Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros50VariétésA unique Late Cypriote Bronze Age...

Variétés

A unique Late Cypriote Bronze Age jar from Demetrios Pierides’ excavations in Cyprus, formerly in the Joseph Altounian Collection, Mâcon, France, and the circulation of Cypriote antiquities in the 19th century AD

Thomas Kiely et Robert S. Merrillees
p. 459-482

Résumés

La vente aux enchères de la collection Joseph Altounian par Artcurial les 17 et 18 septembre 2019 à Paris présente l’occasion d’étudier un vase chypriote de l’âge du Bronze Récent qui est exceptionnel tant dans son cadre historiographique que sur le plan technique. Il s’agit une jarre Base-ring I dont la forme unique doit ses origines à un mélange d’autres types qui partagent les mêmes éléments morphologiques et décoratifs et s’intègrent dans les contextes cultuels. Le vase, dont le lieu de découverte est inconnu, porte une étiquette précisant qu’il provenait antérieurement de la collection de Demetrios Pieridès, homme d’affaires et érudit chypriote de Larnaca, qui l’aurait mis au jour lui‑même et l’a vendu aux enchères à Paris en 1873. Ce fait n’avait rien d’exceptionnel, Pieridès suivait l’exemple de ses contemporains à Larnaca au cours du xixsiècle, en acquérant et en se débarrassant de cette façon des antiquités chypriotes. Cependant il avait en même temps le mérite de se consacrer à l’étude scientifique de ses propres trouvailles et de réunir une collection remarquable qui subsiste jusqu’aux nos jours. L’examen des activités de Pieridès comme source d’enrichissement des musées et des collections privées met en lumière la manière dont le patrimoine de l’île a commencé à être reconnu et étudié, en posant les bases de la discipline moderne de l’archéologie chypriote. Cela souligne le rôle marquant du commerce des antiquités au xixe siècle, commerce qui se poursuit de nos jours sous diverses formes et qui devrait devenir un champ de recherche spécifique.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

This article is dedicated to the memory of Olivier Masson, as fine a scholar as ever worked in Cyprus and an inspiration to all who knew him personally.
We are indebted to David Johnson for having shared with us news of his acquisition of the Base-ring I jar and for providing images of it. Vassos Karageorghis gave this study his blessing, and Jenny Webb kindly read through an earlier draft of the paper. We are also grateful to Hélène Le Meaux for her advice on the Louvre collections, and to Iain Birkett, British Museum, for his assistance with accessing the Pierides sculpture during the restrictions of 2020. We are also grateful to the two peer reviewers for their helpful comments. The authors are alone responsible for the views expressed in this paper.

Texte intégral

1Whether one approves of it or not, the trade in Old World antiquities not only exists but continues to thrive, and the scarcer desirable objects with established provenance become (that is, with histories preceding the UNESCO Convention of 1970 and, ideally, deriving from documented collections formed much earlier), the higher the prices they fetch. A good illustration of this phenomenon was recently provided by the sale at auction in Paris in 2019 of a remarkable Late Bronze Age pithoid jar from Cyprus whose price was estimated at €1000-1200 but which finally went for €10,400. This unique late Base-ring I container was offered by the Artcurial auction house in Paris on 17 September 2019 as Lot No. 29 in Sale No. 3981 of the “Collection Joseph Altounian. L’antiquaire des musées, l’ami des artistes” (figs. 1‑5).1 What makes this item so unusual historiographically is the label attached to the body of the vase stating its provenance: “ILE DE CHYPRE. FOUILLES DE M. PIÉRIDÈS. CH.‑L. FROSSARD 1873” (fig. 6); furthermore, the auctioneers were able to recount its modern history in some detail: “Ancienne Collection Charles-Louis Frossard (1827-1902); Puis par descendance Émilie Isabelle Frossard (1854-1921); Puis par descendance Henry Schloesing (1879-1958); Acquis par Joseph Altounian en 1928; Ancienne Collection Joseph Altounian”. At a late stage in the preparation of this paper, we ascertained that it was purchased by Mr David Johnson whose collection has now been transferred on permanent loan to Kykko Monastery in Cyprus.2 Its authenticity and pre‑1970 collection history are therefore beyond any reasonable doubt, but as we have not been able to examine the vase in person, the following information derives from the auction sale catalogue and from Mr Johnson himself.

Figures 1‑6 — Base‑ring I ware pithoid jar. Ex. Joseph Altounian Collection.

Figures 1‑6 — Base‑ring I ware pithoid jar. Ex. Joseph Altounian Collection.

Images courtesy of Mr David Johnson.

  • 3 Åström 1972, p. 143.
  • 4 Åström 1972, p. 142.
  • 5 Åström 1972, pp. 156‑159, Type VID1d, p. 142 Type II; Bergoffen 2005, pp. 40‑43.
  • 6 Åström 1972, p. 194 Type XVII; Yon 1980.
  • 7 Yon 1980, pl. XIII 3 and 5, p. 79; Caubet, Hermary, Karageorghis 1992, p. 43 no. 27; Yon 1997, pl.  (...)

2Dated by the auctioneers to the late 1st millennium BC, a statement which reflects the lack of specialist knowledge on the part of the dealers while also accounting for its very low reserve price, the jar actually belongs to the Late Cypriote IB-IIA transition, around the mid-15th century BC; it has no exact equivalent however in Åström’s classification of Base-ring I pottery types or, for that matter, anywhere else in the ceramic repertory of the period as currently established. Rather it is an amalgamation of two categories, Åström’s Squat Jar Type Vc3 and Åström’s Pithoid Jar Type IVa.4 Neither of these forms is particularly common but their combination has created an exceptional object which is 25.7 cm. high and well preserved but for a fugitive matt reddish-brown slip. Individual elements, both morphological and ornamental, can be paralleled on other Base-ring I containers, often large like the jug and the crater,5 but more closely related technically and stylistically are the Base-ring I conical rhyta of which several examples have been recorded from Cyprus and Syria.6 They have the same kind of everted rim with central indentation, short concave neck and elongated body with concave sides. No less distinctive is the relief decoration of prominent hatched plastic ridges, with straight vertical bands under the bull’s head projection on two of the specimens and similar, circular plastic collars in relief around the animal’s neck.7

  • 8 Åström 1972, p. 171 fig. 39, motifs nos. 1‑107.

3The decoration on the Altounian Collection jar consists of framed diagonal jab incisions around the indented rim; diagonal jab incisions around the plastic ridge covering the junction of the neck with the shoulder of the body; four contiguous relief arcs with diagonal jab incisions around the shoulder, two each between the knob lugs; a plastic ridge with diagonal jab incisions around the carination on the upper body; and on opposite sides of the upper body, a vertical plastic band with pointed end and herringbone incision above and below two incised parallel horizontal lines in the middle, surmounted by a short horizontal relief band with diagonal jab incisions. While the adjoining arcs are well attested in the range of relief designs compiled by Åström,8 and appear to be entirely ornamental, the T‑shaped motifs on the body are not. Apart from the snake-like elements illustrated by Åström, most of the other relief ornaments look essentially geometric and cannot easily be associated with articles from everyday life.

  • 9 Morris 1985, pp. 283‑284; Karageorghis 1991, pp. 142‑144; Webb 2017, pp. 60‑61.
  • 10 Belgiorno 1996, p. 47.
  • 11 Matthäus 1985, p. 278; Karageorghis 1993, p. 71; Webb 1999, p. 205.
  • 12 Webb 2017, p. 69.
  • 13 Webb 2017, pp. 67‑68.

4There is nothing readily recognisable about the enigmatic T‑shaped design. If it is not purely decorative but symbolic, it is difficult to work out what it most resembles. The very fact that something like it occurs under the bull’s head projections on the rhyta from Ras Shamra suggest that it could have been in some way connected with this protome, but as we can only guess at the significance of the bull’s head, other than the possibility that the container was used for cultic purposes, this association does not take us much further. Nevertheless, the occurrence of vertical pilasters, with or without cross-bars, surmounted by bucrania, on Red Polished model shrines from around the 20th century BC, though some five hundred years earlier than the jar,9 could have been the ancestor of the T‑shaped design on the Pierides vase. As Belgiorno has perceptively remarked in the case of the so‑called comb motif which occurs on pottery throughout the Bronze Age in Cyprus, “it is known that the decorative motifs of the Early Bronze Age full of symbolic significance remained in use for a long time in Cyprus, even without having a religious significance: but in this case the craftsman created the abstract decorative motif from a real object existing at the time, which has come to us in the form of the coroplastic models of the Early Bronze Age necropolis of Vounous”.10 Wall brackets in clay and even bronze with a bull protome on the upper part of the shaft occur from Late Cypriote IIIB into the Iron Age,11 and could demonstrate the continuity of this concept throughout the second millennium BC, though, according to Webb, none has been found in cult assemblages.12 Webb has also drawn attention to what appears to be a pole surmounted by a bucranium with a large disk between the horns, engraved on a stamp seal of Late Cypriote IIIA from Episkopi-Kaloriziki.13

  • 14 Meekers 1987, p. 73 fig. 1.
  • 15 Catling 1962, pp. 125‑129; Åström 1972, p. 477.
  • 16 Webb 1999, pp. 179‑182.
  • 17 Webb 1999, pp. 199‑201.
  • 18 Webb 1987, p. 39, no. 3.

