), Glos (Tiribazos' son-in-law), and Orontes (Artaxerxes' II's son-in-law; Cf. Diod. xv 2.2; 3.2). Idrieus, dynast of Karia was assigned to halt the Cypriote rebellion of 351–44; he handed the job over to Phokion and Euagoras II (Diod. xvi 42.6–7; 46.1–3).

32 Thus A. D. Godley (Loeb ed.): ‘The Cyprians too had come of their own accord to aid the Persians against Egypt’. Similarly, G. Rawlinson (Modern Library), A. de Selincourt (Penguin).

33 Cf. J. E. Powell Lexicon to Herodotus, s.v. ‘δίδωμι’ 7a.

34 Cf. Hdt. vii 89.2 where the Egyptians are said to have contributed 200 ships to Xerxes' expedition in 480.

35 Hdt. i 174.3.

36 Hdt. i 169.2 reports that the Ionian islanders surrendered after the fall of mainland Ionia. This must, however, be an error; cf. How and Wells ad loc. where, however, Chios is said to have submitted. For this there is no evidence and it is unlikely that the Chians would have surrendered while Samos remained independent. Furthermore the attempt of the Knidians to make their city an island seems to come after this time.

37 Hdt. iii 34.4: Kambyses is said to have surpassed his father because he rules as much as Cyrus plus Egypt and the sea. The scene is probably a fiction designed to illustrate Kambyses' monstrous vanity; but the detail is circumstantial and would not have been used unless true.

38 Hdt. iii 7.2; cf. iii 88.

39 Cf. the speedy submission of the Phoenician cities—all save Tyre, of course—once Alexander had passed Issos and threatened them from the north. The decision of the Cypriotes to go over to Alexander while he was besieging Tyre was motivated not by Hellenic sympathies but by the fear that they could not withstand him once he had captured Phoenicia: Arr. Anab. ii 20.3.

40 Hdt. iii 44.1. So also G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte ii2 511. The report in Hdt. iii 43.2 that it was Amasis who broke with Polykrates is, of course, a fabrication meant to give point to the fable of the fish and the ring.

41 Hdt. iii 13.1: a Mytilenean ship used to bear a message to the Egyptians besieged in Memphis.

42 Hdt. iii 1.1; cf. 4.1

43 Hdt. i 153.4.

44 Hdt. iii 4.1–2.

45 Hdt. iii 10.1–3. Psammenitos' reign began in Dec. 526 and lasted only six months. For the dates cf. Kienitz, F. K., Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jhdt. vor der Zeitwende (Berlin 1953) 156–57Google Scholar.

46 The Persians could mount a campaign with considerable speed. Less than a year elapsed between the last operations of the Ionian revolt and Mardonios' expedition against Greece; cf. Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (London 1962) 215–17, 221Google Scholar.

47 Since Kambyses chose to march through the Arabian Desert, he must not yet have been in possession of northern Syria, through which lay the natural route between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Cf. the route of Alexander from Egypt to Gaugamela, and the movements of Necho and Nebuchadrezzar in the Charchemish campaign of 605. On this campaign and the difficulties of crossing the desert between Mesopotamia and Syria–Palestine cf. Thompson, R. Campbell, CAH iii 210–11Google Scholar. The area between Phoenicia and northern Mesopotamia was no doubt ‘filled in’ by the Persians shortly after the Egyptian campaign.

48 Hdt. i 164–68; cf. Burn (n. 46) 46–7, 210.

49 Hdt. vi 8.1; 8.2: the Phokaians contributed only three ships, Teos only seventeen.

50 Hdt. i 141.4.

51 Cf. How and Wells ii 11.

52 Hdt. i 17.3.

53 Period of anarchy in Miletos: Hdt. v 28, whence it is clear that the period of recovery coincided with Histiaios' reign. For the chronology in general cf. How and Wells ad loc; D. G. Hogarth CAH iii 517. Ruined farms: Hdt. v 29.

54 Hdt. vii 95.2.

55 Hdt. iii 90.2.

56 Hdt. iv 144.

57 But cf. How and Wells ii 364–66; Burn (n. 46) 330–32.

58 Hdt. vii 92 (Lykians); 93 (Karians); 90–91 (Kilikians).

59 Hdt. i 176.

60 Hdt. i 174.1: the Karians subdued without performing any outstanding deeds; the Pedasians alone put up stubborn resistance (175).

