Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:01:29.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factoids in ancient history: the case of fifth-century Cyprus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Franz Georg Maier
Franz Georg Maier
Affiliation:
University of Zürich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Factoids—a word coined by Norman Mailer in his introduction to Marilyn—are mere speculations or guesses which have been repeated so often that they are eventually taken for hard facts. There is something decidedly unbiological about such factoids: the tendency to get stronger the longer they live is one of their most insidious qualities. Factoids occur in all branches of scholarship and many are of course still well disguised—their complete discovery would create havoc in the subjects concerned. Archaeology, converted from treasure hunting into an historical discipline, is for obvious reasons prone to create a number of factoids.

The process by which mere hypotheses attain the apparent rank of established fact, without ever having been proved, presents a linguistic and a psychological aspect. Linguistically, words or particles indicating the hypothetical character of a statement are dropped one by one in a process of constant repetition. The subjunctive is exchanged for the indicative, and in the end the factoid is formulated as a straightforward factual sentence. Psychologically, the repetition of unproved hypotheses is facilitated by an attitude which is as indispensable in research as it is ambivalent: a certain amount of implicit trust in the results of other scholars' research.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 105 , November 1985 , pp. 32 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1985

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 One reason has been pointed out by Snodgrass, A. M. in Crawford, M. H., ed., Sources for ancient history (Cambridge 1983) 142–3, 145–6Google Scholar: the desire of Classical archaeologists to make their results conform to an old-fashioned ‘event-orientated’ kind of history.

2 Gjerstad, E., SCE iv.2 (1948) 484–5Google Scholar.

3 Busolt, G., Griechische Geschichte iii (1897) 344Google Scholar; Oberhummer, E., RE xii. I (1924) 93, 102Google Scholar; Gjerstad, , SCE iv.2479–507Google Scholar. Gjerstad's views were developed in a series of earlier publications: Corolla Archaeologica, Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Sueciae ii (1932) 155–71; AJA xxxvii (1933) 589–98, 658–9Google Scholar; SCE iii (1937) 286–90Google Scholar; Opuscula Archaeologica iv (1946) 21–4Google Scholar. ‘The Phoenician Colonization and Expansion in Cyprus’, RDAC 1979, especially 240, 247–8, 250–3, brings his arguments together.

4 Gjerstad's interpretation has been largely accepted by, inter alios, Maier, F. G., Cyprus from the earliest time to the present day (London 1968) 41–4Google Scholar; Purcell, H. D., Cyprus (London 1969) 88–90Google Scholar; Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (London 1972) 481–3Google Scholar; Karageorghis, V., Cyprus, from the Stone Age to the Romans (London 1982) 156–8 161–6Google Scholar; Tatton-Brown, V., in Footprints in Cyprus London 1982) 92–4, 96–7Google Scholar. Hill, G. F., A history of Cyprus i (London 1949) 111–53Google Scholar also uses the Greek—Phoenician aspect, but in a more reserved way.

5 E.g. by Hill (n. 4) 129; Gjerstad, , SCE iv.2484Google Scholar; J. Pouilloux, RDAC 1975, 116–17.

6 As pointed out already by Seibert, J., ‘Zur Bevölkerungsstruktur Cyperns’, Ancient Society vii (1976) 5–7Google Scholar. Ad Nicoclem does not mention Phoenicians at all; Nicocles contains one neutral reference to Phoenician rule at Salamis (28) and the remark that Carthage and Sparta are the best-governed states in the world (24)—certainly not an anti-Phoenician statement.

7 Another minor factoid of the same type may be mentioned here: the ‘Persian commander's residence’ at Palaipaphos, referred to by Meiggs (n. 4) 481; Karageorghis (n. 4) 156; Tatton-Brown (n. 4) 96. The plan of this building shows evident parallels with Achaemenid architecture, but it cannot be dated closer than Cypro-Archaic ll, 600–475 BC. (Schäfer, J., Opusc. Arch. iii [1960[ 155–75Google Scholar); it could thus just as well have been the residence of a Paphian king who used the palaces of his overlord as a model for his own. Characteristically the question mark of Schäfer's title ‘Ein Perserbau in Alt-Paphos?’ was dropped in the later references.

