Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

  Franklin, John Curtis. 2016. Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies Series 70. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

11. Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus

Pindar, supplemented by the scholia and other relevant texts, has established a musical Kinyras some five centuries older than “Our Kenyristḗs Apollo” at Roman Paphos. Three initial forays into Cypriot iconography have indicated earlier horizons still, although such pieces, being mute, can never prove that ‘Kinyras himself’ is intended. Nevertheless the abundant visual evidence for early Cypriot lyre culture can hardly be ignored, given its contextual details and deep antiquity. It goes far beyond Greco-Roman literary sources to converge with documentary and iconographic evidence of the larger BA Near East.

Fortunately, Kinyras’ very name connotes sympathies with the Syro-Levantine sphere and its musical cultures. This provides a welcome first road-sign for traversing the lyric landscapes of early Cyprus. We shall see that the path from Syro-Levantine lyre morphology to the Cypriot term kinýra is not entirely straightforward. But patient exploration will clarify key historical and cultural issues, ultimately establishing the LBA as a viable period for Kinyras’ genesis on the island—a proposal that can then be refined in subsequent chapters.

The Current Picture

The general dearth of LBA musical evidence presents a considerable obstacle to satisfactory analysis of the island’s ethnomusical history, and especially its transition through the major cultural developments of the first millennium. Conversely, that of the latter period, so much more conspicuous and abundant, is potentially misleading. In fact the earlier material—votive figurines (see below), rattles, scrapers, bronze cymbals, cylinder seals with dance scenes, and two outstanding bronze stands showing harpers—is ultimately quite illuminating for the Kinyras question, and will have to be considered in due course (Chapter 15). But first we must trace the history of lyres specifically, so far as possible.

franklin fig20

Figure 20. Map of Cyprus showing distribution of iconography discussed in text.

Several past studies have focused on a basic morphological dichotomy observable in the IA evidence, which has been linked to Aegean and Phoenician immigration and/or colonization. The two groups are:

This apparent coincidence of chronology and morphology was systematically elaborated by B. Lawergren as follows:

Lawergren tacitly begins from a (presumed) lack of pre-Greek representations, but prudently avoids definite conclusions about the LBA island. [
9] Deger-Jalkotzky more boldly suggested that lyres, previously unknown, are an ethnic marker of Aegean influx (for her other morphological criteria, see below). [10] Similarly, Maas and Snyder treated the Cypriot lyres as a variety of “Greek stringed instruments.” [11] Fariselli, in her valuable recent study of Phoenician music and dance, also assumes a basic contrast between Phoenician and Aegean types in discussing the symposium bowls; but what ‘Aegean’ means in eighth-seventh century cultural terms, and within the iconographic repertoire of the phiálai, is not determined. [12]

Clearly even a single lucky find could alter the picture significantly. And as it happens, a key piece of evidence has been overlooked. In what follows, I shall present this ‘lost daughter of Kinyras,’ thus documenting at least one lyric dimension of pre-Greek Cyprus. I next reassess the ‘Aegeanness’ of the island’s round-based lyre-representations. We can then consider the implications of our new evidence and interpretations for understanding, in broad cultural terms, the morphological ‘confrontation’ seen in the symposium bowls. Finally, we shall see what this material contributes to the linguistic prehistory of the word kinýra, thus returning us full circle to Kinyras himself.

A Lost ‘Daughter of Kinyras’ in the Cyprus Museum

franklin fig22

Figure 22. Female lutenist. Egyptian(izing) faience bowl from near Idalion. New York, MMA 74.51.5074. Drawn from Karageorghis et al. 2000:63 no. 99.

Music, Memory, and the Aegean Diaspora

franklin fig23

Figure 23. Lyre-player seal, Ashdod, ca. 1000. Jerusalem, IAA 91-476. Drawn from Dothan 1971, pl. XLIX.7.

franklin fig24

Figure 24. Juxtaposition of ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ lyres. Orthostat relief, Karatepe, ca. 725. Drawn from Akurgal 1962 fig. 142.