5This is not, of course, the only possible derivation of the T‑shaped relief design on the Pierides jar. At a stretch it could be compared to a stylised tree, like those compiled by Meekers from representations on Late Cypriote cylinder seals, but in all these cases the head or crown on the trunk is rendered in such a way as to indicate foliage, not as a schematic or undifferentiated shape.14 It might also be tempting to identify it with an implement such as a mace, hammer or axe, but, leaving aside the lack of visual correspondence, such a depiction would be not only out of context but out of the ordinary and not really credible. One of our reviewers has suggested that it could have represented a dagger because of its pointed end. However, neither Catling nor L. Åström has recorded a Late Cypriote dagger with a straight horizontal hilt or pommel, which is in any case improbable, though, given the schematisation of the motif, not impossible.15 Identifying it as a stave, staff or standard would make it unprecedented, in the absence of any other identifiable portrayals of such items, and therefore unlikely, but again not out of the question. However, a stand-alone column with stepped capital might be considered a distinct possibility as this kind of monument is attested in Late Cypriote IIC and IIIA at Kouklia, Kition and Myrtou-Pigadhes.16 What would also favour this identification is the fact that the short horizontal bar on top of the vertical band on the Altounian Collection vase is equidistant on either side, like the capitals on the stone columns. There is a further reason for associating this motif with the column as the recorded monuments can all be connected with cult buildings, and the vase types to which the Pierides jar is related, that is, the pithoid jar and conical rhyton in both Base-ring and Mycenaean Wares, occur as well in Late Cypriote cult assemblages.17 Webb has also interpreted a single vertical column of globular elements surmounted by a crescent and disk as a pillar on a Late Cypriote IIC cylinder seal from Enkomi-Ayios Iakovos, showing a congregation of deities.18

  • 19 Åström 1972, p. 142 Type IVa; Yon 1980; Bernhard-Walcher et al. 1999, pp. 86‑88, no. 23.
  • 20 Åström 1972, pp. 292‑306 (Furumark Types 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46 and 47, 48, 49).
  • 21 Graziadio 2017, p. 157ff.
  • 22 Cadogan 1993, p. 93.
  • 23 Inv. 74.51.5854; https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/244729.
  • 24 Åström 1972, p. 322 Type 93, variant.
  • 25 Åström 1972, p. 354.
  • 26 Yon 1980, p. 81; cf. Yon 1983, pp. 179‑180.
  • 27 For surveys and analysis of this phenomenon, see inter alia Pacci 1986; Wijngarden 1999; Sherratt 1 (...)

6It must be more than a coincidence that both the pithoid jar and squat jar, as well as the rhyton, in the Base-ring I repertory derive their shapes from Minoan/Mycenaean prototypes.19 The Mycenaean pithoid jar is amply represented in Cyprus,20 and some types, specifically the three-handled jars, have recently been claimed convincingly as the earliest imitations of Mycenaean pottery on the island.21 This is of considerable significance in understanding the pace and dynamics of Aegean influences on local Cypriote ceramic types, especially since there were very few imports predating the advent of Late Helladic/Minoan III types.22 The carinated squat jar has a parallel in a biconvex specimen from the Cesnola collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,23 described by Åström as Cypro-Mycenaean but classified as Mycenaean (i.e. Late Helladic) IIB/IIIA1.24 There are also occurrences in Cyprus of the Mycenaean IIIA and B conical rhyton,25 but the type was freely adapted in Base-ring Ware by the Cypriote potter, as was their wont, to indigenous needs and conventions, resulting in distinctive ceramic products, as Yon has eloquently indicated.26 Unfortunately the distribution of the imported Mycenaean prototypes is too widespread in the island,27 and the mechanism by which imports were copied or emulated too obscure, to help us ascertain where the Altounian Collection vase might have been made; nonetheless, the overseas link would tend to support the hypothesis that it was made at one of the major coastal emporia during the Late Cypriote IB–IIA period. It was almost certainly uncovered in a tomb, wherever that was located, though as we will show later in this paper, this may well have been in a cemetery in the vicinity of modern Dali because of Demetrios Pierides’ extensive archaeological associations with this part of the island in the 1860s.

  • 28 Perrot 1879a, p. 587; Perrot 1879b, p. 393; D. Z. Pierides in Karageorghis 1973, pp. 9‑10; Masson 1 (...)
  • 29 This seems to have happened in 1822 to judge from several of Wolff’s published accounts (Wolff 1845 (...)
  • 30 See Hill 1952, p. 178 note 2. Pierides does not appear to feature as an employee in the consular re (...)
  • 31 Vaux 1863; Jeffery 1929, p. 50; Koudounaris 2010, pp. 491‑492 (with bibliography).
  • 32 Goring 1988; Masson 1992.

7Demetrios Pierides (1811-1895) needs little introduction, so a few biographical remarks will suffice.28 His father Pierakis, a land-owner and merchant, was a victim of the anti-Christian reprisals in Ottoman Cyprus that followed the outbreak of the Greek Revolution in 1821, in the aftermath of which Demetrios and his brother Pavlos (1815-1865) were taken to Britain by the missionary Rev. Joseph Wolff.29 Demetrios acquired fluent English and became imbued with the Classical orientation of the British educational system. Returning to Cyprus in 1839, he worked as Chancelier for the British Consulate in Larnaca in the 1840s; his loyal service led him to be nominated by Niven Kerr as his replacement as Vice-Consul in 1849, though the appointment was quickly annulled by the Foreign Office because of his rayah status.30 Pierides later worked for the Imperial Ottoman Bank along with Robert Hamilton Lang in addition to possessing various business interests. Throughout this time, Pierides devoted himself to exploring and collecting relics of the island’s past; consequently, he engaged in all the archaeological pursuits of the expatriates and foreign experts who came to Cyprus, shared his knowledge with them all, and wrote learned articles on the epigraphy and history of the island.31 He also played a leading role in the establishment of the Cyprus Museum in 1882. During his long lifetime, he was much consulted and frequented by visitors and local expatriate residents, and universally respected. At the same time, as discussed below in more detail, it is also clear that during his life he excavated, circulated, donated and sold antiquities, whether unearthed by himself or else acquired from others – especially the small but highly active community of expatriates who uncovered the island’s material heritage on a vast scale beginning in the 1860s and 1870s, but also local excavators and dealers who populated the island’s lively antiquarian community, some of whom occur in the following narrative.32

Collection History

  • 33 On the importance of this approach, see Pilides 2012, pp. 7‑8 (with references).
  • 34 https://data.bnf.fr/fr/12459393/charles-louis_frossard.
  • 35 Artcurial 2019, p. 79.
  • 36 Forrer 1932, p. 31, fig. 5.3; p. 33, fig. 6.3; Crouwel 1985, p. 218; Karageorghis 1995, p. 122; cf. (...)
  • 37 Crouwel 1985, p. 218 quoting Masson.
  • 38 Kiely and Merrillees 2012; Yallop 2011; Reeve 2020.

8The vessel presented above is of intrinsic interest in expanding the range of known Base-ring forms, further illustrating the complex responses of local potters to foreign stimuli, and demonstrates the archaeological insights to be gained from studying old collections (whatever their state of documentation).33 The object’s modern history is equally fascinating and shines light on an important period in the history of Cypriote archaeology, when the island’s antiquities were only beginning to attract the attention of Western scholars, collectors and dealers. As already noted, the label on the Pierides jar makes it clear that the vase was once in the possession of Charles-Louis Frossard (1827-1902), a learned Frenchman of many parts, who was a theologian, archaeologist and mineralogist, as well as a collector of ancient objects.34 He evidently bought the Cypriote container at the auction sale on 10 February 1873 in Paris at the Hôtel des Commissaires-Priseurs, 5 rue Drouot, which offered Antiquités chypriotes. Collection importante de verres antiques, bijoux, terres cuites, Provenant des fouilles faites dans l’île de Chypre par M. Piéridès (fig. 7), together with another vase, a jug with trefoil mouth, bearing the same label as the Base-ring I‑II jar and with the same modern history. It too was sold by Artcurial in Lot 39 of Sale No. 3981 on 17 September 2019 in Paris.35 It is not clear from the photograph in the sale catalogue which one it is, and in any case no information about the successful bidder for the lot is readily available. In addition, a Cypro-Archaic terracotta model of a “wheeled throne” is said by Robert Forrer (1866-1947), who had it in his collection, to have come from “Ile de Chypre (fouilles Piéridiès-Fossard, 1873….) [sic].”36 This would suggest that Frossard’s collection was subsequently disposed of by his family to a number of individuals, as well as to his daughter, Isabelle Emilie Schloesing (née Frossard) (1854-1921), or her son Henry Edouard Schloesing (1879-1958), though the details are unknown. None of these objects can be readily identified in the 1873 sale catalogue which gives only summary descriptions of the lots and no illustrations. Nevertheless, Charles-Louis Frossard is not known ever to have visited Cyprus, let alone taken part in excavations with a member of the Pierides family, in this case without doubt Demetrios Pierides,37 and Forrer presumably acquired his antiquity from Frossard, who got it at the same auction sale on 10 February 1873. As such, its presence in Frossard’s possession illustrates the key role of auction sales in furnishing the collections of cultivated private individuals with broad interests, in response to the growing awareness of archaeological cultures such as that of Cyprus at this time. Its subsequent fate reflects another key aspect of the history of collecting, namely, the instability of private assemblages which were often disposed of by the heirs of the original owner with minimal documentation. This also illustrates how collectors commonly circulated artefacts during their own lifetimes, whether by gift, exchange or sale.38

Figure 7 — Title page of sale catalogue of Pierides’ collection, Hôtel Drouot, 10 Feb. 1873.

Figure 7 — Title page of sale catalogue of Pierides’ collection, Hôtel Drouot, 10 Feb. 1873.
  • 39 Cf. Hellmann, Masson 1994, p. 327. If Penon is correct, this is almost certainly Casimir-Jacques Pe (...)
  • 40 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.
  • 41 D. K. Pierides in Karageorghis 2002, p. 15; Koudounaris 2010, p. 496.

9According to the auction catalogue of 10 February 1873, whose information must have come from Pierides himself, “la collection se compose d’environ un millier de pièces provenant de différentes fouilles…Verres, vases et objets en or proviennent des tombeaux. Les terres cuites ont été trouvées dans les salines, près de Larnaca, l’ancien Citium. Déjà, au même endroit, avaient été mises au jour des inscriptions grecques, constatant l’existence d’un temple dédié à la Diane des Rivages (ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ ΠΑΡΑΛΙΑ).” Only 261 individual lots are listed but some include more than one item, such as no. 157 comprising “Terres cuites non cataloguées (figurines, têtes de femme avec des coiffures variées, etc.).” There is, however, some potential for confusion over the sale of Cypriote antiquities in Paris the same year, since a second collection was offered at auction at the same location on 19 and 20 May 1873. Included at the end of a sale catalogue entitled Médailles grecques, romaines, ostrogothes, vandales et byzantines Provenant du Cabinet de M. P***. Antiquités chypriotes. Bijoux et verres antiques, this second part comprised “bijoux d’or”, “terres cuites”, “céramique” and “verrerie”, amounting to considerably more than the 136 lots listed because of multiple entries in each group, again with only summary descriptions and no illustrations. While M. P*** can be identified through an annotation on the copy of the sale catalogue in the Bibliothèque nationale de France as “G. [sic] Penon” of Marseille,39 the origin of the Cypriote artefacts is less clear. This section contains no introduction or indication of the source(s) of the Cypriote antiquities, and none has been given a provenance. It might be assumed that all of this new collection also came from Demetrios Pierides, and that items unsold on 10 February 1873 were being put up again, though the lack of detailed descriptions in the catalogue text make this impossible to determine. Hellmann records an entry by Wilhelm Froehner (1834-1925), a numismatist and antiquities dealer in Paris, in his diary on 24 April 1873, shortly before this auction sale, that “[J’]ai classé et décrit la bijouterie en or de G. Pieridès.”40 This was presumably Giabra Pierides (1852-1928), the second son of Demetrios, who would have been only 21 years old at the time.41 There can be little doubt that the gold jewellery catalogued by Froehner was destined for the auction sale on 19 and 20 May 1873, but if the three items from Pierides’ excavations in Frossard’s possession were also listed in the catalogue for this sale, it is no more possible to identify them than in the one for 10 February 1873.