61 Karian participation in the Ionian revolt was confined to land operations (Hdt. v 117–21), even though some parts of the country were still independent after Lade and the fall of Miletos (vi 25.2). Likewise the Karians' exploits in the Peloponnesian War consisted of only a single land-based action (Thuc. iii 19.2: the Karians massacre an Athenian force).

On the other hand the Karians are said to have been formidable sea fighters in the ‘legendary era’. Eusebius records a thalassocracy for them (Schoene i 225). They are said to have inhabited the Cyclades before the time of Minos (Thuc. i 4); to have served in his navy (Hdt. i 171.2); and to have practiced extensive piracy (Thuc. i 8.1). Karian presence in Xerxes’ fleet is substantiated by the fact that Herodotus names some of their contingent leaders: Aridolis of Alabanda (vii 195); Histiaios of Termera, Pigres, Damasithymos (98), and the redoubtable Artemisia (99).

62 Hdt. i 28.

63 He followed the route of the Royal Road which ran through Armenia into Kappadokia where he met Croesus at Pteria; cf. How and Wells i 95.

64 Hdt. iii 90. 3.

65 The Phoenician contingent the most important part of the Persian fleet: Hdt. iii 19.2; vii 96.1. Phoenician ships alone make up the Persian fleet: v 108–12; vi 28.1; 33.2; 41.1; 104.1.

66 The repatriation of the judaean exiles by Cyrus in 538 (Ezra 1.1–4) might appear to indicate that the Persians were already in possession of Syria–Palestine. But Cyrus' allowing the Jews to leave Babylon does not in itself signify that he controlled the area to which they returned. That the returnees were able to occupy the Jerusalem area is not surprising: the place had remained a ruin since the Babylonian siege (still so in the time of Nehemiah: Neh. 1.2) and Cyrus' military aid would not have been needed for settlement to take place. Any such aid would surely have been mentioned (cf. the financial help given to the Jews in Ezra 1.7–11). Further, the depredations which the Jews suffered at the hands of the surrounding peoples from the time of Cyrus until the time of Darius (Ezra 4.1–5) suggest that there was no powerful authority in the area capable of maintaining order. The delay in building the Second Temple, again until the time of Darius (Ezra 6.15), indicates that it was not until his reign that Persian rule became effective in the area.

67 SCE pi. vi, upper right.

68 Vermeule, C., ‘Cypriote sculpture, the late Archaic and early Classical period’, AJA lxxviii (1974) 287–90;CrossRefGoogle Scholarcf. esp. 289. Vermeule's observation that the statues discovered at Golgoi seem to have been arranged according to ‘ethnic’ group is very suggestive.

69 Egyptian influence in the ‘Proto-Cypriote’ period (c. 650): SCE 355; in ‘Neo-Cypriote’ (560–520): 108, 358; at the end of the ‘Cypro-Archaic’ period (c. 450): 103.

70 SCE 103–04.

71 Cf. SCE pl. vi (‘Limestone sculptures. Cypro-Egyptian style.’) where the figures at upper right and left look as if they should be classed with figures upper right and left pl. viii (‘Eastern Neo-Cypriote style’). PI. vi, lower half, on the other hand, has that nose which is typical only of Cypriote sculpture and the figure bears a strong resemblance—at least in terms of the facial features and notwithstanding differences of dress and hair style—to the figure in the upper half of p. ii (‘First Proto-Cypriote style’).

72 KB.

73 For Gjerstad's chronology cf. SCE 207–11 (no less than three styles running concurrently between 560 and 545). Schmidt's chronology: KB 95–98.

74 KB 124.

75 KB 2; 124.

76 KB 119.

77 KB 114–16.

78 KB 114–15.

79 Cf. Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas 3 (London 1980) 126Google Scholar. These alabasters are part of the vexed question of the ‘mixed style’ on which cf. KB 116–18 and Lewe, B., Studien zur archäischen kyprischen Plastik (Diss. Frankfurt 1975) 25–30Google Scholar. The problem of the origin and nature of the mixed style has yet to be solved. These pieces cannot, therefore, be used at present to illuminate cultural and commercial relations between Cyprus and Ionia.

80 Original publication: Hogarth, D. G., BSA v (1898–1899) 32Google Scholar.

81 SCE 318; 321.

82 Cf. Marshall, F. H., BMlnsc. iv. 2, no. 1081Google Scholar.

83 Maier, F. G., ‘Factoids in Ancient History: the case of fifth-century Cyprus’, JHS cv (1985) 32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.