These Aegean lyres in diaspora contexts are not merely potent symbols of ethnic memory. They were an essential tool for its preservation. The Karatepe reliefs powerfully illustrate what is anyway a natural supposition—that Aegean migration deeds were sung not only or even primarily in Greece, but ‘on the ground’ within and between diaspora communities.

A comparable situation on Cyprus must account for at least some of the many legends about migration to the island after the Trojan War; Teukros at Salamis and the Arcadian Agapenor at Paphos are two of the more compelling examples (see Chapter 14). I shall therefore begin surveying the island’s round-based lyres from what is at once the earliest such representation, and that which permits the most viable sub-Mycenaean interpretation. Even here, however, ‘Greek’ and ‘Cypriot’ cannot be entirely distinguished. So this case will also serve as an a fortiori caution against overly Hellenocentric readings of the abundant later material.

Cypriot Lyres between East and West

franklin fig25

Figure 25. Warrior-lyrist. Proto-bichrome kalathos from Kouklia, eleventh century (LCIIIB). Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7. Drawn from CCSF 1:5, 2:1–3.

franklin fig26

Figure 26. Hubbard amphora, Famagusta district, ca. 800. Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, 1938/XI-2/3. Drawn from CCSF 1.8–9, 2.7–9.

And so while Lawergren’s distinction between ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ lyre-morphology remains broadly valid, it is not clear just where the line should be drawn. Cyprus falls precisely within the ‘disputed’ area. If we persist in equating ‘western’ with Greek/Aegean and ‘eastern’ with Canaanite/Phoenician, the island becomes a passive matrix for the implantation of foreign lyric identities—an idea not merely politically objectionable, but inherently implausible.

To be sure, there must indeed have been a time when lyres were new to the island. But given the high antiquity of chordophones in the Aegean, Anatolia, and larger ANE, we cannot definitely conclude that lyres first arrived only in the fourteenth-century (our ‘lost daughter’), or that their morphology was only ever that of the Levant. For all we know, some more rounded shape had been current well beforehand, and even went by a name prefiguring kinýra. At this point, all options must be kept open.

Ethnicity and Musical Identity in the Cypro-Phoenician Symposium Bowls

Our new kinyrístria also complicates the ‘eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician phiálai . Did Levantine morphology disappear in the less cosmopolitan EIA, to return with ninth-century Phoenician colonization? Or was there a continuous tradition, as yet unrepresented archeologically? Here the early votive-figurines are again important, but difficult to interpret (Figure 27a–d). Their soundboxes, though roughly-formed with a small band of clay, are on the whole distinctly round. Yet their arms vary between perpendicular (as in Aegean instruments) and divergent (as often with Levantine). Are these differences mere habits of workshop production, or do they reflect significant ethno-musical distinctions? In at least one case a definite squiggle has been introduced, presumably corresponding to the ancient zigzag element discussed above. [77] Other examples, rather indeterminate between round and flat bases, could be dismissed as aberrations of mass production. [78] Coming down to the Cypro-Archaic period, a handful of examples from Lapethos, an area with Phoenician associations, have clearly divergent arms (Figure 27b, c). [79] In other cases, including more carefully crafted votives of the Cypro-Classical period, one does find a few examples with quite rectangular frame, and/or with arms flaring outwards (Figure 27d). [80] All told it would appear that we must allow for ongoing Cypro-Levantine hybrids alongside Cypro-Aegean. Whether these can be pushed back across the period ca. 1200–900 is not entirely clear, though it would not be surprising in light of our new kinyrístria .

franklin fig27

Figure 27. Cypriot votive figurines with variety of lyre shapes (scale not uniform). 27a (Cypro-Archaic, unprovenanced) = London, BM 1876/9-9/90, drawn from CAAC IV:I(v)4. 27b (Cypro-Archaic, Lapethos) = London, BM 1900.9-3.17, drawn from CAAC Va:I(xi)i.67. 27c (Cypro-Archaic, unprovenanced) = Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. B192a, drawn from CAAC Va:I(xi)i.71. 27d (Cypro-Archaic, Kourion) = University Museum, Philadelphia no. 54-28-109, drawn from CAAC IV:I(v)3. 27e (Hellenistic, Cythrea), MMA accession no. unknown, drawn from Cesnola 1894, pl. XXXIV no. 282.

franklin fig28

Figure 28. Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl from Idalion, ca. 825. New York, MMA 74.51.5700. Drawn from PBSB Cy3.

franklin fig29

Figure 29. ‘Eastern’ lyres in the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 900–600. Drawn from corresponding photos in PBSB.

franklin fig30

Figure 30. ‘Western’ lyres on the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 750–600. Drawn from photos in PBSB.