  • 42 Hellmann 1991, p. 18; Bierbrier 2012, p. 259.
  • 43 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.
  • 44 Merrillees forthcoming.
  • 45 Koudounaris 1972, pp. 92‑93.
  • 46 Pottier 1879, pp. 95‑96; Åström 1965, p. 156; Masson 1990, p. 39, no. 44.
  • 47 Inv. no. N 87; see Kenna 1972, p. 648.

10There is a further twist to this story. On 4 July 1874 Froehner noted in his diary that Jean-Henri Hoffmann (1823-1897), another numismatist and dealer in coins based in Paris and a close friend and associate of Froehner,42 had bought from Dr Tsepi in Larnaca – described incorrectly as a son‑in‑law of G. Pierides – a large collection of Cypriote antiquities for 12,500 francs.43 Hoffmann was the expert not only for the auction sale on 19 and 20 May 1873 but also the one on 10 February 1873. Dr Antonios Gion Tsepis (1843-1905), originally from Hydra, was a health officer in Larnaca who had, according to Dr Francis Henry Hill Guillemard, founding father of the Cyprus Exploration Fund in England,44 two “apothecaries”. In his diary on 25 February 1887, Guillemard recorded meeting with Dr Seppe, or Cheppe, who was also a seller of antiquities, and visiting his house in Larnaca, but evidently came away empty handed as Guillemard thought the objects “not worth much.” Tsepis married Maritsa Demetriou Pierides (1845-1902), the third daughter of Demetrios Pierides,45 making him the brother-in-law of Giabra Pierides. He has been memorialised in the Kyriazis Medical Museum in Larnaca, which was founded in 2011 by Marios Kyriazis, his great-grandson. Tsepis’ collection of antiquities was well known to the local and foreign communities,46 and from it came a Late Cypriote Bronze Age cylinder seal now in the Cyprus Museum.47

  • 48 Possibly Tsepis himself but this is impossible to confirm on present evidence.
  • 49 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.
  • 50 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.
  • 51 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

11Hoffmann was the expert for no less than five more auction sales of Cypriote antiquities in the period from 1873 to 1876. Even before his purchase of the Tsepis collection he produced two catalogues, one entitled Antiquités chypriotes, verres antiques, bijoux, vases, terres cuites, provenant de fouilles récentes faites dans l’île de Chypre, for sale in Paris on 15 and 16 December 1873, and another entitled Antiquités chypriotes. Bijoux, vases en terre cuite et verres antiques. Médailles grecques et romaines Provenant du Cabinet de M. T****48 to be sold in Paris on 22 and 23 May 1874. On the latter occasion the catalogue specified that the auctioneers were unable to put the Cypriote antiquities on show publicly but that the twelve collections on offer came from recent excavations. This detail is interesting in itself, suggesting the multiple owners with access to recently found material all engaged in the antiquities trade. Yet another sale of Antiquités chypriotes. Verres antiques, bijoux, vases, terres cuites et médailles Provenant de fouilles récentes faites dans l’île de Chypre, took place in Paris on 19, 20 and 21 January 1875, at which Froehner was a successful bidder,49 and in 1876 there were two more auction sales of Cypriote antiquities in Paris. The first was held on 22 and 23 March 1876 under the heading Catalogue de vente. Antiquités grecques et chypriotes, médailles et monnaies, at which Froehner purchased a bearded terracotta head,50 and Hoffmann was again the expert for the auction sale in Paris on 28 June 1876 of Antiquités chypriotes et terres cuites d’Asie mineure. There is no mention of the source of these items but on 3 June 1876 Froehner noted in his diary that “la collection Piéridès est maintenant classée”.51 If they did include items owned by a member of the Pierides family, then the anonymity of the sale is interesting in itself. In 1873, the fact that they came from excavations in Cyprus, and from the collection of a notable savant, no doubt added kudos to the group. Subsequent lots (even if deriving at second-hand from his collection) may have been less prestigious. We may of course be dealing with groups of objects from private individuals who simply did not want their identity revealed, for whatever reason.

The sources of Demetrios Pierides’ collections of antiquities

  • 52 Cf. Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, pp. 15‑34; Karageorghis 1965, pp. v‑vi; Merrillees 1976, pp. 101‑102; Ma (...)
  • 53 Catling 1962, p. 160, no. 10.
  • 54 Catling 1962, p. 161, no. 13.
  • 55 Catling 1962, p. 163, no. 75.
  • 56 Catling 1962, p. 163, nos. 90, 91.
  • 57 Catling 1962, p. 164, no. 123.
  • 58 Catling 1962, p. 166, no. 157.
  • 59 Catling 1962, p. 168, nos. 220, 222, 224.
  • 60 Åström 1972, p. 181, no. 5; Karageorghis 1985, pp. 124‑125, no. 103.

12In keeping with the habits and circumstances of the period, it is most likely that the majority of the artefacts recovered by the Pierides family and their contemporaries in the 19th century AD came from the centre and south coast of Cyprus, especially the Larnaca region and hinterland, and that relatively few will have come from the Salamis or Paphos districts which were rarely explored at this time.52 While there were several fruitful Iron Age sites accessible from Larnaca where most of the collectors were based, the number of known Late Bronze Age cemeteries was very limited, and their precise locations are rarely mentioned in contemporary sources, such as Thomas Sandwith’s seminal report of 1877. These may have included Aradippou-Kophinarga,53 Arpera Chiflik-Agios Andronikos,54 Dromolaxia-Trypes,55 Hala Sultan Tekke,56 Klavdia-Tremethios,57 Larnaca-Laxia tou Riou58 and Pyla.59 This list is not exhaustive and the Altounian Collection vase could have come from any one of these sites or even further afield, especially if acquired through agents or the casual antiquities trade. Certainly, there is nothing like it in the residual collection in the Pierides Foundation Museum in Larnaca, except for an early Base-ring II pyxis or squat jar of Åström Type VI which, like the rest, lacks a provenance.60 Nor has anything similar turned up outside the island. It is unlikely ever to be possible to pinpoint the place from which the Altounian Collection vase originally came unless, by any chance, a twin or very similar vase were one day to turn up with a reliable provenance.

  • 61 Cf. Caubet 2001.
  • 62 Kiely 2010, pp. 238‑239. For details of individual items, see the online collection database of the (...)
  • 63 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 586, Pierides to Newton, 16 Oct. 1865; LB 1861‑79, pp. 72‑73 no. 20, 11 Sep (...)

13At the same time, the source of the British Museum antiquities supplied by Demetrios Pierides in the 1850s and 1860s, all of which are stated to have come from Dali or Idalion, as well as the broader history of their acquisition presented below, indicate that this area was an important source for Pierides’ collections and, probably, of at least some of the material he donated or sold to others during his career. Four consignments in total were sent to the British Museum. The first consisted of a group of 29 pieces of Cypriote limestone sculpture from Idalion (GR1855,11-1.1–29) donated in 1855 through the agency of Charles Newton, then British Consul in Mytilene; these were described as being of “Assyrian” style, reflecting contemporary interpretations of Cypriote Iron Age material.61 This was followed by three groups of sculpture, pottery and terracottas purchased by the Museum from Pierides between 1867 and 1869 (GR1867,10-10.1‑30; GR1868,9-5.1‑57; GR1869,6-8.1‑57).62 Although not explicitly stated in the register of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, all of the items in the 1867,10‑10 sequence, made of limestone apart from two terracotta figurines, also seem to have been found around Dali. They are first mentioned in a letter from Pierides of 16 October 1865, where he described them as a “trifling collection of Dali odds and ends,” evidently referring to earlier correspondence which has not survived. The group appears to have been sent to England through the outgoing British Consul Horace White in 1864, who himself had acquired a collection of sculpture and coins.63

  • 64 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, no. 590, Pierides to Newton; also LB 1861‑79, p. 135, no. 16, 9 Mar. 1868; p. 14 (...)
  • 65 Lang 1878, p. 331ff.; Lang 1905, p. 623; Cesnola 1877, p. 82ff; Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, pp. 305‑307; (...)

14The group of ceramic items registered as GR1868,9-5.1‑57 also come from Dali and appear to derive from excavations in the early part of 1868, mentioned by Pierides in his letter to Newton dated 21 February of that year. Here he specifically refers to the large quantities of pottery, described as “Phoenician” so probably Bronze Age, coming to light.64 While they might have been the result of archaeological activity in this area before the deluge of excavation that is usually associated with the consuls in Larnaca beginning in 1868, or indeed gathered by Pierides from other sources, his statement that very little pottery had come to light on the island before this time suggests that excavators had not previously found many tombs, the most likely sources of intact ceramic material such as this. If this is correct, Pierides’ consignment of pottery, and the addition material that he offered to supply Newton and Birch, were probably the product of the intensive explorations that had taken place in the cemeteries around the modern village of Dali since the beginning of 1868,65 rather than of a more widespread process of procurement, whether from his own excavations or through agents. A third group of fragmentary stone figurines was registered as GR1869,6-8.1–57, sent to the Museum along with a group of terracotta figurines from the sanctuary of Artemis Paralia (which was not purchased – see below).

  • 66 Pryce 1931 passim; for individual items, see the British Museum collections online (www.britishmuse (...)
  • 67 Cf. Ulbrich 2011 in the context of material from the collection of Henry Christy in the Ashmolean; (...)
  • 68 As outlined in detail by Ulbrich 2008; Ulbrich 2011.

