2020).39 Zournatzi, A. (2017). The Vouni treasure and monetary practices in Cyprus in the Persian period. In K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou‐Genakos and D. Plantzos (eds.), Coinage / Jewellery: Uses – Interactions – Symbolisms from antiquity to the present. Athens: Society for the Study of Numismatics and Economic History, pp. 159–178.
40 Zournatzi, A. (forthcoming). The palace of Vouni (Cyprus): An Achaemenid perspective. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Ancient Cultural Relations between Iran and West Asia. Tehran. Online preprint: http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/in‐press/ZOURNATZI_Vouni_Palace:31‐8‐2010.pdf (accessed August 27, 2020).
FURTHER READING
1 Cannavò, A., and Thély, L. (eds.) (2018). Les royaumes de Chypre à l’épreuve de l’histoire: transitions et ruptures de la fin de l’âge du Bronze au début de l’époque hellénistique (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Supplément 60). Athens: École française d’Athènes. Acts of a conference held in Athens in 2015, containing several papers on Classical Cyprus (including a paper by A. Zournatzi on the Achaemenid rosters of subject peoples and lands).
2 Caubet, A., Fourrier, S., and Yon, M. (2015). Kition‐Bamboula VI: Le sanctuaire sous la colline (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 67). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux. The publications of the results of the French excavations at the sanctuary site of Kition‐Bamboula (Archaic and Classical periods).
3 Childs, W.A.P., Smith, J.S., Padgett, J.M. (eds.) (2012). City of Gold: The Archaeology of Polis Chrysochous, Cyprus. Princeton: Princeton University. An up‐to‐date analysis of the Marion kingdom, its origin, and its control over the surrounding region.
4 Counts, D., Iacovou, M. (eds.) (2013). New Approaches to the Elusive Iron Age Polities of Ancient Cyprus (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 370). Boston: American School of Oriental Research. A recent and comprehensive study of the Cypriot kingdoms, through careful, up‐to‐date analyses of different aspects (sanctuaries, fortifications, royal palaces, and many others).
5 Fourrier, S. (2014). The ceramic repertoire of the classical period necropolis of Kition. In S. Hadjisavvas (ed.), The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition II. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp. 135–181. A detailed study of the Classical period, highly phoenicized ceramic repertoire of Kition.
6 Fourrier, S. (2019). L’archéologie de l’hellénisme à Chypre: à propos de deux publications récentes. Revue archeologique 68, pp. 391–407. Cypro‐centric versus Hellenocentric readings of the archaeological evidence in Classical Cyprus: a stimulating reflection on ethnic‐based analyses.
7 Hadjisavvas, S. (2012). The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Presents the results of the excavations in the Classical period necropolis of Kition – Agios Georgios and Agios Prodromos.
8 Hermary, A. (2005). Les derniers temps du royaume d’Idalion et son annexion par Kition: Le témoignage des sculptures. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 35, pp. 99–126. A brilliant interpretation, through the study of sculptural evidence, of the last period of existence of the kingdom of Idalion, and its annexation by the kingdom of Kition toward the mid‐fifth century BCE.
9 Kearns, C. (2011). Building social boundaries at the hybridizing first‐millennium BC complex of Vouni (Cyprus). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 24 (2), pp. 147–170. Recent, post‐colonial interpretation of the Vouni palace.
10 Körner, C. (2017). Die zyprischen Königtümer im Schatten der Grossreiche des Vorderen Orients: Studien zu den zyprischen Monarchien vom 8. bis zum 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Colloquia Antiqua 20). Leuven: Peeters. Up‐to‐date, careful assessment of the (mainly textual) evidence concerning Cypriot kingdoms.
11 Markou, E. (2011). L’or des rois de Chypre: numismatique et histoire à l’époque classique. Athènes: Centre de recherches de l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Recent and excellent study of the gold coinage of the Cypriot kingdoms.
12 Petit, T. (2007). The Hellenization of Amathus in the 4th century B.C. In P. Flourentzos (ed.), From Evagoras I to the Ptolemies: The Transition from the Classical to the Hellenistic Period in Cyprus. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp. 93–114. Stimulating analysis of the fourth‐century kingdom of Amathus.
13 Raptou, E. (1999). Athènes et Chypre à l’époque perse (VIe–IVe s. av. J.‐C.) Lyon: Maison de l’Orient. A careful, complete survey of the archaeological and textual evidence concerning the relationship between Athens and Cyprus during the Classical period.
14 Satraki, A. (2012). Kyprioi basileis: apo ton Kosmaso mechri to Nikokreonta. Athens: Panepistimio Athinon. A detailed, up‐to‐date review of the evidence concerning the Cypriot kingdoms from the Late Bronze age to the end of Classical period (in Greek).
15 Zournatzi, A. (2005). Persian Rule in Cyprus: Sources, Problems, Perspectives. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity. Some important thoughts on the main theme of the Persian rule and presence in Cyprus, presenting the main sources with a deep knowledge of the state of the art.
CHAPTER 20 Egypt
Melanie Wasmuth
An essential issue of the contribution at hand concerns the definition of “archeological.” The bulk of Egyptian artifacts classifiable as “archeological” may be labeled “art historical source,” “textual source,” “architectural source,” etc. with equal justification. The advantage as well as the difficulty provided by sources that may be classified as both archeological and textual characterize Egyptian artifacts and Egyptological research: a large amount of “archeological” findings from Egypt are inscribed, e.g. paintings and reliefs featuring legends or integrating figurative and textual elements, inscribed statuary, founding stones, and small finds (such as figurines, sistra), or even pottery inscribed with pottery marks or contents labels. For this brief survey, the corpus of sources is therefore comprised of anepigraph and inscribed artifacts and monuments with focus on their representational, infrastructural, or functional aspects.
A further general issue regarding Achaemenid Egypt is the current state of research: though the period covering the twenty‐seventh (i.e. first Persian dominion) to the thirty‐first dynasty (second Persian dominion) as well as the continuation into the Ptolemaic period has been the focus of several studies and excavations in recent years, these time spans continue to be a minor focus of Egyptology and are studied primarily by scholars from other disciplines (e.g. Ancient History, Classics, Graeco‐Roman Archeology). Therefore, the actual amount of data is comparatively scarce, and in the case of uninscribed objects, stratigraphic information and independent dating are often missing altogether. Even inscribed objects are not always easily dated when the reigning king's name is omitted – a practice starting already before the Achaemenid period. However, there is evidence from the first Persian dominion, the intermediate period (twenty‐eighth–thirtieth dynasty), and the second Persian dominion. Sources are preserved that were made within the Egyptian cultural tradition, within completely un‐Egyptian cultural traditions and mixing elements from two or more cultural traditions. Their geographical scope ranges from the region of the modern Suez Canal, northwestern Sinai, the Nile Delta and Valley to its adjacent desert areas and the oases. There are royal, “elite” and “non‐elite” sources; representational and functional sources; “state,” temple, and “private” sources; sources in situ, in progress of excavation, in collections, and lost sources (i.e. having