Bowl [108] Find Spot Phase [109] Ensemble [110] Lyre Type [111]
OJA Lefkandi I ca. 900 [?]/L/L/P E
Comp7 Golgoi, Cyprus 10th century P/D/L E
Cy3 Idalion, Cyprus I ca. 825 D/L/P E
U6 Luristan (?) I ca. 825 D/L/L/P E
Cr11 Mt Ida, Crete II–III L/L/L E
G3 Olympia II before 725 P/D/L W
G8 Sparta (?) II before 725 L/L/D/L E
Cy6 Kourion, Cyprus [112] III early 7th D/L/P E
Cy7 Kourion, Cyprus III early 7th L/P/D(?) W
Cy5 Salamis, Cyprus IV later 7th D/P/L W [113]
Cy13 Kourion, Cyprus IV later 7th ?/L/P(?) [114] W [115]

Table 1. Lyre-Ensembles in the Cypro-Phoenician Symposium Bowls

franklin fig31

Figure 31. Ivory pyxis with lyre ensemble, Nimrud, North Syrian school, ninth–eighth century. Baghdad ND1642. Drawn from Mallowan 1966 fig. 168.

franklin fig32

Figure 32. Sixth-century Egyptianizing limestone statue from Golgoi (?). New York, MMA 74.51.2509. Drawn from Aspects fig. 138.

By contrast the four ‘western’ examples (G3, Cy5, Cy7, Cy13) come from phases II–IV, suggesting a secondary development. It can hardly be coincidence that three have been found on Cyprus itself. Here we must accept the sane principle that, “all other factors being equal, a trait or artifact type probably originated somewhere near the center of its distribution.” [119] This is confirmed by the presence of kypriaká in Cy5 and Cy13. [120] Moreover, the instrument on Cy7 (Figure 30) has a decorative element on one of its arms that must correspond to the floral (papyrus?) detail found on lyres in the more refined limestone statuary of the Cypro-Archaic and -Classical periods—for example an Egyptianizing sculpture (ca. 575) said to be from Golgoi (the arm is topped by a lion or gryphon head: Figure 32). [121] These floral lyres are a vivid indication of a vibrant insular tradition going back to the Archaic period and doubtless beyond, [122] and call to mind early Cypriot singers like Stasinos and Stasandros. [123] Note too that these Cypriot lyres are apparently smaller, by and large, than those in Archaic representations of clear Greek provenance. The same seems true of the Hubbard lyrist, whose instrument might otherwise appear somewhat inexpertly rendered. [124] These impressions are corroborated by countless terracotta votives of the Cypro-Geometric and -Archaic periods, which invariably show quite small instruments. It is thus possible that their pitch-range was often somewhat higher than Greek models. [125] The way they are held is also distinctive, almost ‘cradling’ [126]

franklin fig33

Figure 33. Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl, before ca. 725. Olympia, Greece. Athens NM 7941. Drawn from PBSB G3.

