Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros55VariétésAn overview of the ritual of crem...

Variétés

An overview of the ritual of cremation in Cyprus during the Iron Age

Mònica Bouso
p. 137-176

Résumés

Le but de cet article est de discuter de l’introduction du rituel de l’incinération à Chypre pendant l’âge du Fer. La première étape consiste à aborder la terminologie et les méthodes, la seconde à rendre compte de l’état actuel de la recherche. La troisième et dernière étape consiste à proposer de futures pistes de recherche holistique permettant d’éclairer ce phénomène dans son cadre contextuel.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

This article stems from a stay by the author at the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus funded by a fellowship for the requalification of the Spanish university system 2021-2023 from the Ministry of Universities and the European Union (NextGenerationEU). I sincerely thank the members and staff of the ARU for their generous hospitality and access to all the facilities as well as insights on the subject gleaned from certain individuals. I am indebted to Dr. Maria Iakovou and Dr. Efthymia Nikita for commenting upon early drafts of this article. Finally, I alone assume the responsibility for any errors. To end, I highly appreciate the constructive comments of the two anonymous reviewers.

Texte intégral

I hold it then in every way proved that Cambyses was very mad ; else he would never have set himself to deride religion and custom. For if it were proposed to all nations to choose which seemed best of all customs, each, after examination made, would place its own first ; so well is each persuaded that its own are by far the best. It is not therefore to be supposed that any, save a madman, would turn such things to ridicule. I will give this one proof among many from which it may be inferred that all men hold this belief about their customs: —When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them what price would persuade them to eat their fathers’ dead bodies. They answered that there was no price for which they would do it. Then he summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding by interpretation what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrid an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs ; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar’s poem that use and wont is lord of all (Herodotus, Histories III, 38. English translation by A. D. Godley, 1928, The Loeb Classical Library).

Introduction

1Two key ideas regarding burial customs can be drawn from the episode of Darius and the Indians narrated by Herodotus (III, 38). The first is that funerary practices are firmly rooted within communities and changing them is most often neither simple nor sudden. The second is the existence of a wide variety of practices between contemporary neighbouring communities and that the rites performed by one society can disconcert or even be despised by others. The challenge of identifying changes in funerary customs, in this sense, cannot be undertaken in isolation as these practices must be inserted into their context, because mental processes and rituals are intrinsically linked to culture, economy, society and community organisation.

2Regarding the changes in mortuary practices, without a doubt, the change from the preservation of the corpse to destroying it completely or partially is one of the major changes that it is possible to observe in the archaeological burial record. In addition, this transformation often involves a shift from collective to individual burials. The phenomenon of cremation is recorded almost throughout the Mediterranean from the end of the Bronze Age and during the Early Iron Age. However, the practice is neither identical nor uniform. This horizon was in fact marked by significant processes of change, the formation of new communities and by more profound contacts between cultures, which gradually yielded new and multifaceted Mediterranean landscapes.

  • 1 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 47.
  • 2 Cerezo-Román, Williams 2014, p. 253.
  • 3 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 64.

3Societies have traditionally distinguished inhumation from cremation and viewed the one practice as excluding the other. The dominant rite has been qualified as ‘normal’ and the exceptions as ‘unusual’, reserved for abnormal deaths or as punishments for marginalised individuals, foreigners, etc.1 Examples of this behaviour are identified among native southwestern American groups such as the O’odham. This group only cremated individuals who died violently so as to destroy “the enemy’s magic and polluted body”.2 However, the archaeological record reveals a much more complex scenario and although these means of treating the body constitute opposing categories, one cannot assume that one excludes the other.3

  • 4 Karageorghis 1978, p. 27.
  • 5 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 136.
  • 6 Stefani 2021, pp. 272‑273.

4The phenomenon of cremation on the island of Cyprus is paradigmatic. Although the focus here is on its practice from the Late Bronze Age to the Classical Period, it must be noted that the island likewise saw occasional cremations in earlier periods as well as in the later Hellenistic period. Examples from the Hellenistic period are Tomb 1 from Agios Sergios, Salamis4 and Tombs 265 and 1066 from Amathous, cases which surpass the scope of the current study.

5Moreover, before addressing this phenomenon in Cyprus, it is necessary to first delve into what constitutes the ritual and its differences with inhumations. Secondly, it is necessary to describe the methodology adopted to the study of this compelling rite.

New methods and techniques of studying cremations

  • 7 Williams 2008, p. 239 ; see Thompson 2015b for an overview of archaeological research on cremation.
  • 8 Williams 2004, pp. 271, 274, 280.
  • 9 Gonçalves, Pires 2017, p. 1682.

6While inhumation has been the subject of much attention and has benefited from highly specialised bioarchaeological and archaeothanatological research, the theoretical approach to cremation has only recently become a focus of interest.7 This is in part due to the traditional view that little information can be gleaned from burned and fragmented bones and that their analysis requires much more time and effort. Furthermore, it should be taken into account the multiple morphological and structural changes that the cremated bones have undergone (distorted/bended, discoloured, shrank etc.). In consequence most of the traditional osteoarchaeological methods are hard or impossible to apply on them. At the same time, the transformation of the body during cremation, that is the factors that cause the above distortion due to thermal exposure, are highly complex (size of the pyre, fuel, temperature of the fire, duration of exposure, weather conditions, position of the body, etc.).8 Another reason according to Gonçalves and Pires9 is the lack of a specific methodology and the diversity of procedures, especially those serving to evaluate patterns of skeletal fragmentation.

  • 10 For instance, the following works focus exclusively on cremated human remains: Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney (...)
  • 11 McKinley 2015, p. ix.

7Current research on cremation has fortunately advanced as evidenced by a series of publications of specific and detailed analyses as well as new technological developments.10 This relatively recent interest on the subject goes hand in hand with the introduction of new techniques as well as a broadening of the field by including ethnographical and forensic work, observations in current crematoria, and experimentation with both bones and incineration processes, etc.11 Schurr describes the new techniques as follows:

  • 12 Schurr 2014, p. 238.

An impressive but incomplete list with just a few examples of each application includes several different methods for estimating the volume of cremated bone, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine small-scale surface appearance and texture, X‑ray diffraction (XRD) to determine hydroxyapatite crystal morphology, and infrared spectrometry (IR), usually using Fourier transform IR (FTIR) spectroscopy to determine what chemical bonds are present and the degree of crystallinity. More exotic techniques include electron spin resonance spectroscopy (ESR) to determine heating temperature.12

8Cremation has in fact attracted the attention of a large number of researchers from distinct disciplines, notably osteologists, bioarchaeologists, and forensic anthropologists resulting in an increase of publications of case studies from very different geographical and chronological contexts.

  • 13 Nilsson Stutz, Kuijt 2014, p. 146.
  • 14 Harvig 2015, p. 45.
  • 15 Ibid., p. 49.
  • 16 Squires 2015, p. 156.
  • 17 Piga, Guirguis, Allue 2015, p. 103.

9Worth highlighting among the methodological innovations are detailed analyses stemming from meticulous micro-excavations of burned human remains, usually inside ceramic containers. In these cases, it is possible to apply technologies prior to excavation such as computed tomography and X‑ray in order to observe the deposit’s characteristics (i.e., single or double burial, deliberate selection and distribution of the remains, data on the cremation process, etc.) and facilitate a complete recovery of the remains.13 Harvig noted that: “CT is in principle the same as digital x‑ray, only performed in 3D”.14 The same author added that: “Computed Tomography scanning of prehistoric cremation urns is one way of visualising and extracting digital data from cremated human remains in situ”.15 Secondly, the macroscopic examination of burned bones can be complemented by histomorphometry not only to gain a better understand of pyre temperature but to identify temperature variation between the different parts of the body which yields information as to its position on the pyre.16 Bones can also be analysed by X‑Ray diffraction (XRD) and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT‑IR) to determine their degree of combustion.17 These techniques potentially offer relevant data on the methods and processes of cremation as well as serve to speculate as to who was charged with managing the rite (i.e., specialists with a deep knowledge of the use of fire or, conversely, relatives of the deceased unfamiliar with the technique).

  • 18 Schurr 2014, p. 238.

10Another compelling and highly useful technique is that of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating of bone carbonate,18 a method that is particularly relevant if the grave is devoid of datable material culture.

  • 19 Snoeck et al. 2015 ; Snoeck et al. 2023 ; Dalle et al. 2022.
  • 20 Dalle et al. 2022.

11In addition whereas carbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N) isotope studies on cremated individuals are not appropriate for dietary studies due to these isotopes are altered during cremation, strontium isotopes (87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and concentration ([Sr]) analyses of cremated human remains not and allow the study of data on diet, palaeomobility and landscape use.19 The bones used for strontium analysis can also be used for carbon‑14 dating.20

12It is also of great interest to study other remains associated with cremation. These include macro-plants, animal bones, and obviously the grave goods (pottery, metal ornaments, etc.).

  • 21 Aprile, Fiorentino 2021, p. 369.
  • 22 Ibid., p. 365.

13The study of plant remains, mainly charcoal, not only serves to identify species choice and function, but offers archaeobotanical, palaeo-environmental and palaeoclimatic data serving to reconstruct the environment surrounding the cremation. Apart from identifying the species serving as fuel, it is possible to determine others (e.g., buckthorn) that served to mitigate the strong odours of cremations.21 In this case, it is relevant to determine the use in the rite of species either from the immediate surroundings or from more distant areas, information that can point to other roles of plants besides practical considerations.22 These types of palaeoenvironmental analyses also allow delving into the implications if the species serving as fuel in the cremation rite reflect or not those present in the settlement linked with the cemetery.

14The study of other elements accompanying the human remains such as fragments of animal bones and objects may be decisive in reconstructing the sequence of combustion as these can shed light on whether they were added in the initial, intermediary or last stage of the rite. In sum, detailed analyses of funerary assemblages not only serve to identify the human remains but offer details as to aspects of the rite such as the type of fuel, pyre temperature, the state and position of the body, as well as the goods accompanying the corpse in the pyre.

Theoretical and anthropological approach to cremation

  • 23 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 13.
  • 24 Testart 2005.
  • 25 Gramsch 2013, p. 466.

15After this brief description of the main techniques serving in the analysis and study of cremations, the first point to be taken into account when exploring this practice, as emphasised by several authors, is that cremation is not a single act but forms part of a complex procedure: “Cremation is a process, rather than a distinct and discrete event”.23 In this sense, it is very significant that certain written sources corroborate the idea of process. Specifically related to the Hittite world is a ritual narrative known as “When a great Sin is coming to Hattusa...” which details acts over a period of 14 days. One must nonetheless bear in mind that the funeral in this case was that of a king.24 Moreover, this process involves the destruction of the corpse, an action in complete opposition to its preservation represented, for example, by mummification. Gramsch has highlighted the ‘resemblance’ of each of these processes insofar as they both involve controlling the transformation of the corpse by interfering with the natural process of decomposition.25

  • 26 Sørensen, Bille 2008, p. 263.

16However, while cremation leads to the destruction of the corpse, its elimination is not complete as it does not totally disappear but is converted into a new entity consisting of fragments of burned bones. Thus, certain specialists have highlighted that cremation can be understood as an instrument of transformation and thus functions as a way of treating a corpse rather than as a means of annihilating it.26 Burned bone fragments can simply be left at the place of cremation and covered (primary cremation deposit) transforming the place of cremation into the tomb. Another option is that they were collected and deposited in a container (urn), which may then be placed in a tomb or elsewhere (secondary cremation deposit). In this article we apply the term ‘deposit’ to indicate that the primary and/or secondary position refers to deposition and not cremation as the term has led to misunderstandings, as noted by Blaizot et al.:

  • 27 Blaizot et al. 2009, p. 176.

Celle‑ci nous a paru nécessaire compte tenu de l’imprécision des locutions employées par les uns et les autres, à commencer par celle d’« incinération secondaire » qui, littéralement, ne fait en aucun cas référence à la chronologie des gestes, mais sous-entend l’idée erronée d’un traitement funéraire en deux temps faisant intervenir la crémation en second, au même titre qu’« inhumation secondaire ».27

17Another possibility is the dispersal of the cremated remains, which leaves no material traces.

  • 28 Sørensen, Bille 2008, pp. 256‑265. See Williams 2014 and Cerezo-Román 2020, p. 18 on the different (...)

18Fire in this framework takes on a symbolic value as an element to transform matter. On the one hand, both the characteristics of the pyre and the fire itself are subject to constant transformation, perceptible through changes in shape, colour, smell, sound, etc. This is not only affected by the transitory materiality of the fuel but that of fire itself. Fire on the other hand serves as an agent of change as the body passes from presence to absence. It is thus characterised by a destructive/constructive duality as it retains the capacity to annihilate the corpse while simultaneously creating a new entity in the form of burned bone fragments and ashes. In short, as the flames transform the subject (corpse) into an object (bones and ashes) they acquire a key value as elements of remembrance.28

  • 29 McKinley 2013, p. 147.
  • 30 McKinley 2015, p. ix.