8 Masson, ICS no. 217; CAH 2 iii 3, 72.

9 Gjerstad, , SCE iv. 2479Google Scholar f. and Masson ICS 238 favour 478–470; Hill (n. 4) 153–5 and Spyridakis, K., Euagoras I von Salamis (Berlin 1935) 42Google Scholar opt for c. 450–445. The argument, archaeology vs. numismatics, is inconclusive: the destruction of the western acropolis of Idalion (if it can be dated as closely as 470, see below n. 11) does not necessarily prove the end of Idalian independence. New coin hoards seem to strengthen the case for the later date: cf. for argument and references Meiggs (n. 4) 484–5.

10 BCH xcviii (1974) 882Google Scholar, cii (1978) 925, ciii (1979) 708–10; dated by the excavators to the ‘beginning of the Classical epoch’. That the signs BA.SA on Idalian coins of the late sixth / early fifth century represent ‘an abbreviation of king Stasikypros’ and that the siege took place during the Ionian Revolt is assumed by Gjerstad, RDAC 1979, 240 n. 1. The note is, incidentally, an example of his way of reasoning: ‘Ba.Sa could be an abbreviation’ changes seven lines further to ‘as it is likely’, and ‘consequently… the reign of his successor … cannot be dated earlier than c. 495 B.C.’.

11 The destruction of the western acropolis is dated c. 470 in SCE ii 265; but this does not seem to accord with the post-Archaic coins found there in the latest layer (the coins are explained as ‘having slipped down’ from the surface layer, ibid. 617). Nor does the destruction of the temple of Athena on the acropolis necessarily imply that ‘Idalion ceased to be an independent state’ (SCE iv.2 479 n. 5).

12 Ozbaal is usually dated after 450 BC. For the Idalian coins see BMC Coins Cyprus xlix–liii; Masson, ICS 250–2.

13 The incorporation of the Greek kingdom of Tamassos into the kingdom of Kition in the middle of the fourth century is a different case: the bankrupt king of Tamassos sold his kingdom to Pumiathon of Kition (Duris, FGrH 76 F 4 and Donner, H.-Röllig, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 2 [Berlin 1966–1969]Google Scholar no. 32).

14 But see the critical remarks of Seibert (n. 6) 25–6.

15 The inscriptions come, strictly speaking, from the nearby site of Larnaka-tis-Lapithou and are fairly late. One text dates from the later fourth century: Honeyman, A., Muséon li (1938) 285–98Google Scholar; early Hellenistic texts attest an important Phoenician family at Lapethos: Donner–Rölling (n. 13) nos 42, 43; see Seibert (n. 6) 21–3, Volkmann, H., Historia v (1956) 448–55Google Scholar.

16 For these coins of Lapethos see W. Schwabacher, Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1947) 79–84; Robinson, E. S. G., NC 6 viii (1948) 45–7, 60–5Google Scholar; Masson, O.–Sznycer, M., Recherches sur les Phéniciens en Chypre (Geève/Paris 1972) 97–100Google Scholar.

17 See the arguments of Robinson (n. 16) 61–4. If, as he assumes, the coins of Demonikos closely resemble Athenian tetradrachms of about 500 BC, it seems hardly convincing to date his deposition to 499.

18 See Seibert (n. 6) 19–21 for a possible interpretation of Lapethos as city with ‘griechisch-phönikischer Mischbevölkerung’.

19 Gjerstad, , Opusc.Arch. iv (1946) 21–3Google Scholar, dating Doxandros after 499, Sasmas c. 470]60–450 (the stylistic comparison with a number of reliefs, ibid. 22 n. 9, seems hardly sufficient to establish the precise date 470/60 for the Sasmas coins). See further Masson, ICS 181–2; Masson—Sznycer (n. 16) 79–81.

20 Hill, BMC Coins Cyprus lvii–lix; Gjerstad, , Opusc. Arch. iv (1946) 23–4Google Scholar; W. Schwabacher, ibid. 29–35; Masson, ICS 183–5.