Undoubtedly the morphological distinction implies complex social perceptions that developed and shifted, on a regional basis, with changing Phoenician political fortunes and other demographic trends. While most such nuances now escape us, they should be recognized as ‘known unknowns’ that can at least help us frame relevant questions. What should we make, for instance, of Cy6, which, though presenting an ‘eastern’ instrument, carries a Greek inscription in the Cypro-Syllabic script, while its find location (Kourion) is not especially distinguished as an area of Phoenician settlement? Is it significant that the later typological phases are represented on Cyprus by only a single eastern specimen? Should the presence of an early ‘eastern’ example at Idalion be connected with Levantine metal-hunting in the Troodos foothills? Should we associate the unusual model from Golgoi with the undeciphered language there? [130] Or does elite exchange render any such regional analysis futile within the island? After all, while the iconographic distinction between contemporary Cypriot and Syro-Levantine lyres is clearly intentional and culturally significant, each bowl enjoyed a life of its own, and there is no practical basis for segregating one ethnicity from another in a bowl’s after-market existence. On the contrary, Cy6 suggests a quite general intermingling of Cypriots of all ethnic backgrounds in the context of elite drinking rituals during the eighth and seventh centuries.

The Olympia bowl (Figure 33) is the only ‘western’ lyre found in Greece itself. But this is no evidence of local manufacture for Aegean Greek consumption. Who would argue this for the other Aegean finds with ‘eastern’ lyres? Cr11, one should note, contains a Phoenician owner’s inscription, and of course we now know that there was an important Phoenician presence on Crete at Kommos. To be sure, the Lesbian poet Alkaios (ca. 600) knew of the ‘Phoenician lyre’ ( phοínix , presumably in a sympotic context). But it is precisely the exotic nature of both bowl and instrument that best accounts for their presence in the Aegean and the poetics of Alkaios (see further below). The Olympia bowl is therefore most economically explained in the same terms, with the exception that it must be traced to an extra-Aegean source where round-based lyres were indeed established. Once again the obvious candidate is a Cypriot workshop. Stylistically the bowl seems to stand midway between the North Syrian and Phoenician schools. [131] That it is inscribed with an Aramaean name is not problematic, given that Cy3, though produced locally, adheres to the North Syrian style (see above). Moreover, the island has produced a number of early (eighth-seventh century) inscriptions in non-Phoenician Semitic languages, attesting “the strong interaction among peoples on the island.” [132] The bowl then came through elite circulation to Greece, where the lyre’s broad similarity to contemporary Aegean instruments would have made it both exotic and familiar—though of course how it passed from Aramaean hands to its final deposition at Olympia remains a mystery.

Thus, in the symposium bowls too the ‘western’ lyre-morphology presents a distinctly Cypriot aspect. With their temple-orchestra deployment, these instruments are a world apart from the Aegean. But despite the clear kinship of this performance tradition with the Levant, we need not dismiss its insular manifestation as secondary and derivative; nor assume that it dates only from the Phoenician colonial period. This may well be a mirage of the phiálai and novel iconographic fashions. Historical connections with Syro-Levantine cult practice, in my view, must be traced to the LBA (see Chapter 15), although one may allow a syncretic reconvergence in the ninth-eighth centuries.

The Second-Millennium Adaptation of Kinýra

The natural implication of our new ‘lost daughter’ is that one or more pre-Greek forms of the word knr was/were already current on the LBA island, and persisted into the IA as Greek-Cypriot kinýra. There would remain a certain dissonance between the dominant round-based Cypriot morphology and the Syro-Levantine shapes with which one usually associates knr. Some may therefore suspect that both morphology and word disappeared from Cyprus after the LBA, to reappear with Phoenician settlement in the ninth century. Nevertheless, I believe this hypothesis of ‘double importation’ can be confidently rejected, at least as regards the word.

Vital support for the LBA chronology proposed here comes from the PN Kinyras (ki-nu-ra) at Mycenaean Pylos; I shall explore the contextual details fully in Chapter 17, showing that a derivation from knr is indeed probable, and perfectly compatible with the special Cypriot associations I have proposed.

So I find no positive linguistic reason to exclude a pre-Greek antecedent of kinýra from LBA Cyprus, and good circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis. Moreover, it can be corroborated by an independent line of argument.