15While the general provenance of Dali is fairly certain for all the groups supplied by Pierides, he gives no details of their precise findspot(s). The stone sculpture comprises a wide range of types: male and female votive figures, some from life sized or larger statues of various types, with a range of attributes (offering bearers, lyre-players, warriors); numerous fragments of “temple boys” (and one possible “temple girl”) and kourotrophoi; two birthing scenes; several images of deities (Cypriote Herakles/Master of the Lion, Zeus Ammon/Master of the Ram, Pan, and an enigmatic figure with a falcon head holding an offering table); and several animal figurines (bird, dog (?), horse).66 These represent an interesting cross-section of votive material of the Cypro-Archaic to Hellenistic periods, altogether typical of sanctuaries recorded in later controlled excavations in and around Dali.67 Even if none of Pierides’ material can be sourced to a particular site, the range and in some cases the quality of the material – especially some of the large male and female heads – suggest that they were found in one of the major shrines in the area that provided earlier, contemporary and later excavators with material.68

  • 69 Lang 1878, p. 332. On this matter, see Kiely infra pp. 494‑495.
  • 70 BM OP, Report of 8 Oct. 1869 (though currently bound separately from the main sequence); see Kiely (...)
  • 71 Lang 1878, pp. 331‑333. See Kiely infra pp. 492‑495 and note 64.

16By contrast, the 1868 group of ceramics and terracottas has a much wider date range, from the Early-Middle and Late Bronze Ages, including some imported Mycenaean vessels, down to Hellenistic times, in addition to three Roman lamps of the 1st‑2nd centuries AD. Their intact condition strongly suggests they were found in tombs and, as noted above, Pierides alludes to the discovery of the “Phoenician” examples during the tomb-digging frenzy of 1868 and implies that finds of Bronze Age type at least were quite recent. Robert Hamilton Lang relates that the initial focus of tomb digging around Dali at the beginning of the scramble for antiquities around 1868 took place at the base of a hill north of the village with a well at the top known as Laksha Nicoli. As discussed in more detail in Kiely (infra p. 494), the precise location of this cemetery is not entirely clear. Lang places this cemetery between 1½ and 3 miles north of Dali, and was probably close to or on the western edge of the Agios Sozomenos plateau. It is not clear from his additional observation that the local population then began to dig on a very large scale, whether he means just the Laksha Nicoli cemetery or other cemeteries around Dali. The latter is highly likely given the quantity of material of all dates unearthed in the area at this time (even if Cesnola’s claim to have excavated 15,000 tombs in the area is not credible).69 At the same time, a previously unpublished report by Emmanuel Deutsch on Lang’s collection mentions the location of at least four cemeteries ranging in date from the Bronze Age to Roman times at various points north and south of the village which were explored in 1868-1869.70 If Pierides had been involved in excavation in other parts of the Dali area, this would explain the wide chronological range of the ceramic group sold to the British Museum, and in turn hints at the source of at least some of the material in the Paris sales, including the large quantities of glass items which are likely to be of Hellenistic and Roman date to judge from the written descriptions. While this does not exclude the exploration of other sites further afield, it nonetheless indicates the extent to which material spanning a very long period of time could have been obtained within the hinterland of one rich archaeological area such as Dali within a relatively short period of time. Nonetheless, Lang’s account implies however that the area around Laksha was the one in which he and his colleagues initially concentrated their own digging activities, though they clearly extended to other parts of the village hinterland during 1868 and 1869 to judge from Deutsch’s report, while also exploring other sites across the island, though Lang does not name them.71

  • 72 GR1869,6‑4.1‑53; BM Trustees Reports 26 May 1869. GR1870,10‑10.1–25. See esp. GROL 1869‑72, fol. 57 (...)
  • 73 See GROL 1861‑68, A‑K, fol. 187, 28 Feb. 1866, Colnaghi to Newton; see Higgs, Kiely 2009, p. 407.
  • 74 Reeve 2016; also Merrillees 2001; Boys Smith 2020. Cf. Cesnola 1877, p. 83 note *.
  • 75 MEC 1868-1881, fol. 941, 17 Dec. 1873, Cesnola to Birch.

17In this connection, it is worth noting that the pottery sold by Thomas Sandwith to the British Museum in 1869 was all found at Dali, a detail omitted from the register but reported by Newton to the Trustees, while a group of terracotta figurines he gave the following year were stated in another report to come from a site half-way between Nicosia and Larnaca.72 Of the group donated by Dominic Colnaghi in 1866, though mainly from the shrine of Artemis Paralia (or from Kition more generally) (see below), some items were collected at Pyrgos, Idalion and Athienou.73 It is likely that all of these individuals also purchased items from the local population, especially collectors such as Sandwith who does not seem to have excavated to the same degree as his colleagues.74 In this context, it is important to note that in a letter to Samuel Birch at the British Museum, Luigi Palma di Cesnola made a snide remark about a consortium of local Cypriote excavators/dealers (possibly including Pierides himself) which had assembled a large collection of ancient glass.75 What remains unclear is the degree to which Pierides might have employed agents to dig or collect on his behalf, the preferred methods of Luigi and Alessandro Palma di Cesnola, or whether he instead focused on just a few sites and perhaps personally supervised their extraction.

Pierides as excavator

  • 76 Bonato 2019, p. 354.
  • 77 Cf. Bonato 2010; Maillard 2019.
  • 78 Bonato 2010; Bonato 2015; Maillard 2016.

18Much of the above is speculative, but it is important not to exaggerate the extent to which the antiquarian community excavated, with the exception of Luigi Palma di Cesnola for whom this was almost a full-time business.76 Much of the material in circulation at this time, and which informed the classificatory schemes of Colonna-Ceccaldi, Lang and Sandwith, may have derived from a relatively limited number of sites (especially the Bronze Age material). This would also have aided comparison of tomb types and burial customs as well as grave goods evident in the reports of Sandwith and Lang. It is also possible to suggest that the work around Dali displaced earlier interest in remains in the Larnaca area. By contrast, Pierides’ excavations at the shrine of Artemis Paralia by the Larnaca Salt Lake are rather better documented in the archives. In addition to the material from Dali sold to the British Museum, Pierides also offered Charles Newton in 1868 a choice group of 30 terracottas (whole figurines or heads) from the sanctuary of Artemis Paralia, the source of some of the items in the sale of 1873. While the presence of these items in a private collection is in itself unsurprising, given the widespread distribution of the finds from the site,77 Pierides’ key role in the actual excavations is less widely acknowledged. The background is outlined in a letter from the British Consul Dominic Ellis Colnaghi to Charles Newton. As is now well established, the site had been discovered, in the winter of 1864-1865,78 by Charles Jean du Mesnil de Maricourt, brother of the French Consul, Louis François, who then appears to have asked Colnaghi to collaborate in an excavation in the spring of 1865.

  • 79 GROL 1861-1868, A‑K, fol. 183, 5 July 1865, Colnaghi to Newton.

“How I joined my fortunes with those of Mr de Maricourt, or why, when he had the whole place to himself, he left me do so, would take too long to tell. We have had 14 days digging with four or five men each day and the result has been a pretty little collection of terracottas, weakened alas by having to be divided. As I require assistance and have no money to pay for it I have taken on Mr Pierides with me, his local and general knowledge and fondness for antiquities make him very useful. Such portion as falls to his lot he, I have reason to believe, will give to the Museum at a fair price, should the authorities desire to have this collection.”79

  • 80 Bonato, Emery 2010.
  • 81 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 586, 16 Oct 1865, Pierides to Newton.
  • 82 Bonato 2010.
  • 83 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 591bis, 5 August 1868, Pierides to Newton.
  • 84 Heuzey 1923, p. 156; cf. Maillard 2019.

19The reasons that Colnaghi felt too complicated to explain were probably, first, that Maricourt wished to have a partner to share the costs, and therefore the risks, of the excavation, while his withdrawal from the project was almost certainly due to the outbreak of cholera which claimed his brother’s life in July.80 Pierides’ role was explicitly stated by Colnaghi to be both financial and antiquarian. The excavations themselves were suspended because of the epidemic and resumed only in the autumn. In a letter dated 16 October 1865, Pierides told Newton that they were restarted the previous week after a three- month gap, “but without much success.”81 However, the workmen had come on to “extensive foundations” and he and Colnaghi had taken on extra labour “to carry on the thing in the right manner.” Crucially, Pierides added that, since Colnaghi was “on the point of quitting Cyprus…[s]hould the trustees of the British Museum feel inclined to grant a small sum for continuing these excavations and should they deem my services acceptable I would be very happy to do what I can under any arrangement they may think proper.” He furthermore offered to inform Newton of archaeological developments, mentioning in the process the recent removal of the “famous but unwieldy” Amathus vase by the French.82 Pierides, however, continued to pay an interest in the sanctuary for several years. As late as 1868, in the context of discussing Cesnola’s finds from his excavations there, he noted that “I, also, have lately taken eight or ten days at the same place, without any success whatever.”83 Cesnola’s latest activity at the site had also yielded few results, and as Heuzey noted, “plus tard le même emplacement est devenu une mine qui a enrichi presque toutes les collections de l’Europe, sans jamais avoir été explorée scientifiquement.”84 This progressive degradation of the site may also have influenced the interest taken in the remains around Dali, though these represented a considerable change in type and date of material.

  • 85 LB 1861‑79, pp. 111‑12, no. 29, 16 July 1867, Newton to Pierides.
  • 86 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 589, 9 Dec. 1867, Pierides to Newton.
  • 87 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 590, 23 Dec. 1867, Pierides to Newton. The catalogue may be the simple list (...)
  • 88 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 590bis, 21 Feb. 1868, Pierides to Newton.
  • 89 LB 1861‑79, pp. 135‑6, no. 16, 9. Mar. 1868, Newton to Pierides; GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 591, 31 Ma (...)
  • 90 LB 1861‑79, p. 148, no. 40, 26 Aug. 1868, Newton to Pierides.
  • 91 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, 591quat., 18 Sep. 1868, Pierides to Newton.