19Moreover cremation, as noted by McKinley,29 is a complex and multifaceted process whose study depends on a correct excavation and accurately interpreting the archaeological documents. Consequently, it is vital to possess a complete, detailed and rigorous record of the funerary deposition as otherwise it is not possible to identify all the steps of the process that ultimately serve to reconstruct the rite.30

  • 31 De Haan 2008, p. 13.
  • 32 E.g. Grévin 2005.
  • 33 Gómez Bellard 1996, pp. 61‑62.
  • 34 Piga, Guirguis, Allue 2015, p. 103 ; Piga et al. 2015, p. 148.

20This is a transcendental aspect as combustion is a process characterised by change. No two fires are exactly alike, meaning each cremation comprises a number of variables.31 Ethnographic studies32 also highlight the typological variety of funerary pyres, even within the same culture and religion. Among the most relevant are time and temperature, the latter conditioned by ventilation, fuel type and corpse attributes. It must be noted that uniform temperatures are recent innovations,33 indicating that the burning of corpses was subject to multiple case‑by‑case factors, often difficult to grasp, that may reflect specific motivations. It is of interest in this regard to cite the specific practice labelled as ‘semi-combustion/semi-cremation’ (an incomplete form of cremation) recorded in one of the cemeteries of Mount Sirai limited strictly in the period of transition between the Late Archaic and Early Punic Age (i.e. from the late 6th and throughout 5th century BC).34

21Besides the constant change of combustion parameters, two other primary variables characteristic of cremation multiplicity must be taken into account: time and space. Cremation processes take place in different settings and at different times, factors that enhance their complexity.

  • 35 Grévin 2005, p. 20.
  • 36 Grévin 2009, p. 148.

22It is essential to bear in mind the temporal dimensions of cremations as they involve a series of steps, which, contrary to inhumation, do not necessarily succeed each other. Inhumations must take place rapidly after death due to the decomposition unless the corpse were subject to specific treatments of preservation such as mummification. Cremation, in turn, is a process initiated by the preparation of the corpse followed by its transfer to the pyre. This process, as noted above, also includes the extinction of the pyre. Experimental work reveals that a rapid quenching with liquids provokes thermal shocks leading to greater bone fragmentation.35 Another factor affecting the preservation and fragmentation of bones is the degree of involvement/passiveness of the individual(s) conducting the rite as non-intervention in the process leads to less bone breakage.36 A wide chain of actions then takes place once the blaze is extinguished ranging from the processing and selection/collection of the burned remains to their distribution, dispersal, burial, etc. (not all can always be identified).

  • 37 Gómez Bellard 1996, p. 57.
  • 38 Dikaios 1963, p. 147.
  • 39 Karageorghis 1967a, p. 244 ; Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 106.
  • 40 See McKinley 2013 with previous bibliography and Liston 2007 for an example from Kavousi Vronda (Cr (...)

23Researchers have resorted to written sources to reconstruct the operational sequence, in particular, Homer’s detailed descriptions of the funerary rites of Patroclus and Hector in the Iliad (books 23 and 24). Although this narrative offers compelling information, one must approach it with caution as it cannot be assumed that the ritual described by Homer was practised exactly in this manner at that time throughout all the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. In fact, anthropological studies note that it is impossible to prove the washing of bones once collected from the pyre.37 However, certain do indicate that bones were wrapped in tissues prior to being placed in containers. Dikaios identified the remains of a thin cloth either containing or covering burned human remains in a bronze bowl in Tomb 1 at Salamis (CGIIIB: fig. 10b).38 Similar evidence was brought to light in a tomb at Palaepaphos-Liomylia (CAI). The bronze vase in this case, by contrast, yielded no burned bones.39 Moreover, assessing whether burned bone collection was complete or random can be determined by identifying and weighing the anatomical parts.40

  • 41 Riis 1948, p. 29.

24These aspects raise numerous questions ranging from the procedures serving to prepare corpses prior to cremation, where the cremation took place, the posture assumed by the corpse, who performed the rite, how the pyre was extinguished, and to post-cremation treatments (selection, collection, crushing, and potential distribution) such as burial and/or dispersal, funerary and post-burial ceremonies, as well as determining the duration and intervals of each action. In reference to crushing, the study of the bones from the Iron Age cemetery of Hama (Syria) indicates that they attained a temperature between 600 and 800º C prior to their deliberate fragmentation.41 It is probable that this range did not completely calcine them, thus deliberate fragmentation facilitated their collection and deposition in urns.

  • 42 Oestigaard, Goldhahn 2006, p. 44.

25Oestigaard and Goldhahn point out that cremations grant time to prepare lavish rituals as they yield an intermediate period, a crucial stage as it projects a temporal dimension.42 The authors divide the intermediate period into three phases. The first is that of the burning of the corpse. The second in terms of time and space offers an area to restructure and renegotiate relations between the living, while the third corresponds to the burial of the remains. Consideration of this aspect can be crucial in order to identify objects that are not strictly contemporary and/or locally produced in the tombs.

26As for the spatial dimension, as noted, each of the phases of the process comprises different scenarios starting from the house of the deceased to the funeral pyre (possibly located in a cemetery) to the tomb itself, etc. Consequently, all scenarios take into account the multiple spaces that must form part of the analyses in order to approach all of the dimensions of cremation study and interpretation.

  • 43 McKinley 2013, p. 150.

27Thus, each scenario and its respective materials require thorough examination. It is also pertinent to distinguish between the materials of the pyre (pyre goods) from funerary offerings (grave goods) as each is linked to different parts of the ritual. According to McKinley, pyre goods are added at the moment of combustion. Although usually personal items worn by the deceased (rings, bracelets, pendants, pins, etc.), they can also include other items (tools, belongings, etc.) or fragments of animal bones and pottery linked to funerary meals.43 It is also likely that certain goods were recovered and deposited with the burned remains in the grave, while others remained uncollected on the pyre. Grave goods, on the other hand, are unburned objects introduced into the tomb after the cremation to accompany the human remains. Detailed studies of each set and their position in the burial make it possible to deduce specific aspects of funerary rites.

  • 44 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 5.

28In short, cremation is a process that is essentially characterised by a great variability and a wide range of material records, as well as a number of different practices accompanied by their own meanings. Grasping these practices, according to certain researchers, centres on the notion that they form part of a social process consisting of a broad series of actions from death to funerary rite.44 Furthermore, this process falls within a framework that is not only funerary but cultural and socioeconomic and may be due to force majeure reasons such as the prevention of an epidemic/plague or fire victims.

  • 45 Ibid.

29A final aspect worth addressing before concluding this section is that of the lack of exclusivity of the cremation rite. This refers to the coexistence in the same timeframe and spatial setting of both inhumation and cremation, a coexistence that has so far, as noted, not aroused much scientific interest.45

  • 46 De Polignac 2005, p. 181.
  • 47 Williams 2014, pp. 101‑102.
  • 48 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 64.

30There is in fact evidence of this coexistence not only within the same society and funerary spaces but in the same tomb. Interpreting the record in these cases is a real challenge and requires close contextual analyses that takes into account temporal and spatial data as well as other cultural and social practices.46 This is emphasised by Williams who states that in order to understand and interpret the practice, it is necessary to grasp the how and why of cremation relative to other funerary strategies within the same community.47 The coexistence of the two customs, although yielding opposite corpse treatments, can also be understood as complementary actions, with or without resorting to the use of fire, to achieve the same end, that is, the destruction of the corpse and the creation of bones.48 Funerary rites from Anatolia, the Levant, the Aegean, and the island of Cyprus, which is the focus of this article, share this scenario of cremation/inhumation coexistence.

  • 49 Bachelot 2005, p. 101.
  • 50 Étienne 2005, p. 185.
  • 51 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 311.
  • 52 Stampolidis 2012, p. 175.
  • 53 Sader 2014, p. 618. See Sader on cremations in the later stages of the Iron Age: Sader 2019, p. 236 (...)

31The Hittite world, as noted, benefits specifically from both written and archaeological records on cremation practices. However, although it may have been the most common practice, it was never exclusive.49 This absence of exclusivity of funerary rites, although dominated by one, is also recorded in Athens between the 11th and the 5th century BC.50 The same occurs in Crete, specifically in the cemeteries of Eleutherna-Orthi Petra and Eltyna.51 The case of Eleutherna-Orthi Petra is particularly compelling as cremation and inhumation coexist from the outset, that is, from the early 9th to the end of the 6th century BC. However, here it appears that cremation was limited to adult males.52 It appears that the earliest and only evidence of cremation in the Levant is from the Iron Age I sites of Tell Sukas and Hama.53

Cremation in Iron Age Cyprus

  • 54 Schulte-Campbell 1983, pp. 439‑451.
  • 55 Charles 1967.
  • 56 Angel 1972.
  • 57 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016.
  • 58 Lorentz 2016, p. 143.

32It must be noted from the outset that the study of cremation in Cyprus is accompanied by serious obstacles, notably a dearth of osteological analyses. The few cases carried out by specialists are on unburned remains. Examples of these circumstances appear in the study on the anthropological remains of the excavations of Palaepaphos-Skales by Schulte-Campbell focusing exclusively on inhumations.54 Other cases with no mentions of burned remains are Tomb 31 of Salamis55 and Tomb 30 of Kourion-Bamboula.56 In cases where burned remains have been studied, they only yielded general data. This is the case of the publication by Karageorghis and Raptou where the description of Tomb 203 does not cite the presence of burned bones.57 However, the anthropological report by Lorentz does cite them without offering details: “A few bone fragments within the assemblage show signs of having been affected by fire”.58

  • 59 Hadjisavvas 2007, pp. 186‑187.
  • 60 Hadjisavvas 2012, pp. 227‑235.

33This scarcity of bioarchaeological analyses is problematic as it not only reduces the amount of information about the deceased, but does not confirm whether the cases described as cremations in the publications are actually cremations. Presumably confusion with cremations may arise from a number of factors, one being that the dark outer surfaces of certain human bones have at times been confused with burned remains when the colouration in reality is linked to the nature of the soil. Bones in other cases appear darkened by smoke from fire inside the tomb intended for purification and/or reasons of hygiene. These cases bearing no contact with fire must therefore not be confused with those linked to cremations. As an example, we can point to the case of Tomb 1989/6 from Mnemata (Larnaca): in the first publication in 2007, a White Painted Amphora in the north-eastern corner of the antechamber was identified as a cremation container due to the dark colour of the bones deposited inside it.59 The interpretation was rectified in the final publication as a secondary “enchytrismos”.60

  • 61 Gjerstad 1979, p. 89.
  • 62 E.g. Desborough 1979, Kourou 2019.

34The absence of anthropological analyses also renders it impossible to determine the sex and age of the deceased with any degree of certainty. Moreover, deductions of this nature based on objects accompanying the remains are inconclusive and require caution. An example of the problem of interpreting these finds is Tomb 1 of Salamis. The jewels discovered in the bronze urn in company of the burned remains were attributed to a woman while the finds of Greek pottery led to the interpretation these materials were part of the dowry of an Athenian princess.61 Although compelling, this explanation without anthropological analyses remains inconclusive. Furthermore, while the Greek pottery of this tomb is cited in numerous articles,62 another important pottery assemblage was overlooked. In this sense, Núñez notes that:

  • 63 Núñez Calvo 2008, pp. 55‑56.

It is also interesting that the presence of these Aegean imports in the tomb inspired certain interpretations about the people buried there. For example, Gjerstad thought it was the grave of an Athenian princess married to a Cypriot king. On the other hand, the recovery of at least thirty Phoenician vases in the tomb did not inspire anyone’s imagination and, consequently, their presence was never interpreted nor were they even fully illustrated.63

35Secondly, many cremations were discovered during old excavations and only described, in the best cases, in preliminary reports (rarely in well-published studies).

  • 64 Janes 2010, p. 133.
  • 65 Dikaios 1963 ; Karageorghis 1967b, p. 57.
  • 66 Benson 1973, p. 21.
  • 67 Steel 1996.
  • 68 Karageorghis 1983, p. 8. Also, in the same place around a wall discovered near the tombs, an area w (...)
  • 69 Nilsson, Kuijt 2014, p. 144.