As mentioned above, Alkaios (ca. 600) is our earliest source for an instrument called phοínix , ‘the Phoenician (instrument)’. This and several related forms ( phoiníkion , lyrophoínix , lyrophoiníkion ) are mentioned by Herodotos, Aristoxenos, the Aristotelian Problems, and an array of later historiographical and lexical sources. Some kind of lyre is definitely intended, and the ancient authors draw connections with Phoenicia, Syria, and Libya (presumably vis-à-vis the Punic colonies in north Africa). [144] Now a general Greek awareness of Phoenician instruments in the Archaic period is not in itself surprising. The discovery of the bowls in Aegean contexts is but one of many signs of an ongoing Phoenician cultural presence. Besides the stereotyped representation of the Phoenicians by Homer, [145] Sappho’s colorful description of Hektor and Andromakhe’s arrival at Troy amidst mingling myrrh, cassia, and frankincense—aromatics often imported via Phoenicia—is a good parallel for her countryman Alkaios’ familiarity with the phοínix . [146] The puzzle is rather that Greek sources never use kinýra in an unambiguously Phoenician context. Foreign instruments, admittedly, often received Greek nicknames (for instance paktís and trígōnos , applied to harps arriving from points east). [147] Nevertheless one would really expect kinýra to have been mentioned somewhere among the numerous late Classical and Hellenistic sources that attest a general Greek interest in foreign instruments. [148] After all, the Phoenician nábla(s) , sibling to the knr, enjoyed a vogue in the fourth-century, appearing several times in the fragments of Attic comedy, apparently as a novelty. [149] Kinýra , however, is missing even from the long list of foreign instruments drawn up by Aristoxenos around this same time—in which, however, he does include phoínix ! [150]


This investigation, though raising many questions, has reached some definite conclusions. Considerable minor variations in the early iconographical record attest both the internal diversity of the island’s lyric culture, and its overall distinctiveness as an insular tradition. There is no doubt that Aegean and Levantine influences were important determining factors. But the island was more than a receptive matrix. While the pre-Greek period remains largely a blank, we must not rule out an early lyric tradition here which had already differentiated itself from the Levant before the fourteenth century and our long lost ‘daughter of Kinyras’. She, in any case, now makes it as certain as can be that the pre-Greek island had its own lyric tradition(s), and that some form of knr was already established in Cypriot usage, being applied to instruments of contemporary Levantine morphology and very possibly earlier insular types. Whether the Aegean influx induced a general transformation from ‘eastern’ to ‘western’ morphology, or whether round-based instruments were already established on the pre-Greek island alongside Levantine shapes, this pre-Greek lexical forerunner of kinýra persisted into the IA as the standard Greek-Cypriot word for ‘lyre’, being applied to the characteristically Cypriot instruments of the early votives; it thus resisted absolute identification with the models brought by Phoenician colonists ca. 900. Yet, given the vigorous display of contemporary Phoenician tradition in the symposium bowls and the Phoenicians’ ongoing cultural presence, one should not be surprised to find traces of Levantine lyre-morphology enduring into later times. I would therefore conclude by noting, besides the occasional votives mentioned above, [156] a particularly exquisite sculpted instrument of the Hellenistic period that maintains the Archaic tradition of floral decoration (Figure 34). [157] One could attribute its flat base to the Greek kithára’s impact, but that outwardly flaring arms make ongoing Levantine influence equally likely or more so.

franklin fig34

Figure 34. Statue of female lyre-player with late floral-post lyre, Golgoi, Hellenistic. New York, MMA 74.51.2480. Drawn from Cesnola 1885 pl. cii no. 676.


[ back ] 1. General iconographic surveys: Aign 1963:60–74; Karageorghis 1977:216; Hermary 1989:387–393 (Louvre sculptures); Meerschaert 1991; Karageorghis et al. 2000:148–151 no. 227–237, 239 (coroplastic, Cesnola Collection, including some not in CAAC); Aspects:78–84, 101–113, 140–152, 217–218; Fariselli 2007 (Phoenician material); Knapp 2011. Lyres: CCSF 1:33; Monloup 1994:109–112 (female terracottas, Salamis); DCPIL:49–51; Kolotourou 2002; Paleocosta 1998 (lyre-iconography). Double-pipe and other winds: Flourentzos 1992. Frame-drums/percussion: Averett 2002–2004; Kolotourou 2005; Kolotourou 2007. Dance: Lefèvre-Novaro 2007 passim; Fariselli 2010 (Phoenician focus). General studies (use with caution): Zarmas 1975; Jager 2000.

