is attested in Cyprus even before the Persian period, and it is largely independent from the incidental political situation (the Achaemenid domination over the island), but it is the result of a wide and deep circulation of luxury items, values, and ideologies between elites. Hence, connecting Persian influences on Cypriot arts to the Achaemenid control of the island is misleading, and contributes to hide other channels, such as Phoenician or Ionian art, which are, in the case of Cyprus, of the greatest relevance.
Against this background of wide circulation of styles, techniques, and iconographic themes, some Cypriot peculiarities are particularly evident: the limestone and terracotta sculpture, a flourishing art in Cyprus during the late Archaic and Classical periods, allows us to detect their most important features (Hermary 1989a). Even if more and more influenced by Greek art, particularly since the end of the fifth century BCE, and in spite of the occasional adoption of some Persian elements (Zournatzi 2008: pp. 241–247), Cypriot statues are essentially devoted to worship, and not to funerary practices (as commonly in the southeastern Mediterranean) or to the celebration of heroes and athletes (as in the Greek word). Cypriot statues, characterized by a great attention to the portrait, seem to elaborate Greek technical novelties and to translate them into the local limestone and terracotta products, expression of the devotion to the traditional Cypriot gods (especially in the great sanctuaries of the Golgoi and Idalion region; Hermary and Mertens 2014).
Cypriot elites, the purchasers of the great statues that populated the urban and extra‐urban sanctuaries of the island, wished to be represented with royal or noble attributes which were normally taken from the Egyptian and Persian repertoire (Satraki 2013): the Egyptian double‐crown with uraeus of a limestone head from the Persian siege ramp of Palaepaphos (now in the Liverpool Museum, KA730) is a mark of kingship (Maier 1989b), as is the mitra, which A. Hermary has identified on a limestone head of the Louvre museum (AM 2835; Hermary 1989b: p. 223), but which is often represented even on smaller terracotta figurines (Hermary 1989a: pp. 180–181; Cannavò 2010: p. 63 note 71 with references; Satraki 2013: p. 132). The mixed, hybridized character of these figures, putting together Persian, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek elements, is particularly evident, and they have been described as an “écho hellénisé de l’image du Grand Roi ou de hauts personnages de l’empire achéménide” (Hermary 1989a: p. 181).
In this perspective, the Cypriot loans to the Achaemenid civilization are several, and not only in sculpture: hoods with lappets, kandys (coat with sleeves), anaxyrides (long trousers) are represented on small limestone and terracotta figurines together with the typical Persian short sword, the akinakes (Zournatzi 2008: pp. 241–242). Representations of torques and earrings of Achaemenid type are known on some numismatic issues of the kingdom of Salamis (Markou 2006; here Figure 19.4), representing the king with his royal and sacred attributes: here again, typical Achaemenid elements denoting high status are integrated and reinterpreted to express Cypriot conception of kingship, the legitimacy of the royal status, and the tight link with the divinity (sometimes represented on the right face); in the most ancient issues, this representation of kingship is associated with what is presumed to be a portrait of Evagoras II with a Persian tiara (Destrooper‐Georgiades 2000: p. 235, pl. 37 no. 7–8; Markou 2006: p. 150 fig. 7; here Figure 19.5). The combination of kingship and divinity on Salaminian coins is not fortuitous but represents a central element of the Cypriot numismatic production, the Cypriot kings wishing to express on their coins their legitimate association to their territory (through the use of ethnics or symbols) and their privileged relation with the divine element (Hermary 2006).
Figure 19.4 Obverse of a gold stater of king Pnytagoras of Salamis.
Source: Reproduced by permission of Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
Figure 19.5 Silver obol of king Evagoras II of Salamis.
Source: Reproduced by permission of Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
Together with the coins and the silver bowls, the Vouni treasure contained four gold specimens of omega‐shaped bracelets with animals' (goats' and calves') heads finials, which are considered to be a typical Achaemenid product. Found in other regions under Persian control (at Pasargadae, and at Vani, Georgia), similar bracelets are represented (without the animals' heads finials) on the Apadana reliefs as a kind of “court” jewel, apparently produced in different parts of the Achaemenid Empire, with stylistic and regional variations (Zournatzi 2017: pp. 10–12). It is not impossible that, like the Achaemenid‐type silver bowl, the omega‐shaped bracelets were manufactured specifically for the payment of the annual tribute to the Great King, or as diplomatic gifts: as such, they were supposed to satisfy standard Persian requirements, even within the range of provincial stylistic variations (Zournatzi 2017); the animals' heads' finials, which appear also on the torque of the Salaminian numismatic issues already mentioned (Markou 2007: p. 421), could in particular be supposed to be an element responding to specific Cypriot tastes.
Nevertheless, the lack of any sculptural representation of figures adorned with such jewels – omega‐shaped bracelets and torques (the torque on the limestone statuette described in Zournatzi 1989 is uncertain) – suggests the greatest caution in what concerns the actual diffusion of such luxury objects in Cyprus. The unique representation of a torque on Salaminian numismatic issues could indeed suggest that this was actually considered, on such an occasion, as a kind of status symbol, denoting the legitimacy of the royal power. The possible identification of the Salaminian king represented on the most ancient issues with Evagoras II acting as a “satrap,” better as a military officer of Artaxerxes in 351, is tempting: with coins representing him on the right side as a satrap, and on the left side as a truly Cypriot king, whose authority is granted by the Achaemenid torque, Evagoras II expressed his will to regain Salamis as its legitimate ruler (Markou 2006: pp. 143–146).
The Persian impact on the political and economic structure of Cyprus was certainly not negligible, but it seems to have been generally indirect and mild. As the Achaemenid authorities were interested in maintaining the local balance of regional powers, which they considered as the best manner in which to assess their super‐regional control, they did not interfere, at least not exceptionally, in internal Cypriot affairs, leaving Cypriot civilization to develop along its own patterns. But, largely independent from its political predominance, Achaemenid civilization, especially through luxury and status symbol artifacts, spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin, becoming a reference for aristocracies and elites of a wide and diversified area, including Asia Minor, the Levant, and Cyprus. Achaemenid influences entered Cyprus through a variety of paths, some of them direct (occasional presence of Persian agents; diplomatic exchanges; Cypriot participation in Persian military enterprises), others indirect (Ionian sculpture; Syrian and Phoenician art).
The complex, hybridized results of the elaboration of all these elements bear the signs of the quest for a pan‐Cypriot identity, having its focal points in a common model of kingship and the relation with the divinity. More detailed, differentiated regional identities, apparent in the archeological evidence during the Archaic period (Fourrier 2007), are difficult to study in relation to the Persian Empire, the data being so limited; but it is already quite evident that the kingdom of Salamis, at least since the reign of Evagoras, played an important role in the appropriation of some Achaemenid symbolisms for local needs. The western part of the island (Palaepaphos, Soloi, Marion) seems to have been strategically relevant to Achaemenid interests, but the evidence available is ambiguous,