36Another obstacle is the incomplete archaeological record, not exclusively from Cyprus. Beyond the occasional use of cremations, the main change in the funerary practices in the Early Iron Age across the whole island is the shift in the location of burials from intra- to extramural areas.64 However, it is often not possible to link cremations with a settlement. This is further complicated by the fact that cemeteries have not been completely excavated, muddling data as to the total number of graves, cremation proportions, and their exact setting with regard to the other burials. These excavations have likewise yielded little evidence of funeral pyres. A significant exception are the pyres along the dromoi of Tombs 1 and 31 of Salamis dating respectively to CGIIIB and CAI.65 Another possible funeral pyre, also along a dromos, is in Tomb 39 at Kourion-Kaloriziki66 dated to the CGIA.67 Yet another likely crematorium is Pyre A of the cemetery of Palaepaphos-Skales despite the absence of human remains.68 The scarcity of finds of funeral pyres is not unique to Cyprus and is recurrent among the archaeological cremation record. Despite their high temperatures, they leave hardly any traces, complicating identifying their locations.69

37Another drawback is that many of the graves were either looted or poorly excavated and recorded. Therefore, the intention here is not to offer a detailed description of all cremation tombs, but an overview of their variety and the limitations of their study, as well as advance lines of future research that will serve to gain a better grasp of the phenomenon of cremation in Cyprus. Among them it is necessary to perform chronological analyses: it is essential to establish the contemporaneity (or not) of tombs and burials containing both cremations and inhumations. Considering the problem of the looting of many tombs resulting in a lack of stratigraphic information, it is necessary to reconsider dating the human remains after their examination by specialists. Also tomb spatial distribution analyses would be indispensable to draw a map positioning all tombs so as to be able to discern potential funerary organisation, that is, whether the tombs containing inhumations and cremations coincide and form groups in certain areas or if, on the contrary, they are scattered. In addition, it is required to perform the study of the spatial distribution of the grave goods in order to reconstruct the sequence of events taking place in tombs ; as well attempt to gather data on where cremations took place and systematically conduct all pertinent analyses (anthropological, faunal, ceramological, dating, isotope, etc.) on all the remains.

Different types of record

38The phenomenon of cremation in Cyprus requires, first of all, distinguishing between cremation cemeteries and tombs containing cremations. The first group is only represented, to date, by the western cemetery of Amathous (fig. 1). This site, the object of a rescue operation by the Department of Antiquities brought to light hundreds of pits containing cinerary urns and other objects.

Figure 1 — Map of the sites where cremation tombs has been attested in Cyprus.

Figure 1 — Map of the sites where cremation tombs has been attested in Cyprus.

M. Bouso.

  • 70 Hermary 2000, p. 1048.
  • 71 Christou 1993, p. 752 ; Christou 1998, p. 212 ; Agelarakis, Kanta, Stampolidis 1998.
  • 72 Christou 1998, p. 208.
  • 73 Christou 1993 ; Christou 1998 ; Agelarakis, Kanta, Stampolidis 1998.
  • 74 The piece is currently on display at the Limassol Museum.
  • 75 Louca 2000.
  • 76 Ibid., p. 163.
  • 77 Even so, there are multiple references in the bibliography about this necropolis, as well as intere (...)

39Specifically, the necropolis was located about one kilometre west of the acropolis and a few dozen metres from the sea.70 The preliminary dating of the cemetery was assigned to the late Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic periods.71 As is well known, the construction of a hotel (‘Four Seasons’) on the coastal front of Limassol in 1992 resulted in the destruction of part of this cremation necropolis, the only one found on the island to this date. Faced with this situation, the Department of Antiquities conducted a rescue excavation under the direction of Prokopiou in the western part of the site. The site was, therefore, divided into two sectors: east (field number 1440), where mechanical means destroyed the tombs ; west (1441), where rescue excavations were carried out.72 Three papers were published on this discovery.73 To add, a specific study on a Bichrome IV amphora (LM 1441‑47)74 from the necropolis with pictorial decoration of two human faces published by Louca, dated by its shape and decoration by the author to the CA period.75 This article mentions that the vessel contained the burned remains of an adult, but no further details are given.76 The complete study and publication has not yet been carried out.77

  • 78 See Satraki 2012 for an overview of these Iron Age sites.

40The second group, the focus of this article, comprises a series of published cases of cremations in cemeteries dominated by inhumations, notably Kourion-Bamboula, Kourion-Kaloriziki, Palaepaphos-Skales, Salamis, Amathous and Agioi Omologites in Nicosia (fig. 1).78

  • 79 See Iacovou 2012 and Iacovou 2014 for an overview of the period.
  • 80 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 318.
  • 81 Regarding the changes in the typology of construction of the tombs during this period see Karageorg (...)
  • 82 Steel 2014, p. 587.
  • 83 Killebrew 2018, p. 87.
  • 84 Georgiadou 2014, p. 384.
  • 85 Ibid, p. 381.

41From the chronological standpoint these tombs range between the 11th (LCIIIB) and the 5th century BC (CAII).79 The earliest evidence of a cremation tomb dates from the 11th century BC (LCIIIB): this is a moment, as pointed out by specialists such as Keswani, not only marked by the appearance of the practice of cremation, but the introduction of extramural cemeteries,80 a decrease in the number of individuals in the tombs81 and more modest grave goods.82 The material culture of this period is characterised by its homogeneity giving rise to a broad koine throughout the island during the CG period.83 However, the attempt to identify the various ceramic workshops, on the basis of production and ceramic styles, has allowed Georgiadou to establish regional differences as early as the beginning of the CG period, differences that become more pronounced over time.84 It is interesting to note that precisely the two main centres are Paphos and Salamis, to a lesser extent Amathous, but this will develop its own style,85 centres precisely where the largest number of tombs with cremations are attested.

42It appears that this short phase (LCIIIB) has only yielded evidence of a single cremation: Kourion-Kaloriziki (T.40). Fifteen, in turn, fall into the CG period (11 from CGI, one from CGII and three attributed to CGIII). Another two date to the transition from CGIII to CAI. Finally, three date to the CAI period and one from CAII. Most of the tombs (10) are from cemeteries at Palaepaphos. Their numbers decrease at Kourion (4), Amathous (4), Salamis (3) and Nicosia (1) (table 1).

Table 1 — Data related to isolated cremation tombs in Cyprus.

Table 1 — Data related to isolated cremation tombs in Cyprus.

Abbreviations: A=Adult, Amph=Amphora, B=Burial(s), Ch=Chamber, cr=cremation, dr=dromos, inh=inhumation, OI=Objects inside the cinerary urn; WP=White Painted ware. * Anthropological study by specialist, initials of the anthropologist: CSC=Carola Schulte-Campbell, KL=Kirsi O. Lorentz, PC=Popi Chrysostomou, RC=Rober P. Charles. Colours: orange=grave only containing cremations; yellow=grave containing both cremations and inhumations, green=bronze cinerary urn, blue=deposition devoid of container.

  • 86 Karageorghis 1973, p. 4.

43There are nonetheless other potential cremations that remain unconfirmed. This is due, on the one hand, to their state of preservation and to the deficient circumstances of discovery. Among these dubious cases is the exceptional Tomb 79 of Salamis consisting of a pyre with burned human remains on the roof of the grave, possibly dating to the first burial in the tomb in spite of the fact that no burned human bones were found inside the tomb itself.86

  • 87 Raptou 2002, pp. 122‑128 ; Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, p. 10.
  • 88 Karageorghis 1967a, p. 235.

44Another example is Tomb 144 at Palaepaphos-Plakes where destruction related to its discovery hampered the excavation. In any case, this burial yielded the partially preserved base of a large bronze amphora unfortunately badly damaged which contained no human remains, only traces of ashes.87 A similar situation is that of looted tombs 7 and 8 of the cemetery of Palaepaphos-Liomylia yielding a bronze cauldron containing a thin layer of a sticky substance. The cauldron, dated to the CAI, was topped by a shield-like bronze lid bearing a central loop handle. It contained small metal objects but no trace of burned bones or ashes.88

  • 89 See Stefani 2021 for data on these tombs and other unpublished cremations excavated by the Departme (...)
  • 90 Megaw 1954.

45On the other hand, there are other examples only cited in brief reports devoid of detailed descriptions of the context making it impossible to ascertain whether they can be considered cremations or not. Examples are the tombs excavated by the British mission at Amathous (1893-1894).89 This is also the case of cremations reported inside amphorae (White Painted II‑III) dating to the CGIII period at the Turabi Tekke cemetery in Larnaca.90

46It is precisely this wide geographical and temporal spectrum that foretells the great diversity of the funerary record, which in its current state only lends itself to speculation and to offer lines of research taking into account the singularity of each of their characteristics and development. It is therefore impossible to view cremations in Cyprus as a whole and offer coherent interpretations.

47The published cases on isolated cremations tombs will be discussed below, trying firstly to establish the relationship with the habitat, secondly the type of funerary structure, and thirdly the anthropological studies and types of deposition of the human remains and, finally, a brief comment on grave goods.

Relationship of the tombs to the habitat

  • 91 Iacovou 2014, p. 798.
  • 92 Georgiadou 2014, p. 363.

48The first problem, as cited above, is that in all of these cases it is difficult to specifically associate the cemetery with a visible (excavated) settlement impeding a comparison of their data. This is highly relevant in order to observe whether the pottery, animal bones, anthracological and plants remains are the same recorded in both sites or if there is a selection ; the same applies for the social organizations (different size, layout between houses/tombs, etc.). This relates in particular to the lack of archaeological visibility of occupation levels in settlements or other non-cemetery sites dating to the outset of the CG period91 (understanding this period as the inauguration of the Iron Age on the island and dating it around 1050-750 BC).92

  • 93 Steel 1996, p. 290.

49Chronologically, starting with the oldest cremation tomb, we have to refer to Kourion. The settlement of Bamboula in the area of Kourion appears to have been used from the 16th (LCIA) to the 12th century BC (LCIIIA). Pottery analyses suggest that a small-scale occupation endured until the outset of the 11th century BC (LCIIIB / CGIA). And Kourion is the settlement suggested to be linked to the Kaloriziki cemetery.93

  • 94 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 3‑4.
  • 95 Iacovou 2013, pp. 277‑278 ; Iacovou 2019, p. 210, fig. 24.

50As already mentioned, the necropolis with the most documented cases of cremation tombs is in the Palaepaphos area, with ten graves published to date, ranging from CGI to CAI. Evidence from the recent excavations in the area of Kouklia-Palaepaphos appear to reveal a clustering within a single urban landscape with the necropolis of Skales located to the south-east. The position of the cemetery of Plakes beyond the Diarizos river bolsters the idea of smaller residential units with neighbouring cemeteries.94 Most of these burial grounds consist of clusters of chamber tombs in the surroundings of the urban areas persisting from the outset of the Iron Age throughout the 1st millennium.95 Iacovou has drawn attention to this by emphasising the following:

  • 96 Iacovou 2013, p. 282.

Since when had the four plateaus become constituent parts of the urban landscape of Paphos? Each is spatially isolated from the others and retains its own physical integrity. It is not unlikely that each had also developed a different functional identity in the urban landscape of the polity. This identity may have changed over time in the long life of a settlement that was founded in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1600 BC), did not suffer abandonment before or during the transition to the Iron Age (c. 1200-1100 BC), and apparently had its state functions transferred elsewhere (to Nea Paphos) before the closing decade of the 4th century BC.96

  • 97 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 101.

51Specifically, the cemetery of Palaepaphos-Skales (like that of Xylinos/Xerolimni) was founded during the Late Cypriot IIIB period and persisted until Classical and Hellenistic times.97

  • 98 Hermary, Iacovou 1999, p. 151.
  • 99 Fourrier 2016, p. 136. A slightly earlier dating, CGIIB‑IIIA, has been proposed by Alpe, Petit, Vel (...)

52Moving on to Amathous, the largest concentration of Iron Age burials is located about 500 m to the west of the acropolis.98 While the oldest levels of the acropolis (palace and sanctuary) are dated to the CGIII and CAI periods,99 it is plausible to suggest that the habitat is located in the surroundings of the acropolis.

  • 100 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 1.

53The cremation tombs of Salamis, in turn, form part of a cemetery spanning from the 8th century BC to the Byzantine period, located to the west of the Geometric and Archaic settlement.100 Karageorghis states the following about the cemeteries of Salamis:

  • 101 Karageorghis 1978, pp. 2‑3.

The development of the Necropolis of Salamis may be followed from the 11th century BC, the initial stages of the life of the city, when its cemetery extended west of the harbour area (French excavations, Tomb I). Then in the Cypro-Geometric III – Cypro-Archaic period we find tombs further west and south-west, between the boundaries of the Salamis Forest and the Monastery of St. Barnabas. No tombs of the 10th and early 9th centuries have been found. In the Classical period the same cemetery was used ; there are also tombs of this period north of the city site, between the boundaries of the Salamis Forest and the village of Ayios Seryios. These had been thoroughly looted.101

  • 102 Flourentzos 1986.

54The most recent case, dated to the CAII, is T.24 from the necropolis of Agioi Omologites located south of modern-day Nicosia.102 Presumably the associated habitat must be under the current capital of the island.

Types of tombs

55Typologically these tombs take on the form of different types of features: rock‑cut tombs, pits, shaft grave (fig. 2), chamber with dromos of different shapes and dimensions (for instance with long dromos, fig. 3, and other types, figs. 4‑5), cist, built chamber tombs (fig. 6) and small tumuli. Ultimately, the only specific type of grave containing burnt remains are the small earth and stone tumuli documented at Palaepaphos-Skales (i.e. Pyre 1 and 2) ; the other grave types contain both inhumations (primary and secondary) and cremations (table 1).