20The content and tone of the letter of 16 October 1865 cited above suggests that Pierides was well disposed toward Colnaghi and Newton, whether for personal reasons or because of his previous close relations with the Consulate and with England, though he was unable to persuade Newton to purchase the best items from his share of the finds. When Newton replied to his letters on the subject of the first batch of antiquities on 16 July 1867,85 he was apologetic about the delay which, he said, was due to the lack of money with which to buy Pierides’ cache. Pierides was happy with the £25 he was offered, though negotiations over the sale of his share of the Artemis Paralia finds were less successful. On 9 December 1867 Pierides sent his second batch of stone figurines (GR 1869,6-8.1–55) along with a box containing his “best terracottas [original emphasis],” apparently on Newton’s and Colnaghi’s suggestion.86 He followed up this letter with a reminder and what is described as a “catalogue”87 and, while waiting for a response, dispatched the further box of pottery recently found around Dali mentioned above.88 Newton replied, again apologising for his tardy response, and asking Pierides to have the terracottas and stone figures valued independently, such as through Rollin and Feuardent, which proved to be the source of some disagreement on Pierides’ part.89 Samuel Birch, Newton’s counterpart in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, offered £18 for the pottery (later sold for £20), but Pierides declined Newton’s offer of £28 for the 30 terracotta figurines and heads.90 In his response, Pierides mentioned items from the same source in Cesnola’s collection which he noted had been sent for sale to Hoffmann in Paris, stating that his examples were of better quality and that the site itself was now exhausted.91

  • 92 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, fol. 592, 27 Oct. 1868, Pierides to Newton; LB 1861-1879, pp. 153‑154, no. 51, (...)
  • 93 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, fol. 591quin., 23 Sep. 1868, Pierides to Newton.
  • 94 LB 1861-1879, p. 189, no. 53, Undated, copied between letters of 14 and 18 August 1869, Newton to P (...)
  • 95 GROL 1869‑72, L‑Z, fol. 496, 13 Oct. 1869, Pierides to Newton.

21Pierides and Newton continued to argue over the price of the Artemis Paralia figurines, which Pierides believed were worth far more (and suspected that Rollin and Feuardent had made the valuation Newton provided), but also over the stone figures which Newton did not regard as very valuable (and indeed did not want at all).92 Ever the businessman, Pierides nonetheless wrote to Birch offering more pottery and glass.93 In his last communication on the subject, Newton claimed that he had no money in his budget to pay even the £28 pounds he originally offered.94 The decision being final, Pierides asked for the objects to be sent to Charles Hale, American Consul in Alexandria.95 This reason for this circuitous route is unclear. Was Pierides using Hale as an intermediary with the encouragement or support of Cesnola, who would have been of lower rank (though not immediately subordinate as Cyprus was under the broader control of the Consul General at Beirut)? Or was he in fact bypassing a potential rival for the sale of his terracottas and/or hoping to secure a purchaser such as Hale – who was also collector – or one of his contacts? There remains a final mystery. The miscellaneous (i.e. unfiled) archives of the British Museum Department of Greece and Rome preserves three photographic prints of material in Pierides’ collection, bearing labels in French referring to Pottier’s description of this material published in 1879 (fig. 8). Much of the material was later acquired by the Louvre, but how these prints ended up in London is unclear, as is the author of the annotations, unless they represent a later attempt by Pierides to interest the British Museum in this collection, which is otherwise undocumented.

Figure 8 — Photograph of terracottas from the shrine of Artemis Paralia in Pierides’ collection.

Figure 8 — Photograph of terracottas from the shrine of Artemis Paralia in Pierides’ collection.

BM GR archives, Cyprus miscellaneous; image courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Further sales of Cypriote antiquities

  • 96 Brehme 2001, p. 11; Recke 2012, p. 107; Merrillees 2014, pp. 33‑35.

22Despite these drawn-out and tortuous negotiations, the tone of the letters suggests there was no bad feeling between Pierides and Newton, though the surviving correspondence ceases in 1869 and there are no further offers of artefacts for sale. Pierides seems to have turned to other potential buyers or mechanisms, if he had not done so already. For example, forty terracottas from Demetrios Pierides’ collection in Larnaca found their way to the Königliche Museen zu Berlin. They were bought in 1870 by Karl Friederichs (1831-1871), Director of the Antiquarium, who had visited Cyprus in 1869 and already acquired items from Luigi Palma di Cesnola’s stock as well as from Robert Hamilton Lang.96 While this may have been a straight-forward financial transaction, it is also possible to see this transfer as another example of Pierides establishing links with major museums and academics in order to contribute to the growing interest in Cypriote archaeology, but also to enhance his reputation and foreign connections. Whatever the reality, perhaps all this piecemeal selling and bargaining, which clearly did not provide Pierides with what he regarded as an adequate return for his antiquities, together with a sense that he regarded parts of his collection at least as equal to that of Cesnola, may have led him to send a large quantity of artefacts for sale in Paris in 1873. He nonetheless retained a considerable collection and continued to supply collectors and museums.

  • 97 Fourrier, Queyrel 1998, p. 682.
  • 98 CSA 3250/86; CSA 4098/86.
  • 99 Pottier 1879, pp. 86‑91.
  • 100 Pottier 1879, p. 85.
  • 101 CSA 3331/85.
  • 102 Cf. Bonato 2000, p. 111.

23Another lot of Cypriote terracottas from the Pierides collection was bought by Edmond Pottier for the Louvre in Paris in 1887 and 1888 and mentioned above. The group amounted to some 58 items97 and appears to be among a batch of antiquities for which Pierides secured an export permit from the authorities in 1886, though the coins included in this application were not apparently sent.98 Pottier had evidently seen the terracottas in Larnaca during his visit in 1879 as they were catalogued and published by him in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique of that year.99 On that occasion he noted that Pierides still had in his possession 70 objects “qui proviennent à peu près tous….de Larnaca, l’ancien Kition, et en particulier des salines qui avoisinent la ville.”100 This suggests that the group included finds from the sanctuary of Artemis Paralia, though whether these were among the items offered to Newton or included in the Paris sale of 1873 is now impossible to determine. Then, in 1885, Pierides successfully applied for permission to export seven inscriptions which were destined for the Louvre;101 this harkens back to the inscriptions he sold to de Vogüé back in the 1860s and illustrates his longer-term relations with French collections.102 Finally, in 1887, Guillemard visited the house in Larnaca of Mr Pierides, whom he described in his diary as “an antiquity man”, and recorded on 25 February that Pierides “had some nice things in a cabinet but as he was not at home I c[oul]d get nothing.”

  • 103 Kiely 2019a, pp. 25‑26; GR1896,10-18.1‑5; see GROL 1896-1897, fols 491‑493; LB 1880‑96, p. 353 no.  (...)
  • 104 Masson 1990, p. 32.

24Demetrios Pierides died in 1895 and his collection was divided between his two sons, Zenon and Giabra, both of whom continued their father’s practices of collecting antiquities and, in the case of the latter at least, of supplying artefacts to foreign museums, including the British Museum.103 He is mentioned in the correspondence of Percy Christian, one of the archaeological agents of the British Museum in the 1890s, as something of a rival for the finds circulating on the irregular antiquities market which were bought by collectors. Giabra also maintained his father’s scholarly pursuits, for example, publishing an important study on Cypriote syllabic inscriptions in 1907. Even Perdrizet, who was scathing about Giabra’s collecting habits and lack of scholarly interests, had to acknowledge that Giabra Pierides had a good library which he made available to visitors.104

Demetrios Pierides as archaeologist, collector and dealer

  • 105 LB 1861–1880, pp. 148‑149, no. 41, 18 Sep 1868, Newton to Pierides. See also Synopsis of the Conten (...)
  • 106 These changes can be charted in the regularly updated editions of the guidebooks published by the B (...)

25The period discussed in this paper was not a time when excavations were conducted or recorded in a manner that modern archaeologists would recognise as scientific, however much some individuals laid the groundwork for modern methods through keeping inventories of finds or writing rudimentary site reports and then publishing their finds or interpretations in a more-or-less systematic manner. At the same time, furnishing museums with objects not only expanded public awareness of the archaeology of the island in general terms, but contributed to the development of cultural and chronological sequences, albeit often within the context of Greek and Near Eastern cultures rather than Cyprus itself. Charles Newton exhibited some of the pottery obtained from Demetrios Pierides in 1868 ‘next to the early Athenian & Archipelago vases’ in the First Greek Vase Room very soon after it arrived in the British Museum.105 These displays were successively augmented in line with new discoveries, especially those made in the 1890s under the auspices of Alexander Murray, namely the Turner Bequest excavations and other campaigns down to 1899.106 The same is no doubt true or other museums whose displays are less well documented but would have been essential to scholars studying the ancient Mediterranean. The importance of this phase of Cypriote archaeology is often underplayed in modern historiography, especially in the light of the more contextual approaches of excavators such as John Myres, Menelaos Markides and the members of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

  • 107 Vaux 1863; Jeffery [Cobham] 1929, p. 50; Koudounaris 2010, pp. 491‑492.

26However, in addition to being a supplier of antiquities to collectors and museums, Demetrios Pierides seems to have understood the importance of fairly systematic excavation at the sanctuary of Artemis Paralia, if only to maximise the returns from the money and time invested. However, he does not appear to have been a regular keeper of inventories of his acquisitions, and the provenances of relatively few can be established with any degree of certainty, including the Altounian Collection material, though the Dali area is one known source, and possibly a major one at that. Moreover, it is clear that Pierides acquired and disposed of items at different periods in his life, so his collection would have evolved over time in response to new discoveries and new interests. This would have been in tandem with other collectors and dealers working in Cyprus at this time who similarly circulated antiquities. In this respect, the broader arc of Pierides appears to be characteristic of other collector-dealers, though in his case his antiquarian interests remained to the fore. At the same time, his scholarly pursuits were dominated by epigraphy and history, perhaps suggesting that he was content to leave other areas of Cypriote archaeology to his colleagues.107

  • 108 Pottier 1879, p. 85; Masson 1990, p. 38.
  • 109 Hellmann 1991, pp. 18‑19.