[ back ] 2. These musician figures may be noted for future research: CAAC, II (Late Cypriot–Cypro-Geometric): A(vi)1–2, GD1–6, LGA[iii]5–7, LGB1, LGC1, LGC9; III (Cypro-Archaic): no. 174; IV (Cypro-Archaic): I[v]1–8, I[vi]1–7, I[vii]1–19, II[iv]5, III[i]1–10 (ring dances); Va (Cypro-Archaic): I[vii]1, I[ix]1–36, I[x]3, I[xi]h.60–66, I[xi]i.67–80, II[xiii]2, 4–5, II[xiv]1–5, II[xv]1–71; Vb (Cypro-Archaic): Ch. VI, 59, Ch. VII, Ch. VIII[i]1–3, VIII[ii]4, VIII[iii]5–54. Many more are in individual museum collections and site publications, including: Myres 1914:338–339 no. 2241–2256 (ring-dances, Cesnola collection); Monloup 1984:134 no. 512–513 (Archaic frame-drummers, Salamis); Yon and Caubet 1988a:4–5 no. 10–12, pl. II (female lyrists, Lapethos); Monloup 1994:109–117 (Classical female lyrists, Salamis); Vandervondelen 1994; SAM:164–166 no. 128–130 (Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem).

[ back ] 3. CAAC II:A(vi)1–2 and pl. VII.2–3, dated LC II–III. See also Aspects:84 no. 60–61, fig. 70–71; Knapp 2011:122. Both figurines belong to the type “Standing Nude Female Figure with ‘Bird’ Face.”

[ back ] 4. Figurines from Ingot God sanctuary: Courtois 1971:326–356 (note especially 348, fig. 145); CAAC II:64–65, dating to end of LC III or beginning of CG IA; so too Webb 1999:102–113, especially 112 and Webb 2001, especially 76, 79.

[ back ] 5. See further p398.

[ back ] 6. This rough terminus reflects the advent of the κιθάρα in its classical form.

[ back ] 7. Pi-a-la (φιάλα) is inscribed on one of the Kourion bowls: PBSB:73 (Cy11); I.Kourion 4.

[ back ] 8. DCPIL:49, with the East/West dichotomy building on Lawergren 1993.

[ back ] 9. But “Greek influences reemerged” does imply that the earlier ‘western’ morphology was absent from the pre-Greek island.

[ back ] 10. Deger-Jalkotzy 1994, especially 21–22.

[ back ] 11. SIAG:8, making the point that they are only representations from the Dark Age.

[ back ] 12. Fariselli 2007:13 n15–16, 19, 23, with further analysis of dance in Fariselli 2010.

[ back ] 13. This discussion supersedes Franklin 2006a:44–45; Franklin 2006b.

[ back ] 14. See p53–55, 98–99 .

[ back ] 15. See p241.

[ back ] 16. Sherratt 1992:336 (see below).

[ back ] 17. See p383–392.

[ back ] 18. Nicosia, Inv. G63; height 4.2. cm, diameter 13.2. The best image known to me is Karageorghis 1976a:178 fig. 137; also Dikaios 1961:153–154 no. 6, pl. XXXIII.5; Peltenburg 1968:303, includes it among his unpublished specimens (vii).

[ back ] 19. Dikaios 1961:153–154.

[ back ] 20. Foster 1979:50 and n316. By “instrument-playing figures” she must mean the lute-player bowls (see below).

[ back ] 21. See especially Peltenburg 1986:155–161, noting lack of stylistic deviations which might betray Cypriot manufacture; he challenges their critical reception as “poor, local copies of Egyptian work” (Peltenburg 1972:131); Levantine workshop(s) are considered possible, but less likely (contrast Peltenburg 1968:143–151). But certain types can be attributed to a Cypriot faience industry: Foster 1979:49–55; Karageorghis et al. 2000:62.

[ back ] 22. Peltenburg 1972:129.