Figure 2 — Plan of shaft grave Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki.

Figure 2 — Plan of shaft grave Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki.

From Benson 1973, pl. 13.

Figure 3 — Plan of chamber tombs with long dromos.

Figure 3 — Plan of chamber tombs with long dromos.

a) plan of Tomb 19, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; b) plan of Tomb 90 and c) Tomb 89, Palaepaphos-Skales.

a) from Benson 1973, pl. 4 ; b and c) from Karageorghis 1983, figs. XXXIV and XXXIII.

Figure 4 — Plan of chamber tombs with dromos.

Figure 4 — Plan of chamber tombs with dromos.

a) plan of Tomb 277, Kouklia-Skales ; b) plan of Tomb 39, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; c) plan of Tomb 188 and d) Tomb 235, Palaepahos-Skales ; e) plan of Tomb 83, Palaepaphos-Skales.

a) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2019, fig. 1 ; b) from Benson 1973, pl. 12 ; c and d) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, figs. 11 and 34 ; e) from Karageorghis 1983, fig. XXVII.

Figure 5 — Plan of Tomb 24, Agioi Omologites.

Figure 5 — Plan of Tomb 24, Agioi Omologites.

From Flourentzos 1986, fig. 3.

Figure 6 — Plan of built chamber tombs.

Figure 6 — Plan of built chamber tombs.

a) Tomb 1, Salamis ; b) Tomb 19 and c) Tomb 31, Salamis.

a) from Dikaios 1963, figs. 4‑5 ; b and c) from Karageorghis 1967b, figs. XXIII and XX.

  • 103 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pp. 5‑7.

56The record points to a variability of the location of cremations inside the tomb, either in the main chamber, in a pit sunk into the chamber floor (Salamis T.1, T.31 and T.19), or in a niche along the wall of the dromos (T.185, Palaepaphos-Skales: fig. 7). In the latter case, it is compelling that the burials in the main chamber are later than those in the niche.103 One hypothesis is that the pit‑grave containing the cremation is in fact an older tomb brought to light during construction of the tomb’s dromos.

Figure 7 — Plan of Tomb 185, Palaepahos-Skales.

Figure 7 — Plan of Tomb 185, Palaepahos-Skales.

From Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, fig. 3.

  • 104 On the attestations and significance of equids, as symbol of power and wealth, in the archaeologica (...)
  • 105 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 116.

57The cremation burials at Salamis deserve special attention as they are in pits, but in the interior of chambered tombs with passageways built in stone, with the presence of buried equidae.104 Interestingly, the two unyoked equids (those from T.31 and T.19) were identified as donkeys.105 Unfortunately, the equids from T.1, which in this case were accompanied by the remains of a chariot, have not been studied (table 1). Furthermore, as mentioned above, Salamis is the only site where evidence of pyres have been found inside the dromos.

  • 106 Dikaios 1963, p. 154.

58Likewise noteworthy are the data provided by Dikaios on Tomb 1 related to the issue of complete or partial collection of burned remains in urns. The pyre in this case, in the dromos, contained burned bones, specifically a fragment of tibia that matched another recovered in the cinerary urn.106 Unfortunately, this information has not been corroborated by a specialist, and no further details are known as to the number of remains in the urn and those allegedly left on the pyre.

59In short, the record documented in the Salamis tombs evidences the multiple actions that were carried out in these structures and, consequently, the complexity of the funerary ritual that took place, as well as the difficulty of its interpretation until all the possible analyses can be conducted.

Anthropological studies

  • 107 McFadden 1954, p. 132.
  • 108 Lorentz 2016, pp. 141, 144‑45.
  • 109 Ibid., p. 141.
  • 110 Ibid., p. 145.

60Anthropological information is very limited. For example, Gejvall for T. 40 at Kourion only indicates that the human remains were those of a middle-aged female.107 The lack of anthropological analyses of the burned remains of these tombs is evidenced, as noted above, by only two publications, notably those of Lorentz and Chrysostomou on certain tombs of Palaepaphos-Skales. These analyses specifically focused on Tomb 185, amphora 5 (female), Tomb 188, amphora 1 (adult), Tomb 235, amphorae 1 and 6 (two adults), Pyre 1 (adult) and Pyre 2 (adult). The report comprises the determination of the age group, the colour of the bones and the different parts of the body they represent. All the bones are incomplete and suffer from a high degree of fragmentation. Their heterogeneous colouration is compelling,108 an aspect highlighted by the description of those in amphora 5 of Tomb 185 ranging from black to “…shades of grey, white and bluish white”.109 The changes in colouration point to complete combustion (white equates with a calcined state) of certain parts and lesser temperatures for others. Pyre 1, on the contrary, revealed a “discolouration ranging from black to brown”,110 probably related to partial combustion.

  • 111 Chrysostomou 2018, p. 528.
  • 112 Ibid., p. 520.

61The other study conducted on the remains found in Tomb 213 suggests an incomplete cremation of a male adult between 19 and 34 years of age.111 The author concluded that the “... thermal alterations indicate an in‑flesh cremation, that is, an individual who was burned soon after death and the bones were fleshed at the time of burning”.112 As noted, it would have been possible, if the archaeological record had been more complete, to extract more information as to the rite.

62As shown in table 1, in most of the graves with cremations, anthropological studies have not been carried out to confirm that they are cremations in all cases and, secondly, to provide bioinformation about the individuals and data related to the cremation process, that is, whether the cremation was total until calcination or partial, the same in all cases, etc.

Types of deposition of the human remains

  • 113 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 71, fig. XXIV, pl. LXII, 6.

63In most of the published cases the human remains were deposited inside containers, the only exception being the case of T.19 dated to the 7th century BC (CAI) at the cemetery of Salamis.113 There the deposition of the burned human remains was directly in a pit (in no ceramic or metal container). However, the absence of a detailed description of how the remains were arranged excludes speculating on if they were originally in a leather (or other perishable material) pouch which is no longer preserved.

64Many types of receptacles served to contain the remains. Most were ceramic vessels (especially amphorae, figs. 8‑9) followed to a lesser extent by metal containers (i.e. Kourion-Kaloriziki T.40 and Salamis T.1), or even inside a bathtub (Palaepaphos-Skales T.277: fig. 10).

Figure 8 — CG cinerary urns.

Figure 8 — CG cinerary urns.

a) from Tomb 185 and b) Tomb 188, Palaepaphos-Skales ; c) from Tomb 213, Palaepaphos-Skales ; d) from Tomb 235, Palaepaphos-Skales ; e) from Tomb 19, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; f) from Tomb 89 and g) Tomb 83, Palaepaphos-Skales ; h) from Tomb 431, Amathous.

a and b) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pl. II, no. 5 and pl. XI, no. 1 ; c) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, pl. I, 3a‑b ; d) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pl. LXVIII, no. 1 and 6 ; e) from Benson 1973, pl. 32, K.841 ; f and g) from Karageorghis 1983, pl. CLXXXIV, no. 103 and pl. CLXIX, no. 94 ; h) Karageorghis 1986, fig. 42.

Figure 9 — CA cinerary urns.

Figure 9 — CA cinerary urns.

a) from Tomb 90, Palaepaphos-Skales ; b) from Tomb 31, Salamis ; c) from Tomb 24, Agioi Omologites.

a) from Karageorghis 1983, pl. CXCI, no. 8 ; b) from Karageorghis 1967b, pl. LVIII, no. 69 ; c) from Flourentzos 1986, pl. XXVIII, 5.

Figure 10 — a) Cinerary bronze urn from Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; b) cinerary bronze urn, Tomb 1, Salamis ; c) bathtub and d) bronze bowl with human remains from Tomb 277, Palaepahos-Skales.

Figure 10 — a) Cinerary bronze urn from Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; b) cinerary bronze urn, Tomb 1, Salamis ; c) bathtub and d) bronze bowl with human remains from Tomb 277, Palaepahos-Skales.

a) from Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, fig. 29 ; b) from Pilides 2012, fig. 10 ; c and d) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2019, figs. 13 and 17.

  • 114 Georgiadou 2014, p. 375.
  • 115 Ibid., p. 378.

65As can be seen in figure 8, most of the urns are amphorae with horizontal handles and a horizontal spread lip, according to Georgiadou a very common shape.114 Some are decorated and others are undecorated, and the similarity between the amphorae with vertical handles from Kourion T.19 and Palaepaphos T.235 is noteworthy. The White Painted ware, by far the most common on the island, also seems to predominate among the decorated ones.115

  • 116 Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, p. 492.
  • 117 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 56, pl. LIII, 5‑6.
  • 118 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 4.
  • 119 Dikaios 1963, p. 147.
  • 120 Riis 1948, p. 27.

66Cinerary vessels on occasions were covered by a ceramic lid or bowl. This is the case of T.213 at Palaepaphos-Skales116 and T.31 at Salamis.117 Sometimes the closure of the urn with a metal plate is documented, as well as a bronze container covering bones inside a bathtub (Palaepahos-Skales T.277: fig. 10d). There are other cases of ceramic containers covered by bronze vessels. Examples from Palaepaphos-Skales are a large bowl in Pyre 2, a bronze strainer in T.188, and a bronze lid in T.235.118 A bronze bowl in T.1 at Salamis containing burned remains was presumably covered by a thin sheet of bronze found inside the bowl (fig. 10b).119 This practice was also recorded in Tomb G VIII 522 of the cremation cemetery of Hama (Syria).120

67Research on these ceramic vessels has mostly focused on their type (local, imported, handmade, wheel thrown, etc.). The authors of the study of Palaepaphos state the following:

  • 121 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 103.

The new Skales and the Plakes tombs contained some large neck-handled amphorae, the shape of which, especially the handles, show clear influences from bronze neck-handled amphorae which were popular in Cyprus during the 12th and 11th centuries BC and were used to receive the incinerated remains of the dead, cf Plakes Tombs 142/4 and 191/15 ; the latter is decorated with two highly stylized birds and a bull within a panel on either side of the neck of the crater.121

68It is worth noting that these examples relate to tombs not yet published. However, it is necessary to point out other features, for instance, whether they were intentionally manufactured for a funerary use or if they were simply reused vessels. In any case, it appears that the vessels (mostly amphorae) in general terms were not specifically designed to contain burned remains. Yet questions remain as to their function (transport, storage) prior to their use in the funerary rite, doubts that bolster the need of residue analyses.

  • 122 Benson 1973, p. 21.
  • 123 Karageorghis 1983, pp. 7, 147‑341.
  • 124 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 3.
  • 125 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 75, 95.
  • 126 Gjerstad et al. 1935, pp. 104, 115‑116.
  • 127 Tytgat 1989, pp. 8, 17, 41.
  • 128 Stefani, Violaris 2018.
  • 129 Donohoe 1992, p. 35.
  • 130 Diakou 2018, pp. 239‑240.
  • 131 Gjerstad et al. 1934, pp. 186, 193, 248, 262 and 271 respectively.
  • 132 Deshayes 1963, pp. 79, 96 and 116 respectively.
  • 133 Nicolaou 1965.
  • 134 Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 229 ; Hadjisavvas 2014, pp. 201‑202.
  • 135 Cannavò, Fourrier, Rabot 2018, p. 159.

69It is significant that there are many cases of unburned human remains placed in ceramic containers in tombs in Cyprus. Examples are from the cemeteries of Kourion-Kaloriziki (Benson states the following: “In a general way the occurrences of these pot-interments can be said to begin during the CG I period [Tombs 20, 33, 34, 36 and 37] and to continue through the later Geometric period [Tomb 41] into the Cypro-Archaic and even Cypro-Classical I periods [Tomb 31]”),122 Palaepaphos-Skales (several dated from CGI to CAI, for example: Tombs 62, 63, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 81, 86, 87, 91, 93 ;123 Tombs 185, 191, 200 and 235),124 Palaepaphos-Plakes (examples are Tomb 145 [CGI‑II] and Tomb 147 [CGI‑CGIII]),125 Amathous (examples are Tombs 18 and 21,126 111, 117 and 138127 and Tomb 967128) ; Lapithos spanning both the Lower Geometric129 and Upper Geometric cemeteries,130 (specifically: Tombs 403, 404, 428 and 429 at Kastros necropolis and Tomb 602 at Plakes) ;131 Ktima (Tombs IIIc and VI dated to CGIII and Tomb VIII, CGII‑III),132 Chytroi133 and Kition (tomb MLA 1484 [SIG no. 232] from Kition-Mnimata/Agios Georgios,134 and Kition-Pervolia Tomb 398, both CAI).135

  • 136 And as Cannavò, Fourrier, Rabot 2018, p. 383 point out, its wide distribution throughout the island (...)

70These cases appear to align with the tradition of removing the remains of earlier burials to accommodate new depositions.136 Although no publication offers specific details on this practice, it appears that the bones only correspond to a selection of the remains.