21 Gjerstad, Following, Opusc. Arch. iv (1946) 22–3Google Scholar.

22 See Seibert (n. 6) 24–5.

23 Based on Gjerstad, cf. above n. 3; doubts were formulated briefly by Seibert (n. 6) 10 n. 30, 26 n. 87.

24 SCE iii 286–7.

25 See Gesche, H., ‘Literaturüberblicke der griechischen Numismatik. Cypern’, Jb. Num. u. Geldgesch. xx (1970) 167, 176–7, 204Google Scholar.

26 Schwabacher (n. 20) 43.

27 See above n. 7.

28 Gjerstad, , AJA xxxvii (1933) 598Google Scholar, SCE iii 288; but see already the objections of Müller, V.,AJA xxxvii (1933) 599CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Seibert (n. 6) 10 n. 30. There is no cogent reason why entrance to the second palace should have been possible only from the northern corner of the building. As there was ‘a wide doorway’ (SCE iii 122) between walls 58 and 57, the palace could be entered then, as in the first period, also from the southwest front. How we can know that the blocked central room ‘was meant to be a megaron’ is not explained. To call all rectangular rooms divided into an anteroom and a main room ‘megaroid’ (J. Schäfer, AA 1983, 552) confuses the issue even more.

29 Spyridakis (n. 9) 112–13, Gjerstad, , SCE iv.2 476–7, 485–9Google Scholar. The hypothesis is disproved by the contents of SCE iv.2 itself.

30 See e.g. for Kition Robertson, M., Kition iv (Nicosia 1981) 71Google Scholar (‘some decline’ in the early fifth century); L. Jehasse, ibid. 77 (only 3·5% of the black glaze pottery found at Kition dated 500–450 BC).

31 Marion, : SCE iv.2279–81Google Scholar. Amathous, : BCH lxxxv (1961) 312–14Google Scholar; lxxxviii (1964) 329–30; see generally Weill, N., Salamine de Chypre iv (Paris 1973) 78Google Scholar.

32 Vermeule, C. C., Greek and Roman Cyprus (Boston 1976) 15–17Google Scholar; Tatton-Brown (n. 4) 100. The head from Paphos is now in the Ashmolean Museum (G 1142); see Maier, F. G.–Karageorghis, V., Paphos (Nicosia 1984) 181Google Scholar fig. 170.

33 Weill (n. 31) 78; Pouilloux (n. 5) 116; Yon, M., Salamine de Chypre V (Paris 1974Google Scholar).

34 Kition: Robertson (n. 30) 71–3; Jehasse (n. 30) 77–8. At Kition–Bamboula the situation is somewhat different: 20·8% of the Attic finds date from c. 425–375; the peak is reached here c. 350–325 with 43·3% (Salles, J. F., in Kition–Bamboula ii [Paris 1983] 54–5Google Scholar). Salamis: Jehasse, L., in Salamine de Chypre. Histoire et archéologie (Paris 1980) 215–17Google Scholar; id., Salamine de Chypre viii (Paris 1978) 4–8, 17. Marion, : SCE iv.2280Google Scholar.

35 The ad hoc distinction between ‘commercial relations’ and ‘cultural impact’(Gjerstad, , SCE iv.2364Google Scholar) seems hardly tenable if only applied to this period.

36 Collected by Seibert (n. 6) 1–27. His arguments, as those of Costa (below n. 41), have hardly been taken notice of so far.

37 Maier (n. 4) 121–2.

38 SCE iv.2 502.

39 Idalion: see above no. 10. Golgoi, : BCH xcv (1971) 404–6Google Scholar; xcvi (1972) 1073; xcvii (1973) 673. Palaipaphos: Maier, RDAC 1967, 43–4; 1973, 190–2.

40 Parker, S. T., AJP xcvii (1976) 37Google Scholar even suspects that ‘Cimon's failure to gain the support of the Cypriote Greek cities’ was a reason for the failure of the expedition.

41 This has been shown by Costa, E. A., ‘Euagoras I and the Persians, ca. 411 to 391 B.C.’, Historia xxiii (1974) 40–56Google Scholar.

42 The Uses of History (London 1946) 55Google Scholar.