27In the absence of firm documentary evidence, it would be idle to speculate on the reasons for Demetrios Pierides’ decision to sell at auction in Paris in 1873 the collection of Cypriote antiquities which included the vase that entered the Joseph Altounian Collection. His overall financial situation is unknown, and he may not have been selling antiquities purely for profit, though he clearly wished to get a fair price for them, as indicated by his negotiations with the British Museum over his best terracottas. What no doubt motivated Luigi Palma di Cesnola, who sold a collection of Cypriote antiquities at auction in Paris on 25 and 26 March 1870, was money, prestige and even space.108 The French capital was also at this time the best known and most reputed centre of expertise on Old World objets d’art and a mecca for collectors, but whatever led Pierides to put up for sale a thousand items in his possession in 1873, he could not have chosen a more suitable or profitable venue. Cesnola’s and Pierides’ catalogues were both edited and published by Hoffmann, but while the introduction to the catalogue of Cesnola’s collection was written by Froehner,109 no author is given for the notice at the beginning of the catalogue for the auction sale of Pierides’ consignment on 10 February 1873. For collectors of Cypriote antiquities in Paris this year must have been a bonanza. Given the very large numbers of Cypriote artefacts sent abroad in the 19th and 20th centuries AD and put into private hands and circulation, it is hardly surprising that they continue to turn up in public, even 150 years later, but they have mostly lost their sources and provenances if they ever had any with them. Nonetheless, charting the activities of collectors such as Demetrios Pierides, including their known excavations at sites such as the sanctuary of Artemis Paralia and around Dali, as well as understanding more generally their methods and motivations, makes it possible to at least speculate on the origins of the more distinctive or site specific items that were unearthed at this time. This makes the Base-ring I pithoid jar from the Joseph Altounian Collection quite exceptional in every respect and worthy of detailed study in its own right, all the more so given the fascinating collection history it evokes.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbreviations

BM = British Museum.

CSA = Cyprus State Archives.

GROL = British Museum Department of Greece and Rome, Original Letters (incoming letters).

LB = British Museum Department of Greece and Rome, Letter-book (outgoing letters).

MEC = British Museum Department of the Middle East, Correspondence (incoming and outgoing letters).

Bibliographic references

Artcurial 2019. Collection Joseph Altounian. L’antiquaire des musées, l’ami des artistes. Mardi 17 septembre 2019-19h, Mercredi 18 septembre 2019-14h. 7 Rond-Point des Champs-Élysées, 75008 Paris. Paris.

Åström P. 1965. “Collections of Cypriote glass”. Opuscula Atheniensia V, pp. 123‑158.

Åström P. 1972. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV. Parts 1C, 1D. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund.

Beer C. 1997. “The kourotrophos temenos at Idalion (Cyprus). New evidence from the American Expedition 1971-1980”. CCEC 27 (Mélanges Olivier Masson), pp. 47‑58.

Belgiorno M. R. 1996. “A Red Polished amphora decorated with a ‘combed sistrum’ from Pyrgos. RDAC, pp. 45‑50.

Benoit F. 1956. “La constitution du Musée Borély et les fraudes archéologiques des fouilles de Marseille, suivies de la correspondance de W. Froehner avec Michel Clerc”. Provence Historique 6, pp. 3‑22.

Bergoffen C. J. 2005. The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana). Vienna.

Bernhard-Walcher A., Dembski G., Gschwantler K., Karageorghis V. 1999. Die Sammlung zyprischer Antiken im Kunsthistorischen Museum. Vienna.

Bierbrier M. L. 2012. Who Was Who in Egyptology (4th rev. ed.). London.

Bonato L. 2000. “Chypre dans les archives de Melchior de Vogüé IV. La correspondance de Dimitri Piérides”. CCEC 30, pp. 100‑118.

Bonato L. 2010. “La France et l’archéologie chypriote”. Thetis 16‑17, pp. 113‑120.

Bonato L. 2015. “De Fénelon à la grande déesse de Chypre. Souvenirs de Léon de Maricourt 1864-1865”. CCEC 45 (Hommage à Jacqueline Karageorghis), pp. 309‑316.

Bonato L. 2019. “Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi à Chypre (1866–1869) III. Les activités archéologiques”. CCEC 49, pp. 325‑356.

Bonato L., Emery M. 2010. Louis Dumesnil de Maricourt: un consul pour la France (1806-1865), Peleus 48. Mainz & Wiesbaden.

Boys Smith S. 2020. Thomas Sandwith. A British Consul in the Levant 1855-1891. Istanbul.

Brehme S. 2001. “The collection of Cypriote antiquities in the Antikensammlung”. S. Brehme, M. Brönner, V. Karageorghis, G. Platz-Horster, B. Weisser (eds.), Ancient Cypriote Art in Berlin. Antikensammlung. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Münzkabinett. Nicosia, pp. 11‑13.

Cadogan G. 1993. “Cyprus, Mycenaean pottery, trade and colonization”. C. Zerner (ed.), Wace and Blegan: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Amsterdam, pp. 91‑99.

Catling H. W. 1962. “Patterns of settlement in Bronze Age Cyprus”. Opuscula Atheniensia IV, pp. 129‑169.

Caubet A. 2001. “Les Antiquités de Chypre au Louvre: entre l’Orient et l’Occident”. V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th Century A.D. Fact, Fancy and Fiction, Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Symposium December 1998. Oxford, pp. 141‑148.

Caubet A., Hermary A., Karageorghis V. 1992. Art antique de Chypre au musée du Louvre du Chalcolithique à l’époque romaine. Paris.

Cesnola L. Palma di. 1877. Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples. A Narrative of Researches and Excavations during Ten years’ Residence as American Consul in that Island. London.

Colonna-Ceccaldi G. 1882. Monuments antiques de Chypre, de Syrie et d’Égypte. Paris.

Crouwel J. H. 1985. “Carts in Iron Age Cyprus”. RDAC, pp. 203‑221.

Forrer R. 1932. “Les chars cultuels préhistoriques et leurs survivances aux époques historiques”. Préhistoire I, pp. 19‑23.

Fourrier S., Queyrel A. 1998. L’art des modeleurs d’argile. Antiquités de Chypre. Coroplastique, 2 vols. Paris.

Goring L. 1988. A Mischievous Pastime. Digging in Cyprus in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh.

Graziadio G. 2017. The Earliest Production of Aegean-Type Pottery in Cyprus. Pisa.

Gunning L. 2009. The British Consular Service in the Aegean and the Collection of Antiquities for the British Museum. Farnham.

Hellmann M.‑C. 1991. “W. Froehner et Chypre”. CCEC 16, pp. 17‑28.

Hellmann M.‑C., Masson O. 1994. “Wilhelm Froehner numismate”. Revue numismatique 36, pp. 08‑329.

Hermary A. 1989, Musée du Louvre, département des antiquités orientales. Catalogue des Antiquités de Chypre. Sculpture, Paris.

Heuzey L. 1923. Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite. Figurines orientales et figurines des îles asiatiques. Paris.

Higgs P., Kiely T. 2009. “Four unpublished marble sculptures of Hellenistic date from Cyprus in the British Museum”. CCEC 39, pp. 403‑424.

Hill G. 1952. A History of Cyprus. Volume IV. The Ottoman Province. The British Colony. 1571-1948. Cambridge.

Jeffery G. (ed.). 1929. [Claude Delaval Cobham] (†. 1915). An Attempt at a Bibliography of Cyprus. new ed. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1965. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Cyprus. Private Collections. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1973. Cypriote Antiquities in the Pierides collection, Larnac,a Cyprus. Athens.

Karageorghis V. 1985. Ancient Cypriote Art in the Pierides Foundation Museum. Larnaca.

Karageorghis V. 1991. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus I. Chalcolithic-Late Cypriote I. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1993. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus II. Late Cypriote II-Cypro-Geometric III. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 1995. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus IV. The Cypro-Archaic Period. Small Male Figurines. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V. 2002. Ancient Art from Cyprus in the collection of George and Nefeli Giabra Pierides. Athens.

Kenna V. E. G. 1972. “Glyptic”. in Åström 1972, pp. 623‑674.

Kiely T. 2010. “Charles Newton and the archaeology of Cyprus”. CCEC 40, pp. 231‑251.

Kiely T. 2019a. “Poachers turned gamekeepers? The British Museum’s archaeological agents on Cyprus 1893-1899”. D. Pilides (ed.), The Tombs of Egkomi. British Museum Excavations. Nicosia, pp. 9‑52.

Kiely T. 2019b. “Auf Max Ohnefalsch-Richters Spuren im British Museum”. S. Schmid, S. Horacek (eds.), “I don’t know what am I myself, it is so very difficult to explain”. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter (1850-1917) und die Archäologie Zyperns, Studia Cyprologica Berolinensia I. Berlin, pp. 387‑441.

Kiely T., Merrillees R. S. 2012. “The archaeological interests of Samuel Brown, Government Engineer, and his circle of acquaintances in late 19th century Cyprus”. CCEC 42, pp. 245‑272.

Koehl R. B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta. Philadelphia.

Koudounaris A. 1972. Μερικαί παλαιαί οικογενειαί της Κύπρου. Nicosia.

Koudounaris A. 1985. “A historical outline of the Pierides family”. V. Karageorghis, Ancient Cypriote Art in the Pierides Foundation Museum. Larnaca, pp. 9‑21.

Koudounaris A. 2010. Βιογραφικòν Λεξικòν Κυπρίων 1800-1920 (6th ed.). Nicosia.

Lang R. H. 1874. “Classification of pottery from Cyprus”. Archäologische Zeitung, pp. 42‑44.

Lang R. H. 1878. Cyprus: Its History, Its Present Resources, and Future Prospects. London.

Lang R. H. 1905. “Reminiscences. Archaeological researches in Cyprus”. Blackwood’s Magazine 117, pp. 622‑639.

Lazarides S. G. (ed.) 2006. Greek Customs and Mores in Cyprus with Comments on the Natural History and the Economy and Progress under British Rule by Magda Ohnefalsch-Richter (Berlin 1913). Nicosia.

Maillard P. 2016. “Diplomates, archéologues et joggeurs aux Salines de Kition. La localisation du sanctuaire « de la Paralia »”. CCEC 46, pp. 265‑274.

Maillard P. 2019. “The terracottas from the Kitian sanctuary of Artemis Paralia: a snapshot”. G. Papantoniou, D. Michaelides, M. Dikomitou-Eliadou (eds.), Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas. Leiden, pp. 60‑70.

Masson O. 1983. Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et commenté (2nd ed.). Paris.

Masson O. 1990. “Paul Perdrizet à Chypre en 1896”. CCEC 13, pp. 27‑41.

Masson O. 1992. “Diplomates et amateurs d’antiquités chypriotes à Chypre vers 1866-1878”. Journal des Savants, pp. 123‑154.

Masson O. 1995. “Nouvelles variétés chypriotes”. CCEC 24, pp. 7‑18.

Matthäus H. 1985. Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern. Munich.

Meekers M. 1987. “The sacred tree on Cypriote cylinder seals”. RDAC, pp. 67‑76.

Merrillees R. S. 1976. “Vassos Karageorghis, Darrel A. Amyx and associates, Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 5. Cypriote Antiquities in San Francisco Bay Area collections. A Review Article”. RDAC, pp. 98‑142.