  • 137 Williams 2014, p. 115.
  • 138 Rebay-Salisbury 2010, p. 69.

71Williams interprets the act of placing burned human remains inside containers as a way of offering the deceased “... a new body/identity” bestowing the urn with a symbolic role as a container serving to store memories.137 Urns, therefore, can be understood along the lines advanced by Rebay-Salisbury as bonding elements countering the fragmentation of the bones as they are sealed with lids or bowls, whereas pyres are secured and protected by being covered by stones and earth.138

  • 139 Vonhoff 2016, p. 278.
  • 140 Catling 1995 and Crielaard 2016, who in this very interesting article tries to relate all the tombs (...)
  • 141 Lemos 2003, pp. 189‑190.
  • 142 Kanta 2003, p. 180.

72Bronze vessels probably not originally manufactured as funerary containers are thought to have links to banquets.139 These funerary features are identified not only in Cyprus, but in Euboea and Crete, and have been the object of special attention by researchers such as Catling and Crielaard.140 Examples from Euboea are the tomb under the Toumba building, dated to the 10th century BC, while Tomb 79 at Lefkandi is dated to the 9th century BC. The West Gate cemetery of Eretria is dated to the 8th century BC.141 Regarding Crete, examples come from Pantanassa (11th century BC) and at the cremation cemetery at Olous in eastern Crete (Late Minoan IIIA2‑B).142

  • 143 However, this ritual is not exclusive to cremation tombs, as it has been documented in other tombs, (...)
  • 144 Benson 1973, p. 26f ; Dikaios 1963.

73It is worth highlighting that although these tombs share number of features such as resorting to bronze cinerary urns and grave goods (notably iron objects), they also reveal many differences meaning it is necessary to view them in their contexts and avoid generalisations. Clear examples in Cyprus are two tombs with bronze cinerary urns from different timeframes and contexts. Tomb 40 of Kourion-Kaloriziki, in fact, belongs to the LCIIIB period whereas Tomb 1 of Salamis dates to the CGIIIB. Their structures also differ typologically as T.40 is a shaft grave while T.1 is a built chamber tomb. Moreover, one features the vessel at floor level while in the other it was in a pit excavated beneath the chamber, and Tomb 1 offers evidence of more complex rituals143 (pyre and burial of equidae along the dromos).144 Tomb 1 also reveals traces of subsequent use. Nevertheless, both graves suffered looting and neither of their burned human remains benefited from anthropological studies thus complicating their interpretation.

  • 145 Oestigaard 2000, p. 50.

74Choosing an object of great value to contain burned human remains, an uncommon practice, highlights the prominence of the individual. Oestigaard interprets the act as an offering to the gods where the vessel containing the remains undergoes a transformation from the profane to the sacred.145

  • 146 Karageorghis, Raptou 2019, p. 330.
  • 147 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 11, 15, 64.
  • 148 Ibid., pp. 18, 39.
  • 149 Ibid., p. 38.
  • 150 Ibid., pp. 38, 6‑8.
  • 151 Kanta 2001, p. 60.

75Otherwise, the only recorded use so far of a clay bathtub to contain burned human remains (covered by a bronze bowl) is Tomb 277 of Palaepaphos-Skales dating from CGIII (fig. 10c).146 In fact, the presence of bathtubs in tombs in the cemeteries of Palaepaphos is not unusual as they are also recorded at Plakes and Kouklia-Hadji Abdullah. Clay bathtubs are recorded in Tombs 144 and 146 (CGI) at Palaepaphos-Plakes. The case of Tomb 144 contained a dark layer with human teeth.147 Other clay examples with human remains are identified in Tomb 135 at Kouklia-Hadji Abdullah (CGIII-CAI‑II) and Tomb 35 at Episkopi-Bamboula.148 Limestone bathtubs were also found in Tomb 49 (CGI) at Palaepaphos-Skales149 and Tomb 142 (CGI) at Palaepaphos-Plakes. However, this last case contained no human remains.150 The secondary use of this type of artefact as a cinerary urn is attested also in the cemetery of Olous (Crete).151

Grave goods

  • 152 Arrington 2016.
  • 153 Ekengren 2013, p. 182.
  • 154 Oestigaard, Goldhahn 2006, p. 33.

76The grave goods accompanying cremations on Cyprus are also characterised by great variability not only linked to chronological differences. These artefacts in the publications are often inventoried and analysed according to categories of material type (ceramic, metal, bone, etc.) meaning they are studied in a compartmentalised and isolated manner. Moreover, research has tended to focus on items of prestige to the detriment of the more mundane. The study by Arrington on trinkets as grave goods in the Iron Age tombs of Lefkandi represents a shift in perspective on this issue.152 However, the grave goods form part of the funerary assemblage and consequently their function in this context may not be identical to that of the domestic sphere. Therefore, besides their typology, it is necessary to describe them in terms of how they were arranged and their potential relationships with other goods.153 In addition, as noted above, the time lapse between the time when cremation takes place and the deposition of their remains in a grave can broaden their interpretation. This can, for instance, explain the presence of gifts brought by individuals from distant regions.154 In short, grave goods require analyses taking into account their context in order to grasp the meaning of the ritual. Clarke summarises this as follows:

  • 155 Clarke 2005, p. 4.

The focus is on processes in context rather than objects in context and what these processes can tell us about the way in which human beings negotiated their cultural relations in the past and what sorts of interactions and changes were taking place.155

77It is therefore essential first of all to underscore the tombs where cremation is not the sole type of interment (e.g. T.185, T.89, T.83, T.277, T.90 from Palaepaphos-Skales, T.311, T.431 and T.523 from Amathous, T.1 and T.31 from Salamis and T.24 from Agioi Omologites). However, in these cases it is extremely necessary, albeit difficult, to differentiate the materials of one burial from another as reconstructing the sequence of the deposition of the objects requires a detailed record. Secondly, as noted above, it is likewise necessary to distinguish the original materials in the urns from the funeral pyre from subsequent additions. It is noteworthy that most cases of burned human remains in ceramic vessels also contain other artefacts, mainly personal objects (table 1). Examples are the cinerary urns of Palaepaphos-Skales:

  • 156 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 4.

The grave goods inside the cinerary vases consisted of small objects, mostly bronze bowls, iron knives and whetstones, as well as bronze pins, fibulae and occasionally gold items such as rosettes with repoussé decoration (Tomb 188).156

  • 157 Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, p. 46.

78In this sense its worth to mention the more than 12 bronze fibulae, apparently affected by the action of fire, among other objects inside funerary vessel of Tomb 40 at Kourion-Kaloriziki.157 Consequently, it is plausible to interpret that the body was burned in the pyre with a dress or shroud closed with those fibulae, and, later both the skeletal remains and the fragments of the fibulae were deposited in the cinerary urn.

  • 158 Stech, Muhly, Maddin 1985, pp. 197‑199.
  • 159 Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, p. 56.

79The study of the distribution and arrangement of the goods associated with the cremation offers evidence serving to reconstruct the sequence as well as to interpret their role in the rite. They also provide data needed to contrast their sequencing with those of contemporary inhumation burials in the same cemetery. The study carried out in the 1980s on the iron artefacts from the graves of the Skales cemetery cites no difference between cremations and inhumations. Among those containing these types of objects in greatest quantity are the twelve cases from Tomb 76 (inhumation) and the six from Tomb 83 (cremation).158 One of them is a dagger, it is interesting to note that other daggers have also been found in cremation graves: Tomb 40 at Kourion-Kaloriziki and Amathous T.523.159

Conclusions

80The scenarios presented in this article, as set forth in the introduction, raise more questions than answers. The fact that there are only 22 cremations among hundreds of inhumations leads to the following questions: why were these few individuals cremated when inhumation was the common rite? Why did certain tombs comprise single cremations while others saw the coexistence of both practices? Is it possible that in these latter cases the cremations respond to the same practice of placing the remains of previous interments inside ceramic vessels in order to prepare the ground for new burials, especially in tombs, as we have seen, where burnt and unburnt human remains are found deposited in ceramic vessels presumably contemporaneously? What role did age play in the choice of burial rite? Did cremation serve as a means of social and cultural distinction within a community? Could this rite correspond to a particular treatment of individuals who met their death off the island before being transported back to their place of origin for final deposition? And how can this practice be contextualised within Iron Age local traditions and religious beliefs? Is there any link between resorting to cremation and the process of forming kingdoms since, as we have seen, cremations are found precisely in some of the major centres?

81Responses to these questions related to cremations require a holistic approach taking into account social, economic and political issues, as well as an openness to diverse scenarios and situations that can explain particular cases of a practice stemming from multiple causes. Kanta emphasises the following:

  • 160 Kanta 2001, p. 64.

It may be that maritime mixed populations involving traders and seafarers, mixed with the local inhabitants, were the forming elements in the ‘koine’ culture of the end of the Bronze Age. The transmission of the custom of cremation should be seen within this historical frame.160

  • 161 Thompson 2015b, p. 10.
  • 162 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 322.
  • 163 Karageorghis 2001, p. 53 ; see Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015 for a re‑study of the tomb and al (...)
  • 164 Gjerstad 1979, p. 91, n. 5.
  • 165 Buitron-Oliver 1999, p. 71.
  • 166 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 14, table I.2.
  • 167 Robb 2013, p. 451.
  • 168 Fowler 2013, pp. 514‑515.
  • 169 Gras, Rouillard, Teixidor 1989, p. 156.
  • 170 Voskos 1997, E19.
  • 171 See for example Sader 2019, p. 253 for notions on the social status of Phoenician merchants.

82Researchers have traditionally linked cremation to the elite as the rite involves greater investment, resources, techniques, and is more visible and conspicuous than simple inhumation.161 It has likewise been thought to be a means of social distinction placing emphasis on individuality.162 For instance, the burned individual from Tomb 40 at Kourion was identified as a king given the rich assemblage of grave objects, including the gold and enamel sceptre, weapons, armour, jewellery and personal objects.163 Gjerstad states that he was “… probably one of the leaders of the Greek colonization of the island”.164 Buitron-Oliver, in turn, notes that “it seems more likely that, as Coldstream has suggested, the incumbent(s) of Tomb 40 was a local chieftain rather than a Mycenaean prince, and that the assemblage of grave goods, predominantly of local manufacture, also included some loot of foreign origin”.165 However, it may have also followed other reasons described by certain authors as practical (disease control, facilitating remains transport, necessity of space, accidents), social (identity destruction, creation or transformation, engendering ancestors, veneration of community, integration, destroying the past) or to other functions.166 Cremation in certain situations may have been the only option, for example, to prevent the spread of an epidemic, hence follow a norm, whereas in others it may have represented an intentional departure from the rule.167 In this second case the tradition could relate to identity, as argued by Fowler, depending on contextual issues where certain individuals in certain societies may have received a distinct funerary treatment to stress (or even idealise) a personal facet.168 Another explanation, such as that offered by Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor, is that these individuals were merchants/sailors who lost their lives far from home and were incinerated to facilitate their burial in their place of origin.169 According to an epigram, this appears to have taken place in Hellenistic times.170 This could explain why specific tombs were accompanied by a rich grave goods assemblage.171

  • 172 Oestigaard 2015, p. 368.
  • 173 Assmann 1992.

83Consequently, a funerary rite “is not a fixed set of ritual sequences, but an open field of mediations and interactions between the descendants and the divinities”.172 The rite is thus open to changes according to particular circumstances but within the cultural ‘grammar’ of any given society, in the sense that cultures, like natural languages, are governed by implicit rules.173 Thus, the fact of deliberately applying different practices enables the debate as to why rituals vary, the relationship between cremation and inhumation, the invention and reinvention of tradition, and the ritual transformation of society throughout the development of the Cypriot Iron Age.

  • 174 Cerezo-Román, Williams 2014, p. 246.
  • 175 Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, p. 491.
  • 176 Gjerstad 1979, p. 9, n. 5.
  • 177 See Sader 2019, p. 216 for the question of the origin of the practice of cremation in the Levant.

84In short, the causes (religious, ideological, socioeconomic processes) leading any society to adopt and abandon cremation require further research.174 Although its introduction is considered a phenomenon foreign to the island with origins potentially in the Aegean175 or the Levant,176 we believe it necessary to explore each particular case before advancing its provenance as similar practices take place in different contexts without necessarily originating abroad. This is especially relevant when the origins of cremation in both the Aegean and the Levant are also under scrutiny.177

  • 178 Devlin, Graham 2015.
  • 179 Hodos 2010, p. 11.
  • 180 Mattingly 2010, p. 287.
  • 181 Rebay-Salisbury 2015, p. 34.