Merrillees R. S. 1980. “An essay in provenance: the Late Minoan IB pottery from Egypt”. Berytus 28, pp. 1‑45.

Merrillees R. S. 2001. “T. B. Sandwith and the beginnings of Cypriote archaeology”. V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th Century A.D. Fact, Fancy and Fiction, Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Symposium December 1998. Oxford, pp. 222‑238.

Merrillees R. S. 2014. “An exceptional Late Cypriote Bronze Age askos with animal protome in the Antikensammlung, Berlin”. V. Karageorghis, E. Poyiadji-Richter, S. Rogge (eds.), Cypriote Antiquities in Berlin in the Focus of New Research. Conference in Berlin, 8 May 2013. Münster, pp. 29‑51.

Merrillees R. S. 2017. “Cypriote antiquities in Late Ottoman Istanbul and Smyrna: I. Luigi Palma di Cesnola, Cyprus and the Ottoman connection; II. Cypriote antiquities in the Greek Evangelical School Museum and their trading in Late Ottoman Smyrna (Modern Izmir); III. Bibliography”. CCEC 47, pp. 43‑164.

Merrillees R. S. forthcoming. “Dr Francis Henry Hill Guillemard (1852–1933): ornithologist, incidental antiquarian and snob”. Paper presented at the workshop Empire and Excavation. Critical Approaches to the History of Archaeology in British-era Cyprus, 1878-1960 (London & Nicosia, 29‑30 January 2021).

Morris D. 1985. The Art of Ancient Cyprus with a Check-list of the Author’s Collection. Oxford.

Ohnefalsch-Richter M. 1893. Kypros, die Bibel und Homer. Berlin.

Pacci M. 1986. “Presenze micenee a Cipro”. M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, L. Vagnetti (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, maggio e dicembre 1984. Taranto, pp. 335‑342.

Perrot G. 1879a. “L’île de Cypre. Son rôle dans l’histoire. II. Fouilles et découvertes. Le général de Cesnola et le musée Métropolitain de New‑York”. Revue des deux mondes 31, pp. 564‑605.

Perrot G. 1879b. “L’île de Cypre. Son rôle dans l’histoire. III. L’art et la religion de Cypre. Les éléments phéniciens de la civilisation grecque”. Revue des deux mondes 33, pp. 373‑413.

Pilides D. 2012. “The SIMA Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities: the way forward”. J. Webb, D. Frankel (eds.), Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology: Fifty Years On, SIMA CXXXVII. Uppsala, pp. 7‑24.

Pohlsander H. A. 2006. Sources for the History of Cyprus Vol. XII. German Texts: Turkish Period (after 1800). Altamont (NY).

Pottier E. 1879. “Descriptions de quelques monuments figurés de l’île de Chypre”. BCH 3, pp. 83‑96.

Pryce F. 1931. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. Vol. I. Part II. Cypriote and Etruscan. London.

Recke M. 2012. “Deutschland und das antike Zypern. Beiträge zur Geschichte einer archäologischen Disziplin”. CCEC 42, pp. 87‑116.

Reeve A. 2016. “T. B. Sandwith and the Leeds City Museum’s ancient Cypriot collection”. R. Maguire, J. Chick (eds.), Approaching Cyprus. Proceedings of the Post-Graduate Conference of Cypriot Archaeology (PoCA) held at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, 1st‑3rd December 2013. Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 277‑290.

Reeve A. 2020. “The archaeological activities of the Scott-Stevensons in Cyprus, 1878-1883”. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 30, pp. 1‑13. Accessed 2 March 2021. http://doi.org/10.5334/bha-629.

Sandwith T. B. 1877. “On the different styles of pottery found in ancient tombs in the Island of Cyprus”. Archaeologia 45, pp. 127‑142.

Severis R. 2002. The Diaries of Lorenzo Warriner Pease 1834-1839. Aldershot.

Sherratt E. S. 1999. “E pur si muove: pots, markets and values in the second millennium Mediterranean”. J. Crielaard, V. Stissi, G. Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to early Fifth Centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Archaeological Conference held in Amsterdam, 8‑9 November, 1996. Amsterdam, pp. 163‑211.

Sophocleous S., Georghiou T. 1985. “Three unpublished antiquities in the Museum of the Pierides Foundation in Larnaca”. Archaeologia Cypria I, pp. 51‑56.

Steel L. 1998. “The social impact of Mycenaean imported pottery in Cyprus”. ABSA 93, pp. 285‑296.

Steel L. 2004. “A reappraisal of the distribution, context and function of Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus”. J. Balensi, J.‑Y. Monchambert, S. Müller-Celka (eds.), La céramique mycénienne entre l’Égée et le Levant, TMO 41. Lyon, pp. 69‑85.

Tatton-Brown V. 2001. “Excavations in ancient Cyprus: original manuscripts and correspondence in the British Museum”. V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Symposium December 1998. Oxford, pp. 168‑183.

Ulbrich A. 2008. Kypris: Heiligtümer und Kulte weiblicher Gottheiten auf Zypern in der kyproarchaischen und -klassischen Epoche (Königszeit), Alter Orient und Altes Testament 44. Münster. 

Ulbrich A. 2011. “Unpublished sculptures from ancient Idalion: The earliest provenanced find-assemblage in the Ashmolean Cypriot collection”. CCEC 41, pp. 183‑210.

Vaux W. S. W. 1863. “Extracts from letters addressed to C.T. Newton, Esq., by M. Demetrius Pierides and F. Calvert, Esq.”. Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom, 2nd series, VII, pp. 394‑398.

Webb J. M. 1987. “The Cylinder Seals”. J.‑C. Courtois, J. M. Webb, Les cylindres-sceaux d’Enkomi (Fouilles françaises 1957-1970). Nicosia, pp. 25‑91.

Webb J. M. 1999. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Jonsered.

Webb J. M. 2017. “Cattle in ritual practice and iconography in Bronze Age Cyprus”. Journal of Greek Archaeology 2, pp. 53‑80.

Wolff J. 1845. Narrative of a Mission to Bokhara in the Years 1843-1845 to Ascertain the Fate of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly. London.

Wolff J. 1861. Travels and Adventures of the Rev. Joseph Wolff. Late Missionary to the Jews and Muhammadans in Persia, Bokhara, Cashmeer, Etc. London.

van Wijngaarden G. J. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (c. 1600-1200 BC), Amsterdam Archaeological Series. Amsterdam.

Yallop J. 2011. Magpies, Squirrels and Thieves. How the Victorians Collected the World. London.

Yon M. 1980. “Rhytons chypriotes à Ougarit”. RDAC, pp. 79‑83.

Yon M. 1983. “Céramiques Base-Ring”. RDAC, pp. 177‑180.

Yon M. 1997. “Rhytons zoomorphes et vases figuratifs au Bronze Récent”. V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, F. Vandenabeele (eds.), Four Thousand Years of Images on Cypriote Pottery. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Cypriote Studies Nicosia, 3‑4 May, 1996. Brussels, Liège & Nicosia, pp. 49‑60.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Artcurial 2019, p. 71; cf. Bierbrier 2012, p. 16.

2 https://ant.david-johnson.co.uk.

3 Åström 1972, p. 143.

4 Åström 1972, p. 142.

5 Åström 1972, pp. 156‑159, Type VID1d, p. 142 Type II; Bergoffen 2005, pp. 40‑43.

6 Åström 1972, p. 194 Type XVII; Yon 1980.

7 Yon 1980, pl. XIII 3 and 5, p. 79; Caubet, Hermary, Karageorghis 1992, p. 43 no. 27; Yon 1997, pl. X c, p. 60; Koehl 2006, pp. 244 and 347, fig. 47 C5, pl. 59  C5; http://cartelfr.louvre.fr/cartelfr/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=21342&langue=fr.

8 Åström 1972, p. 171 fig. 39, motifs nos. 1‑107.

9 Morris 1985, pp. 283‑284; Karageorghis 1991, pp. 142‑144; Webb 2017, pp. 60‑61.

10 Belgiorno 1996, p. 47.

11 Matthäus 1985, p. 278; Karageorghis 1993, p. 71; Webb 1999, p. 205.

12 Webb 2017, p. 69.

13 Webb 2017, pp. 67‑68.

14 Meekers 1987, p. 73 fig. 1.

15 Catling 1962, pp. 125‑129; Åström 1972, p. 477.

16 Webb 1999, pp. 179‑182.

17 Webb 1999, pp. 199‑201.

18 Webb 1987, p. 39, no. 3.

19 Åström 1972, p. 142 Type IVa; Yon 1980; Bernhard-Walcher et al. 1999, pp. 86‑88, no. 23.

20 Åström 1972, pp. 292‑306 (Furumark Types 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46 and 47, 48, 49).

21 Graziadio 2017, p. 157ff.

22 Cadogan 1993, p. 93.

23 Inv. 74.51.5854; https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/244729.

24 Åström 1972, p. 322 Type 93, variant.

25 Åström 1972, p. 354.

26 Yon 1980, p. 81; cf. Yon 1983, pp. 179‑180.

27 For surveys and analysis of this phenomenon, see inter alia Pacci 1986; Wijngarden 1999; Sherratt 1999; Steel 1998; Steel 2004.

28 Perrot 1879a, p. 587; Perrot 1879b, p. 393; D. Z. Pierides in Karageorghis 1973, pp. 9‑10; Masson 1983, p. 18; Koudounaris 1985, p. 20; Sophocleous, Georghiou 1985; Bonato 2000; Tatton-Brown 2001, p. 169; D. Z. Pierides in Karageorghis 2002, pp. 14‑15; Severis 2002, pp. 108 n. 106, 112 n. 110, 535 et 537 n. 122, 948, 971‑972; Lazarides 2006, p. 287; Pohlsander 2006, p. 67; Koudounaris 2010, pp. 491‑492; Merrillees 2017, pp. 91‑92.

29 This seems to have happened in 1822 to judge from several of Wolff’s published accounts (Wolff 1845, p. 29; Wolff 1861, pp. 172‑173) though another section of Wolff 1861 (p. 255) states that Pavlos was taken from the island in 1828.

30 See Hill 1952, p. 178 note 2. Pierides does not appear to feature as an employee in the consular records under Kerr’s successor Antonio Palma, suggesting that he relinquished his position as Chancelier. On British foreign policy to increasingly favour British consular appointees rather than locals or Levantines, see Gunning 2009, chapter 1 passim. As such, and contrary to some published statements, Pierides never formally served as Vice-Consul, except perhaps in the absence of Kerr when, as Chancelier, he would have been second-in-command. It is possible that this tradition confuses Demetrios him with his son Zenon who served as acting Vice-Consul after the sudden death in office of William Riddell in 1876.

31 Vaux 1863; Jeffery 1929, p. 50; Koudounaris 2010, pp. 491‑492 (with bibliography).

32 Goring 1988; Masson 1992.

33 On the importance of this approach, see Pilides 2012, pp. 7‑8 (with references).

34 https://data.bnf.fr/fr/12459393/charles-louis_frossard.

35 Artcurial 2019, p. 79.

36 Forrer 1932, p. 31, fig. 5.3; p. 33, fig. 6.3; Crouwel 1985, p. 218; Karageorghis 1995, p. 122; cf. Merrillees 1976, pp. 106, 124.

37 Crouwel 1985, p. 218 quoting Masson.

38 Kiely and Merrillees 2012; Yallop 2011; Reeve 2020.

39 Cf. Hellmann, Masson 1994, p. 327. If Penon is correct, this is almost certainly Casimir-Jacques Penon (1819-1892), archaeologist and numismatist, Conservateur du Musée des Antiquités at the Château Borély, Marseille, from 1863 until 1893 (https://data.bnf.fr/fr/10223943/casimir-jacques_penon; Benoit 1956 passim; Merrillees 1980, pp. 20‑22). He wrote a series of articles on the Byzantine coins in his collection for the Revue de la Numismatique Belge vols. 1‑2 (third series) and a monograph on the same subject in 1862. Incidentally, Penon purchased several pieces of Cypriote sculpture at the Cesnola sale in Paris in 1870, while additional items from the island were acquired from other sources, such as the Trabaud collection, by him or his assistant Hippolyte Augier (d. 1889) (Benoit 1956).

40 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

41 D. K. Pierides in Karageorghis 2002, p. 15; Koudounaris 2010, p. 496.

42 Hellmann 1991, p. 18; Bierbrier 2012, p. 259.

43 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

44 Merrillees forthcoming.

45 Koudounaris 1972, pp. 92‑93.

46 Pottier 1879, pp. 95‑96; Åström 1965, p. 156; Masson 1990, p. 39, no. 44.

47 Inv. no. N 87; see Kenna 1972, p. 648.

48 Possibly Tsepis himself but this is impossible to confirm on present evidence.

49 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

50 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

51 Hellmann 1991, p. 19.

52 Cf. Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, pp. 15‑34; Karageorghis 1965, pp. v‑vi; Merrillees 1976, pp. 101‑102; Masson 1995, p. 9.

53 Catling 1962, p. 160, no. 10.

54 Catling 1962, p. 161, no. 13.

55 Catling 1962, p. 163, no. 75.

56 Catling 1962, p. 163, nos. 90, 91.

57 Catling 1962, p. 164, no. 123.

58 Catling 1962, p. 166, no. 157.

59 Catling 1962, p. 168, nos. 220, 222, 224.

60 Åström 1972, p. 181, no. 5; Karageorghis 1985, pp. 124‑125, no. 103.

61 Cf. Caubet 2001.

62 Kiely 2010, pp. 238‑239. For details of individual items, see the online collection database of the British Museum (www.britishmuseum.org)

63 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 586, Pierides to Newton, 16 Oct. 1865; LB 1861‑79, pp. 72‑73 no. 20, 11 Sep. 1865, Newton to Pierides; see Tatton-Brown 2001, p. 178. On White, see also Bonato 2000; Kiely infra p. 491 n. 44.

64 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, no. 590, Pierides to Newton; also LB 1861‑79, p. 135, no. 16, 9 Mar. 1868; p. 141, no. 27, 4 Ap. 186; p. 143, no. 31, 1 July 1868, Newton to Pierides. On contemporary uses of the term “Phoenician”, see Sandwith 1877 and Lang 1874.

65 Lang 1878, p. 331ff.; Lang 1905, p. 623; Cesnola 1877, p. 82ff; Colonna-Ceccaldi 1882, pp. 305‑307; Sandwith 1877; see Bonato 2019, pp. 333‑336.

66 Pryce 1931 passim; for individual items, see the British Museum collections online (www.britishmuseum.org).

67 Cf. Ulbrich 2011 in the context of material from the collection of Henry Christy in the Ashmolean; also Beer 1997 on the kourotrophos sanctuary at Idalion.

68 As outlined in detail by Ulbrich 2008; Ulbrich 2011.

69 Lang 1878, p. 332. On this matter, see Kiely infra pp. 494‑495.

70 BM OP, Report of 8 Oct. 1869 (though currently bound separately from the main sequence); see Kiely infra p. 503 n. 106.

71 Lang 1878, pp. 331‑333. See Kiely infra pp. 492‑495 and note 64.

72 GR1869,6‑4.1‑53; BM Trustees Reports 26 May 1869. GR1870,10‑10.1–25. See esp. GROL 1869‑72, fol. 574, 21 June 1870. Speculatively, this may have been the site of Goshi where Lang obtained a terracotta figurine later donated to the Louvre (Hermary 1989, no. 110; Fourrier, Queyrel 1998, no. 190) and which was later explored by Max Ohnefalsch Richter (1893, p. 14 site no. 20; see Kiely 2019b, pp. 423‑426).

73 See GROL 1861‑68, A‑K, fol. 187, 28 Feb. 1866, Colnaghi to Newton; see Higgs, Kiely 2009, p. 407.

74 Reeve 2016; also Merrillees 2001; Boys Smith 2020. Cf. Cesnola 1877, p. 83 note *.

75 MEC 1868-1881, fol. 941, 17 Dec. 1873, Cesnola to Birch.

76 Bonato 2019, p. 354.

77 Cf. Bonato 2010; Maillard 2019.

78 Bonato 2010; Bonato 2015; Maillard 2016.

79 GROL 1861-1868, A‑K, fol. 183, 5 July 1865, Colnaghi to Newton.

80 Bonato, Emery 2010.

81 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 586, 16 Oct 1865, Pierides to Newton.

82 Bonato 2010.

83 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 591bis, 5 August 1868, Pierides to Newton.

84 Heuzey 1923, p. 156; cf. Maillard 2019.

85 LB 1861‑79, pp. 111‑12, no. 29, 16 July 1867, Newton to Pierides.

86 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 589, 9 Dec. 1867, Pierides to Newton.

87 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 590, 23 Dec. 1867, Pierides to Newton. The catalogue may be the simple list appended to Pierides letter requesting the return of the items (see below n. 95).

88 GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 590bis, 21 Feb. 1868, Pierides to Newton.

89 LB 1861‑79, pp. 135‑6, no. 16, 9. Mar. 1868, Newton to Pierides; GROL 1861‑68, L‑Z, fol. 591, 31 Mar. 1868, Pierides to Newton

90 LB 1861‑79, p. 148, no. 40, 26 Aug. 1868, Newton to Pierides.

91 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, 591quat., 18 Sep. 1868, Pierides to Newton.

92 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, fol. 592, 27 Oct. 1868, Pierides to Newton; LB 1861-1879, pp. 153‑154, no. 51, 21 Nov. 1868, Newton to Pierides.

93 GROL 1861-1868, L‑Z, fol. 591quin., 23 Sep. 1868, Pierides to Newton.

94 LB 1861-1879, p. 189, no. 53, Undated, copied between letters of 14 and 18 August 1869, Newton to Pierides.

95 GROL 1869‑72, L‑Z, fol. 496, 13 Oct. 1869, Pierides to Newton.

96 Brehme 2001, p. 11; Recke 2012, p. 107; Merrillees 2014, pp. 33‑35.

97 Fourrier, Queyrel 1998, p. 682.

98 CSA 3250/86; CSA 4098/86.

99 Pottier 1879, pp. 86‑91.

100 Pottier 1879, p. 85.

101 CSA 3331/85.

102 Cf. Bonato 2000, p. 111.

103 Kiely 2019a, pp. 25‑26; GR1896,10-18.1‑5; see GROL 1896-1897, fols 491‑493; LB 1880‑96, p. 353 no. 41, 19 June 1896; p. 355, no. 47, 21 July 1896, G. Pierides to Alexander Murray.

104 Masson 1990, p. 32.

105 LB 1861–1880, pp. 148‑149, no. 41, 18 Sep 1868, Newton to Pierides. See also Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities: Guide to the Greek Vase Room, 3rd ed. (1869), p. 7. We have not been able to consult the second edition of 1868 which may already have included this material.

106 These changes can be charted in the regularly updated editions of the guidebooks published by the British Museum. Pages 146‑149 of the 1899 edition of the guidebook to the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, written by A. H. Smith under the guidance of A. S. Murray, represents an expanded sequence of Cypriote material first established by Newton in 1868-1869 and steadily augmented down to the end of the 19th century.

107 Vaux 1863; Jeffery [Cobham] 1929, p. 50; Koudounaris 2010, pp. 491‑492.

108 Pottier 1879, p. 85; Masson 1990, p. 38.

109 Hellmann 1991, pp. 18‑19.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figures 1‑6 — Base‑ring I ware pithoid jar. Ex. Joseph Altounian Collection.
Crédits Images courtesy of Mr David Johnson.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/535/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 488k
Titre Figure 7 — Title page of sale catalogue of Pierides’ collection, Hôtel Drouot, 10 Feb. 1873.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/535/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 408k
Titre Figure 8 — Photograph of terracottas from the shrine of Artemis Paralia in Pierides’ collection.
Crédits BM GR archives, Cyprus miscellaneous; image courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/535/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 402k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Thomas Kiely et Robert S. Merrillees, « A unique Late Cypriote Bronze Age jar from Demetrios Pierides’ excavations in Cyprus, formerly in the Joseph Altounian Collection, Mâcon, France, and the circulation of Cypriote antiquities in the 19th century AD »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 50 | 2020, 459-482.

Référence électronique

Thomas Kiely et Robert S. Merrillees, « A unique Late Cypriote Bronze Age jar from Demetrios Pierides’ excavations in Cyprus, formerly in the Joseph Altounian Collection, Mâcon, France, and the circulation of Cypriote antiquities in the 19th century AD »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes [En ligne], 50 | 2020, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2022, consulté le 16 mai 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/535 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/cchyp.535

Haut de page

Auteurs

Thomas Kiely

British Museum

Articles du même auteur

Robert S. Merrillees

Articles du même auteur

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 « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search