85Moreover, positioning the materiality of the corpse at the forefront of changes in burial practices can be a fruitful way of investigating funerary experiences among the living,178 especially in societies marked by the coexistence of individuals of various origins. Hoodos in this regard has pointed out that ethnic groups are not static, but rather “a fluid, dynamic, and contested form of identity, and one that is embedded in economic and political relations”.179 Likewise, it is not possible to pinpoint identity from material culture. The relevant aspect is the use made of material, an aspect highlighted by Mattingly as follows: “To put it succinctly (and pseudo-mathematically): I = mc x p (where I = identity, mc = material culture and p = practice). Practice, in part at least, equates with the performative aspect of identity”.180 Indeed, the coexistence of each of the two practices in the same tomb allows deducing that if the different rites stem from ethnic differences, these did not prevent them from sharing the same funerary space implying they concurred, at least, in certain beliefs and practices. Indeed, their coexistence in a tomb, besides revealing the complexity of the rite, suggests that burials comprised personal components and an individual treatment.181

  • 182 Osterholtz 2020, p. 111.

86Finally, one must recall that this period was marked by very intense links between Cyprus, the Aegean and the Levant with continuous movements of people (e.g. traders, scribes, diplomats, travelling artisans). In this sense, researchers such as Osterholtz have resorted to the concept of the third space phenomenon as a tool to examine these movements.182 However, much work remains to be carried out to attain a comprehensive understanding of the nature and particulars of these relationships, and the field of funerary practices is undoubtedly very propitious for this type of research.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Agelarakis A. P., Kanta A., Stampolidis N. 1998. “The osseous record in the western necropolis of Amathus: an archeo-anthropological investigation”. V. Karageorghis, N. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th–6th cent. B.C. Athens, pp. 217‑232.

Alpe L., Petit T., Velho G. 2007. “Sondage stratigraphique au palais d’Amathonte en 1997. Nature et chronologie du premier état”. BCH 131, pp. 1‑35.

Angel J. L. 1972. “Late Bronze Age Cypriotes from Bamboula: the skeletal remains”. Benson 1972, pp. 148‑158.

Aprile G., Fiorentino G. 2021. “Looking for the invisible: the use of anthracological analysis to reveal ritual acts in the eneolithic cremations of Puglia (SE Italy)”. Quaternary International 593‑594, pp. 364‑371.

Arrington N. T. 2016. “Talismanic practice at Lefkandi: trinkets, burials and belief in the Early Iron Age”. The Cambridge Classical Journal 62, pp. 1‑30.

Assmann J. 1992. Das kultuelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich.

Bachelot L. 2005. “L’opposition du feu et de l’eau dans la symbolique de l’Orient ancien”. Ktèma 30, pp. 99‑105.

Benson J. L. 1972. Bamboula at Kourion. The necropolis and the finds excavated by J. F. Daniel. Philadelphia.

Benson J. L. 1973. The necropolis of Kaloriziki, excavated by J. F. Daniel and G. H. McFadden for the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, SIMA 36. Göteborg.

Blaizot F., Bel V., Bonnet C., Wittmann A., Georges P., Gisclon J.‑L., Tranoy L., Vieugué J. 2009. “Structures secondaires et structures accessoires”. F. Blaizot (ed.), Pratiques et espaces funéraires de la Gaule durant l’Antiquité. Gallia 66 (1), pp. 175‑251.

Buitron-Oliver D. 1999. “Kourion: the elusive Argive settlement and its burial grounds from the 11th to the 8th century B.C.”. M. Iacovou, D. Michaelides (eds.), Cyprus, the historicity of the Geometric horizon. Nicosia, pp. 69‑77.

Cannavò A., Fourrier S., Rabot A. 2018. Kition-Bamboula VII. Fouilles dans les nécropoles de Kition (2012-2014), TMO 75. Lyon.

Catling H. 1995. “Heroes returned? Subminoan burials from Crete”. J. B. Carter, S. P. Morris (eds.), The ages of Homer. A tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. Austin, pp. 123‑136.

Cerezo-Román J. I. 2020. “Bodies among fragments: non-normative inhumations among the preclassic and classic period Hohokam of the Tucson basin”. T. K. Betsinger, A. B. Scott, A. Tsaliki (eds.), The odd, the unusual, and the strange: bioarchaeological explorations of atypical burials. Gainesville, pp. 18‑43.

Cerezo-Román J. I., Williams H. 2014. “Future directions for the archaeology of cremation”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 240‑255.

Charles R. P. 1967. “Étude des restes humains de la Tombe 31”. Karageorghis 1967b, pp. 147‑153.

Christou D. 1993. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1992”. BCH 117, pp. 719‑755.

Christou D. 1998. “Cremations in the western necropolis of Amathus”. V. Karageorghis, N. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th–6th cent. B.C. Athens, pp. 207‑215.

Chrysostomou P. 2018. “Appendix 1. Kouklia-Skales, Tomb RRKM 535, T. 213 Human remains in Amphora No. 3”. Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, pp. 528‑532.

Clarke J. 2005. “Cultural transmissions and transformations”. J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, Levant Supplementary Series vol. 2. Oxford, pp. 1‑6.

Crielaard J. P. 2016. “Living heroes: metal urn cremations in Early Iron Age Greece, Cyprus and Italy”. F. Gallo (ed.), Omero: quaestiones disputata, Ambrosiana Graecolatina 5. Milan & Rome, pp. 43‑78.

Dalle S., Snoeck C., Sengeløv A. Salesse K, Hlad M., Annaert R., Boonants T., Boudin M., Capuzzo G., Gerritzen C. T., Goderis S., Sabaux C., Stamataki E., Vercauteren M., Veselka B., Warmenbol E., De Mulder G. 2022. “Strontium isotopes and concentrations in cremated bones suggest an increased salt consumption in Gallo-Roman diet”. Scientific Reports 12, 9280. Accessed 14 December 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12880-4.

De Haan J. D. 2008. “Fire and bodies”. Schmidt, Symes 2008, pp. 1‑13.

De Polignac F. 2005. “Perspectives et limites de l’analyse de l’incinération dans le monde grec”. Ktèma 30, pp. 173‑181.

Desborough V. R. 1979. “A postscript to an appendix”. V. Karageorghis (ed.), Studies presented in memory of Porphyrios Dikaios. Nicosia, pp. 119‑122.

Deshayes J. 1963. La nécropole de Ktima. Paris.

Devlin Z. L., Graham E.‑J. (eds.) 2015. Death embodied: archaeological approaches to the treatment of the corpse, Studies in funerary archaeology 9. Oxford & Philadelphia.

Diakou S. 2018. The Upper Geometric cemetery at Lapithos. University of Pennsylvania Museum Excavations 1931–1932, SIMA 146. Uppsala.

Dikaios P. 1963. “A ‘royal’ tomb at Salamis”. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2, pp. 126‑198.

Donohoe J. M. 1992. The Lapithos-Lower Geometric cemetery: an early Iron Age necropolis in Cyprus (report of the 1931‑32 excavations of the Cyprus Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Museum). PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Ekengren F. 2013. “Contextualizing grave goods. Theoretical perspective and methodological implications”. Tarlow, Nilsson Stutz 2013, pp. 173‑192.

Étienne R. 2005. “L’incinération : l’exemple athénien”. Ktèma 30, pp. 183‑188.

Flourentzos P. 1986. “Tomb groups from the necropolis in Ay. Omologites, Nicosia”. RDAC, pp. 150‑163.

Fourrier S. 2016. “The Iron Age city of Kition: the state of research 85 years after the Swedish Cyprus Expedition’s excavations”. G. Bourogiannis, C. Muhlenbock (eds.), Ancient Cyprus today. Museum collections and new research, SIMA PB184. Uppsala, pp. 129‑139.

Fourrier S. 2019. “Phoenician necropoleis in Cyprus? A comparative analysis of various cemetery sites and burial practices”. La muerte y el más allá entre Fenicios y Púnicos. XI coloquio internacional del CEFYP. Eivissa, pp. 61‑72.

Fowler C. 2013. “Identities in transformation. Identities, funerary rites, and the mortuary process”. Tarlow, Nilsson Stutz 2013, pp. 511‑526.

Georgiadou A. 2014. “Productions et styles régionaux dans l’artisanat céramique de Chypre à l’époque géométrique (xieviiie s. av. J.‑C.)”. BCH 138, pp. 361‑385.

Gjerstad E. 1979. “A Cypro-Greek royal marriage in the 8th c. BC?”. V. Karageorghis (ed.), Studies presented in memory of Porphyrios Dikaios. Nicosia, pp. 89‑93.

Gjerstad E., Lindros J., Sjoqvist E., Westholm A. 1934. The Swedish Cyprus expedition. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931. Volume I. Stockholm.

Gjerstad E., Lindros J., Sjoqvist E., Westholm A. 1935. The Swedish Cyprus expedition. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931. Volume II. Stockholm.

Goméz Bellard F. 1996. “El análisis antropológico de las cremaciones”. Complutum Extra 6 (2), pp. 55‑64.

Gonçalves D., Pires A. E. 2017. “Cremation under fire: a review of bioarchaeological approaches from 1995 to 2015”. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9, pp. 1677-1688.

Gramsch A. 2013. “Treating bodies. Transformative and communicative practices”. Tarlow, Nilsson Stutz 2013, pp. 459‑474.

Gras M., Rouillard P., Teixidor J. 1989. L’univers phénicien. Paris.

Grévin G. 2005. “La crémation sur bûcher dans l’Antiquité à la lumière de l’ethnoarchéologie”. Ktèma 30, pp. 15‑20.

Grévin G. 2009. “Crémation et combustion du corps humain – apport ethnoarchéologique”. Cahiers des thèmes transversaux ArScAn 9, pp. 147‑149.

Hadjisavvas S. 2007. “The Phoenician penetration in Cyprus as documented in the necropolis of Kition”. CCEC 37, pp. 185‑195.

Hadjisavvas S. 2012. The Phoenician necropolis of Kition. Volume I. Nicosia.

Hadjisavvas S. 2014. The Phoenician necropolis of Kition. Volume II. Nicosia.

Harvig L. 2015. “Past cremation practices from a bioarchaeological perspective – How new methods and techniques revealed conceptual changes in cremation practices during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in Denmark”. Thompson 2015a, pp. 43‑61.

Hatzaki E., Keswani P. S. 2012. “Mortuary practices and ideology in Bronze Age‑Early Iron Age Crete and Cyprus: comparative perspectives”. G. Cadogan, M. Iacovou, K. Kopaka, J. Whitley (eds.), Parallel lives: ancient island societies in Crete and Cyprus, British School at Athens Studies 20. London, pp. 307‑330.

Hermary A. 2000. “Nouveaux documents phéniciens à Amathonte (Chypre)”. M. E. Aubet, M. Barthélemy (eds.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz, 2 al 6 de Octubre de 1995. Cádiz, pp. 1047-1060.

Hermary A. 2005. “Les équidés à Chypre à l’époque des royaumes”. A. Gardeisen, R. Etienne (eds.), Les équidés dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Lattes, pp. 183‑195.

Hermary A., Iacovou M. 1999. “Amathous-Diplostrati Tomb 109”. RDAC, pp. 151‑162.

Hodos T. 2010. “Local and global perspectives in the study of social and cultural identities”. S. Hales, T. Hodos (eds.), Material cultures and social identities in the ancient world. Cambridge, pp. 3‑31.

Iacovou M. 2012. “Cyprus’s political trajectory in antiquity: state formation and the minimum requirement economic model”. G. Cadogan, M. Iacovou, K. Kopaka, J. Whitley (eds.), Parallel lives: ancient island societies in Crete and Cyprus. London, pp. 351‑363.

Iacovou M. 2013. “Paphos before Palaepaphos. New approaches to the history of the Paphian kingdom”. D. Michaelides (ed.), Epigraphy, numismatics, prosopography and history of ancient Cyprus. Papers in honour of Ino Nicolaou, SIMA PB179. Uppsala, pp. 275‑291.

Iacovou M. 2014. “Cyprus during the Iron Age through the Persian period. From the 11th century to the abolition of the city-kingdoms (c. 300 BC)”. M. L. Steiner, A. E. Killebrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE. Oxford, pp. 795‑824.

Iacovou M. 2019. “Palaepaphos: unlocking the landscape context of the sanctuary of the Cypriot goddess”. G. Papantoniou, A. Sarris, C. E. Morris, A. K. Vionis (eds.), Unlocking sacred landscapes: digital humanities and ritual space. Open Archaeology 5, pp. 204‑234.

Janes S. 2010. “Negotiating island interactions: Cyprus, the Aegean and the Levant in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Ages”. P. van Dommelen, A. B. Knapp (eds.), Material connections in the ancient Mediterranean: mobility, materiality and identity. London, pp. 127‑146.

Kanta A. 2001. “The cremations of Olous and the custom of cremation in Bronze Age Crete”. N. C. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην εποχή του Χαλκού και την πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου. Athens, pp. 59‑68.

Kanta A. 2003. “Aristocrats – traders – emigrants – settlers. Crete in the closing phases of the Bronze Age”. N. C. Stampolidis, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Ploes - Sea routes: interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC. Athens, pp. 173‑186.

Karageorghis V. 1967a. “Nouvelle tombe de guerrier à Palaepaphos”. BCH 91, pp. 202‑245.

Karageorghis V. 1967b. Excavations in the necropolis of Salamis I, Salamis 3. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1973. Excavations in the necropolis of Salamis III, Salamis 5. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1978. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis IV, Salamis 7. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1983. Palaepahos-Skales: an Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus, Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3. Konstanz.

Karageorghis V. 1986. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1985”. BCH 110, pp. 823‑880.

Karageorghis V. 1987. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986”. BCH 111, pp. 663‑733.

Karageorghis V. 2001. “Some innovations in the burial customs of Cyprus (12th-7th centuries BC). Ευλιμένη 2, pp. 53‑65.

Karageorghis V., Raptou E. 2014. Necropoleis at Palaepaphos from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Cypro-Archaic period. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V., Raptou E. 2016. Palaepaphos-Skales: tombs of the Late Cypriote IIIB and Cypro-Geometric periods (excavations of 2008 and 2011). Nicosia.

Karageorghis V., Raptou E. 2018. “Late Cypriote IIIB and early Cypro-Geometric tombs from Palaipafos-Skales”. RDAC New Series 1, pp. 491‑532.

Karageorghis V., Raptou E. 2019. “Palaepaphos-Skales tomb 277. More prestigious burials”. Opuscula 12, pp. 327‑367.

Killebrew A. E. 2018. “From ‘global’ to ‘glocal’: cultural connectivity and interactions between Cyprus and the southern Levant during the transitional Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages”. Ł. Niesiołowski-Spanò, M. Węcowski (eds.), Change, continuity, and connectivity: north-eastern Mediterranean at the turn of the Bronze Age and in the early Iron Age. Wiesbaden, pp. 81‑94.

Kourou N. 2019. “Cyprus and the Aegean in the Geometric period: the case of Salamis”. S. Rogge, C. Ioannou, T. Mavrojannis (eds.), Salamis of Cyprus. History and archaeology from the earliest times to late antiquity. Conference in Nicosia, 21‑23 May 2015. Münster, pp. 77‑97.

Kuijt I., Quinn C. P, Cooney G. (eds.) 2014. Transformation by fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural context. Tucson (AZ).

Larsson Å. M., Nilsson Stutz L. 2014. “Reconcilable differences. Cremation, fragmentation and inhumation in Mesolithic and Neolithic Sweden”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 47‑66.

Lemos I. S. 2003. “Craftsmen, traders and some wives in Early Iron Age Greece”. N. C. Stampolidis, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Ploes - Sea routes: interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC. Athens, pp. 187‑195.

Liston M. 2007. “Secondary cremation burials at Kavousi Vronda, Crete. Symbolic representation in mortuary practice”. Hesperia 76, pp. 57‑71.

Lorentz K. O. 2016. “The human remains”. Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pp. 139‑147.

Louca E. 2000. “La grande amphore LM 1441‑47”. RDAC, pp. 163‑168.

Matthäus H., Schumacher-Matthäus G. 2015. “Kourion-Kaloriziki Tomb 40: a republication”. H. Matthäus, B. Morstadt, C. Vonhoff (eds.), PoCA (Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology) 2012. Cambridge, pp. 1‑111.

Mattingly D. 2010. “Cultural crossovers: global and local identities in the Classical world”. S. Hales, T. Hodos (eds.), Material cultures and social identities in the ancient world. Cambridge, pp. 283‑295.

McFadden G. H. 1954. “A Late Cypriote III tomb from Kourion Kaloriziki No. 40”. AJA 58, pp. 131‑142.

McKinley J. I. 2013. “Cremation. Excavation, analysis, and interpretation of material from cremation-related contexts”. Tarlow, Nilsson Stutz 2013, pp. 147‑171.

McKinley J. I. 2015. “Foreword”. Thompson 2015a, pp. vii‑x.

Megaw A. H. S. 1954. “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1953”. JHS 74, pp. 172‑176.

Nicolaou K. 1965. “Γεωμετρικοί τάφοι Κυθραίας”. RDAC, pp. 30‑73, pl. VI‑IX.

Nilsson Stutz L., Kuijt I. 2014. “Perspectives – Reflections on the visibility of cremations as a physical event”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 143‑147.

Núñez Calvo F. J. 2008. “Phoenicia”. C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 28. Leuven, pp. 19‑95.

Oestigaard T. 2000. “Sacrifices of raw, cooked and burnt humans”. Norwegian Archaeological Review 33, pp. 41‑58.

Oestigaard T. 2015. “Changing rituals and reinventing tradition: the burnt Viking ship at Myklebostad, western Norway”. J. R. Brandt, M. Prusac, H. Roland (eds.), Death and changing rituals. Function and meaning in ancient funerary practices. Oxford & Philadelphia, pp. 359‑377.

Oestigaard T., Goldhahn J. 2006. “From the dead to the living. Death as transactions and re‑negotiations”. Norwegian archaeological review 39, pp. 27‑48.

Osterholtz A. 2020. “Collective bodies, collective identities. The development of identity in Bronze Age Cyprus”. K. J. Knudson, C. M. Stojanowski (eds.), Bioarchaeology and identity revisited. Gainesville, pp. 107‑135.

Piga G., Guirguis M., Allue E. 2015. “Funerary rituals and ideologies in the Phoenician-Punic necropolis of Monte Sirai (Carbonia, Sardinia, Italy)”. Thompson 2015a, pp. 97‑121.

Piga G., Malgosa A., Thompson T. J. U., Guirguis M., Enzo S. 2015. “A unique case of prone position in the primary cremation tomb 252 of Monte Sirai necropolis (Carbonia, Sardinia, Italy)”. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25, pp. 146‑159.

Quinn C. P., Kuijt I., Cooney G. 2014. “Introduction. Contextualizing cremations”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 3‑21.

Raptou E. 2002. “Nouveaux témoignages sur Palaepaphos à l’époque géométrique, d’après les fouilles de Kouklia-Plakes”. CCEC 32, pp. 115‑133.

Rebay-Salisbury K. 2010. “Cremations: fragmented bodies in the Bronze and Iron ages”. M. L. S. Sorensen, J. Hughes, K. Rebay-Salisbury, S. M. L. Stig, C. Hughes (eds.), Body parts and bodies whole. Oxford, pp. 64‑71.

Rebay-Salisbury K. 2015. “Neither fish nor fowl: burial practices between inhumation and cremation”. Devlin, Graham 2015, pp. 18‑40.

Riis R. J. 1948. Hama II.3. Fouilles et recherches de la Foundation Carlsberg 1931-1938. Les cimetières à crémation. Copenhague.

Robb J. 2013. “Creating death. An archaeology of dying”. Tarlow, Nilsson Stutz 2013, pp. 441‑457.

Ruppenstein F. 2013. “Cremation burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: continuity or change?”. M. Lochner, F. Ruppenstein (eds.), Brandbestattungen von der mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis zwischen 1300 und 750 v.Chr. Akten des internationalen Symposiums an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 11.‑12. Februar 2010. Vienna, pp. 185‑196.

Sader H. 2014. “The Northern Levant during the Iron Age I period”. M. L. Steiner, A. E. Killebrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE. Oxford, pp. 607‑623.

Sader H. 2019. The history and archaeology of Phoenicia. Atlanta.

Satraki A. 2012. “Cypriot polities in the Early Iron Age”. M. Iacovou (ed.), Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age. The legacy of Nicolas Coldstream. Nicosia, pp. 261‑283.

Schmidt Ch. W., Symes S. A. (eds.) 2008. The analysis of burned human remains. London.

Schulte-Campbell C. 1983. “Appendix XII. The human skeletal remains from Palaepaphos-Skales”. Karageorghis 1983, pp. 439‑451.

Schurr M. R. 2014. “Reflections – Techniques, potential and challenges of cremations”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 235‑239.

Snoeck C., Capuzzo G., Dalle S., Hlad M., Sabaux C., Salesse K., Sengeløv A., Stamataki E., Veselka B., Boudin M., Vercauteren M., De Mulder G. 2023. “Multi-disciplinary study of archaeological human cremated bones from Belgium to reconstruct funerary practices, palaeodiet, and palaeomobility”. Unpublished communication. Kiel Conference. Scales of Social, Environmental & Cultural Change in Past Societies, Session 23: Through the flames and into the grave – multidisciplinary research into past and present cremation practices and burials.

Snoeck C., Lee-Thorp J., Schulting R., De Jong J., Debouge W., Mattielli N. 2015. “Calcined bone provides a reliable substrate for strontium isotope ratios as shown by an enrichment experiment”. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 29, pp. 107‑114.

Sørensen T. F., Bille M. 2008. “Flames of transformation: the role of fire in cremation practices”. World Archaeology 40, pp. 253‑267.

Squires K. E. 2015. “The integration of microscopic techniques in cremation studies: a new approach to understanding social identity among cremation practicing groups from early Anglo-Saxon England”. Thompson 2015a, pp. 151‑172.

Stampolidis N. C. 2012. “The ‘aristocrat-priestesses’ of Eleutherna”. N. C. Stampolides, M. Giannopoulou (eds.), ‘Princesses’ of the Mediterranean in the dawn of history. Exhibition catalogue, Athens, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens, pp. 174‑188.

Stech T., Muhly J. D., Maddin R. 1985. “The analysis of iron artefacts from Palaepaphos-Skales”. RDAC, pp. 185‑202, pl. XXVIII-XXX.

Steel L. 1996. “Transition from bronze to iron at Kourion: a review of the tombs from Episkopi-Bamboula and Kaloriziki”. ABSA 91, pp. 287‑300.

Steel L. 2014. “Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age”. M. L. Steiner, A. E. Killebrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE. Oxford, pp. 577‑591.

Stefani E. 2021. Οι νεκροπόλεις της Αμαθούντας. Ταφική τοπογραφία και τυπολογία από την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου μέχρι την Ύστερη Ρωμαϊκή περίοδο. PhD thesis, University of Cyprus.

Stefani E., Violaris Y. 2018. “New evidence on the early history of the city-kingdom of Amathous: built tombs of the Geometric period at the site of Amathous-Loures”. A. Cannavò, L. Thély (eds.), Les royaumes de Chypre à l’épreuve de l’histoire. Transitions et ruptures de la fin de l’âge du Bronze au début de l’époque hellénistique, BCH Suppl. 60. Athens, pp. 67‑85.

Tarlow S., Nilsson Stutz L. (eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of death and burial. Oxford.

Testart A. 2005. “Le texte hittite des funérailles royales au risque du comparatisme”. Ktèma 30, pp. 29‑36.

Thompson T. (ed.) 2015a. The archaeology of cremation: burned human remains in funerary studies. Oxford & Philadelphia.

Thompson T. (ed.) 2015b. “Fire and the body: fire and the people”. Thompson 2015a, pp. 1‑17.

Tytgat C. 1989. Les nécropoles sud‑ouest et sud‑est d’Amathonte, I. Les tombes 110‑385, Études chypriotes 11. Nicosia.

Vonhoff C. 2016. “Phoenician bronzes from Cyprus reconsidered: intercultural exchange in ancient Cyprus from a pan-Mediterranean perspective”. G. Bourogiannis, C. Muhlenbock (eds.), Ancient Cyprus today. Museum collections and new research, SIMA PB184. Uppsala, pp. 273‑284.

Voskos A. I. 1997. Aρχαία Κυπριακή Γραμματείa 2: Επίγραμμα. Nicosia.

Williams H. 2004. “Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites”. Journal of Material Culture 9, pp. 263‑291.

Williams H. 2008. “Towards an archaeology of cremation”. Schmidt, Symes 2008, pp. 239‑269.

Williams H. 2014. “A well‑urned rest. Cremation and inhumation in early Anglo-Saxon England”. Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014, pp. 93‑118.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 47.

2 Cerezo-Román, Williams 2014, p. 253.

3 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 64.

4 Karageorghis 1978, p. 27.

5 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 136.

6 Stefani 2021, pp. 272‑273.

7 Williams 2008, p. 239 ; see Thompson 2015b for an overview of archaeological research on cremation.

8 Williams 2004, pp. 271, 274, 280.

9 Gonçalves, Pires 2017, p. 1682.

10 For instance, the following works focus exclusively on cremated human remains: Kuijt, Quinn, Cooney 2014 ; Thompson 2015b ; Schmidt, Symes 2008.

11 McKinley 2015, p. ix.

12 Schurr 2014, p. 238.

13 Nilsson Stutz, Kuijt 2014, p. 146.

14 Harvig 2015, p. 45.

15 Ibid., p. 49.

16 Squires 2015, p. 156.

17 Piga, Guirguis, Allue 2015, p. 103.

18 Schurr 2014, p. 238.

19 Snoeck et al. 2015 ; Snoeck et al. 2023 ; Dalle et al. 2022.

20 Dalle et al. 2022.

21 Aprile, Fiorentino 2021, p. 369.

22 Ibid., p. 365.

23 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 13.

24 Testart 2005.

25 Gramsch 2013, p. 466.

26 Sørensen, Bille 2008, p. 263.

27 Blaizot et al. 2009, p. 176.

28 Sørensen, Bille 2008, pp. 256‑265. See Williams 2014 and Cerezo-Román 2020, p. 18 on the different ways of preserving memory.

29 McKinley 2013, p. 147.

30 McKinley 2015, p. ix.

31 De Haan 2008, p. 13.

32 E.g. Grévin 2005.

33 Gómez Bellard 1996, pp. 61‑62.

34 Piga, Guirguis, Allue 2015, p. 103 ; Piga et al. 2015, p. 148.

35 Grévin 2005, p. 20.

36 Grévin 2009, p. 148.

37 Gómez Bellard 1996, p. 57.

38 Dikaios 1963, p. 147.

39 Karageorghis 1967a, p. 244 ; Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 106.

40 See McKinley 2013 with previous bibliography and Liston 2007 for an example from Kavousi Vronda (Crete) of the analysis of an accurate selection of bones placed in an amphora dated to the Early Iron Age.

41 Riis 1948, p. 29.

42 Oestigaard, Goldhahn 2006, p. 44.

43 McKinley 2013, p. 150.

44 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 5.

45 Ibid.

46 De Polignac 2005, p. 181.

47 Williams 2014, pp. 101‑102.

48 Larsson, Nilsson Stutz 2014, p. 64.

49 Bachelot 2005, p. 101.

50 Étienne 2005, p. 185.

51 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 311.

52 Stampolidis 2012, p. 175.

53 Sader 2014, p. 618. See Sader on cremations in the later stages of the Iron Age: Sader 2019, p. 236. See Ruppenstein 2013 for the state of research on the introduction of cremation in the Aegean: the author concluded that “cremations in the LH IIIC period and in the Early Iron Age had a different cultural and societal background” (Ruppenstein 2013, p. 193).

54 Schulte-Campbell 1983, pp. 439‑451.

55 Charles 1967.

56 Angel 1972.

57 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016.

58 Lorentz 2016, p. 143.

59 Hadjisavvas 2007, pp. 186‑187.

60 Hadjisavvas 2012, pp. 227‑235.

61 Gjerstad 1979, p. 89.

62 E.g. Desborough 1979, Kourou 2019.

63 Núñez Calvo 2008, pp. 55‑56.

64 Janes 2010, p. 133.

65 Dikaios 1963 ; Karageorghis 1967b, p. 57.

66 Benson 1973, p. 21.

67 Steel 1996.

68 Karageorghis 1983, p. 8. Also, in the same place around a wall discovered near the tombs, an area with remains of burnt earth and ashes was detected: Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pp. 4‑5.

69 Nilsson, Kuijt 2014, p. 144.

70 Hermary 2000, p. 1048.

71 Christou 1993, p. 752 ; Christou 1998, p. 212 ; Agelarakis, Kanta, Stampolidis 1998.

72 Christou 1998, p. 208.

73 Christou 1993 ; Christou 1998 ; Agelarakis, Kanta, Stampolidis 1998.

74 The piece is currently on display at the Limassol Museum.

75 Louca 2000.

76 Ibid., p. 163.

77 Even so, there are multiple references in the bibliography about this necropolis, as well as interesting interpretations about the population buried in it, in this sense see Fourrier 2019.

78 See Satraki 2012 for an overview of these Iron Age sites.

79 See Iacovou 2012 and Iacovou 2014 for an overview of the period.

80 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 318.

81 Regarding the changes in the typology of construction of the tombs during this period see Karageorghis 2001.

82 Steel 2014, p. 587.

83 Killebrew 2018, p. 87.

84 Georgiadou 2014, p. 384.

85 Ibid, p. 381.

86 Karageorghis 1973, p. 4.

87 Raptou 2002, pp. 122‑128 ; Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, p. 10.

88 Karageorghis 1967a, p. 235.

89 See Stefani 2021 for data on these tombs and other unpublished cremations excavated by the Department of Antiquities.

90 Megaw 1954.

91 Iacovou 2014, p. 798.

92 Georgiadou 2014, p. 363.

93 Steel 1996, p. 290.

94 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 3‑4.

95 Iacovou 2013, pp. 277‑278 ; Iacovou 2019, p. 210, fig. 24.

96 Iacovou 2013, p. 282.

97 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 101.

98 Hermary, Iacovou 1999, p. 151.

99 Fourrier 2016, p. 136. A slightly earlier dating, CGIIB‑IIIA, has been proposed by Alpe, Petit, Velho 2007, p. 19.

100 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 1.

101 Karageorghis 1978, pp. 2‑3.

102 Flourentzos 1986.

103 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, pp. 5‑7.

104 On the attestations and significance of equids, as symbol of power and wealth, in the archaeological record at the time of the Cypriot kingdoms see Hermary 2005.

105 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 116.

106 Dikaios 1963, p. 154.

107 McFadden 1954, p. 132.

108 Lorentz 2016, pp. 141, 144‑45.

109 Ibid., p. 141.

110 Ibid., p. 145.

111 Chrysostomou 2018, p. 528.

112 Ibid., p. 520.

113 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 71, fig. XXIV, pl. LXII, 6.

114 Georgiadou 2014, p. 375.

115 Ibid., p. 378.

116 Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, p. 492.

117 Karageorghis 1967b, p. 56, pl. LIII, 5‑6.

118 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 4.

119 Dikaios 1963, p. 147.

120 Riis 1948, p. 27.

121 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 103.

122 Benson 1973, p. 21.

123 Karageorghis 1983, pp. 7, 147‑341.

124 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 3.

125 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 75, 95.

126 Gjerstad et al. 1935, pp. 104, 115‑116.

127 Tytgat 1989, pp. 8, 17, 41.

128 Stefani, Violaris 2018.

129 Donohoe 1992, p. 35.

130 Diakou 2018, pp. 239‑240.

131 Gjerstad et al. 1934, pp. 186, 193, 248, 262 and 271 respectively.

132 Deshayes 1963, pp. 79, 96 and 116 respectively.

133 Nicolaou 1965.

134 Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 229 ; Hadjisavvas 2014, pp. 201‑202.

135 Cannavò, Fourrier, Rabot 2018, p. 159.

136 And as Cannavò, Fourrier, Rabot 2018, p. 383 point out, its wide distribution throughout the island prevents it from being seen as a practice foreign to Cyprus.

137 Williams 2014, p. 115.

138 Rebay-Salisbury 2010, p. 69.

139 Vonhoff 2016, p. 278.

140 Catling 1995 and Crielaard 2016, who in this very interesting article tries to relate all the tombs with metallic cinerary urns ; although it is very appealing, we think that the exposed examples show a geographical and temporal frame too wide to be convincing. We consider that it is necessary to carry out anthropological analyses before being able to interpret them adequately.

141 Lemos 2003, pp. 189‑190.

142 Kanta 2003, p. 180.

143 However, this ritual is not exclusive to cremation tombs, as it has been documented in other tombs, for example equine burials in dromoi are recorded at Palaepaphos during the Cypro-Archaic I period: Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, p. 64. See Hermary 2005 for an overview.

144 Benson 1973, p. 26f ; Dikaios 1963.

145 Oestigaard 2000, p. 50.

146 Karageorghis, Raptou 2019, p. 330.

147 Karageorghis, Raptou 2014, pp. 11, 15, 64.

148 Ibid., pp. 18, 39.

149 Ibid., p. 38.

150 Ibid., pp. 38, 6‑8.

151 Kanta 2001, p. 60.

152 Arrington 2016.

153 Ekengren 2013, p. 182.

154 Oestigaard, Goldhahn 2006, p. 33.

155 Clarke 2005, p. 4.

156 Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, p. 4.

157 Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, p. 46.

158 Stech, Muhly, Maddin 1985, pp. 197‑199.

159 Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, p. 56.

160 Kanta 2001, p. 64.

161 Thompson 2015b, p. 10.

162 Hatzaki, Keswani 2012, p. 322.

163 Karageorghis 2001, p. 53 ; see Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015 for a re‑study of the tomb and all its materials.

164 Gjerstad 1979, p. 91, n. 5.

165 Buitron-Oliver 1999, p. 71.

166 Quinn, Kuijt, Cooney 2014, p. 14, table I.2.

167 Robb 2013, p. 451.

168 Fowler 2013, pp. 514‑515.

169 Gras, Rouillard, Teixidor 1989, p. 156.

170 Voskos 1997, E19.

171 See for example Sader 2019, p. 253 for notions on the social status of Phoenician merchants.

172 Oestigaard 2015, p. 368.

173 Assmann 1992.

174 Cerezo-Román, Williams 2014, p. 246.

175 Karageorghis, Raptou 2018, p. 491.

176 Gjerstad 1979, p. 9, n. 5.

177 See Sader 2019, p. 216 for the question of the origin of the practice of cremation in the Levant.

178 Devlin, Graham 2015.

179 Hodos 2010, p. 11.

180 Mattingly 2010, p. 287.

181 Rebay-Salisbury 2015, p. 34.

182 Osterholtz 2020, p. 111.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1 — Map of the sites where cremation tombs has been attested in Cyprus.
Crédits M. Bouso.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 542k
Titre Table 1 — Data related to isolated cremation tombs in Cyprus.
Légende Abbreviations: A=Adult, Amph=Amphora, B=Burial(s), Ch=Chamber, cr=cremation, dr=dromos, inh=inhumation, OI=Objects inside the cinerary urn; WP=White Painted ware. * Anthropological study by specialist, initials of the anthropologist: CSC=Carola Schulte-Campbell, KL=Kirsi O. Lorentz, PC=Popi Chrysostomou, RC=Rober P. Charles. Colours: orange=grave only containing cremations; yellow=grave containing both cremations and inhumations, green=bronze cinerary urn, blue=deposition devoid of container.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 652k
Titre Figure 2 — Plan of shaft grave Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki.
Crédits From Benson 1973, pl. 13.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 477k
Titre Figure 3 — Plan of chamber tombs with long dromos.
Légende a) plan of Tomb 19, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; b) plan of Tomb 90 and c) Tomb 89, Palaepaphos-Skales.
Crédits a) from Benson 1973, pl. 4 ; b and c) from Karageorghis 1983, figs. XXXIV and XXXIII.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 522k
Titre Figure 4 — Plan of chamber tombs with dromos.
Légende a) plan of Tomb 277, Kouklia-Skales ; b) plan of Tomb 39, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; c) plan of Tomb 188 and d) Tomb 235, Palaepahos-Skales ; e) plan of Tomb 83, Palaepaphos-Skales.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 523k
Titre Figure 5 — Plan of Tomb 24, Agioi Omologites.
Crédits From Flourentzos 1986, fig. 3.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 517k
Titre Figure 6 — Plan of built chamber tombs.
Légende a) Tomb 1, Salamis ; b) Tomb 19 and c) Tomb 31, Salamis.
Crédits a) from Dikaios 1963, figs. 4‑5 ; b and c) from Karageorghis 1967b, figs. XXIII and XX.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 529k
Titre Figure 7 — Plan of Tomb 185, Palaepahos-Skales.
Crédits From Karageorghis, Raptou 2016, fig. 3.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 512k
Titre Figure 8 — CG cinerary urns.
Légende a) from Tomb 185 and b) Tomb 188, Palaepaphos-Skales ; c) from Tomb 213, Palaepaphos-Skales ; d) from Tomb 235, Palaepaphos-Skales ; e) from Tomb 19, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; f) from Tomb 89 and g) Tomb 83, Palaepaphos-Skales ; h) from Tomb 431, Amathous.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 527k
Titre Figure 9 — CA cinerary urns.
Légende a) from Tomb 90, Palaepaphos-Skales ; b) from Tomb 31, Salamis ; c) from Tomb 24, Agioi Omologites.
Crédits a) from Karageorghis 1983, pl. CXCI, no. 8 ; b) from Karageorghis 1967b, pl. LVIII, no. 69 ; c) from Flourentzos 1986, pl. XXVIII, 5.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 419k
Titre Figure 10 — a) Cinerary bronze urn from Tomb 40, Kourion-Kaloriziki ; b) cinerary bronze urn, Tomb 1, Salamis ; c) bathtub and d) bronze bowl with human remains from Tomb 277, Palaepahos-Skales.
Crédits a) from Matthäus, Schumacher-Matthäus 2015, fig. 29 ; b) from Pilides 2012, fig. 10 ; c and d) from Karageorghis, Raptou 2019, figs. 13 and 17.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/2071/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 531k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Mònica Bouso, « An overview of the ritual of cremation in Cyprus during the Iron Age »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 55 | 2025, 137-176.

Référence électronique

Mònica Bouso, « An overview of the ritual of cremation in Cyprus during the Iron Age »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes [En ligne], 55 | 2025, mis en ligne le 05 octobre 2025, consulté le 07 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/2071 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/151by

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search