[ back ] 23. Cf. Peltenburg 1968:304 (bowl no. 5d): “To the left a female with calf-length billowing robes. She seems to hold something over a papyrus which grows from the boat, but the brown designs are too fugitive here to make it out.”

[ back ] 24. I thank G. Fawkes for sharp observations and drawings during a museum visit on May 17, 2012. The dish is displayed vertically, so both top and bottom may be examined.

[ back ] 25. Bes and music: Hickmann 1954a:35–38; MgB 2/1:36–39 fig. 15–17; MMAE:48 fig. 26, 57–58 and fig. 32, 110, 116–119 passim, with fig. 72.

[ back ] 26. For this word, see p216.

[ back ] 27. Hittite: Inandik vase. Egypt: MgB 2/1:32–33 fig. 9; MMAE:48 fig. 26 (Nineteenth Dynasty, Bes tattoo, bird-finial one end only), 108 fig. 64 (Twenty-First or Twenty-Second Dynasty); HKm, pl. 18 no. 52.1, 52.3–4. Musicians with Bes-tattoos are otherwise known: Hickmann 1954b:276; Hickmann 1954a:37–38.

[ back ] 28. Egypt: MMAE:86 fig. 50. Hittite/Neo-Hittite: HKm, pl. 4 no. 11 and 15, 7 no. 26, 9 no. 29, 11 no. 35, 12 no. 37–38. With lutes the question may arise whether these tassels are not rather the ends of strings. Even when their position at the end of the neck makes this possible, they are sufficiently long that one must suppose that they have been worked into an adornment (cf. HKm:59). In other cases the tassels come from the middle of the neck.

[ back ] 29. Βowl: PBSB Cy13 (Kourion), where the rightmost musician of a trio (probably double-piper) clearly has the cape; Culican 1982:15 and n6 detected one on the second (lyrist) as well, and noted the Nimrud bowl.

[ back ] 30. Canaanite: Megiddo, Figure 11 = 4.1p; Kamid el-Loz: DCPIL fig. 1o = my Figure 4.1o. Egypt: MMAE:43 fig. 21, 86 fig. 50, 89 fig. 52, 91 fig. 54 (twice); also Wegner 1950, pl. 7a, 9a–b (the dimensions of 9b being close to our lyrist). The vertical position is seen in MMAE:48 fig. 26, 53 no. 30.

[ back ] 31. New York, MMA 74.51.5074 = Cesnola 1903, pl. CVIII no. 4 = Myres 1914:274 no. 1574 = Karageorghis et al. 2000:63 no. 99. Also Aign 1963:61 fig. 26; Peltenburg 1968:307.

[ back ] 32. RMO Leiden, inv. AD 14, Eighteenth to Nineteenth Dynasty.

[ back ] 33. London, BM (18)98.12–1.145, from Maroni, tomb 17: Johnson 1980:24 no. 136, pl. XXVI.136 = Peltenburg 1986:158 no. 35 = Peltenburg 2007, fig. 5b.

[ back ] 34. See p105–111.

[ back ] 35. For the wreck generally, see below p326 with references. The shells are unpublished.

[ back ] 36. I thank Eichmann and Psaroudakes for a group email discussion with C. Pulak (November, 2008).

[ back ] 37. Webb 1999:243.

[ back ] 38. See p75, 105–111.

[ back ] 39. See p258–272, 273.

[ back ] 40. See p107–111.

[ back ] 41. [Apollodoros] Library 3.14.3, with the parallel in Servius Auctus on Vergil Eclogues 10.18. See further p504 and n60. Others would connect this myth with traditions of ‘sacred prostitution’ at Paphos (HC:71n1), but this leaves the Egyptian facet unexplained.

[ back ] 42. See p242.

[ back ] 43. See p397.

[ back ] 44. Locally produced LH IIIC ‘Mycenaean’ pottery appears in considerable quantity in Cilicia at this time (most conspicuously at Tarsus, with nearly 900 shards, but at Mersin and Kazanlı as well). This material is often dismissed on the ‘pots are not people’ argument (e.g. Vanschoonwinkel 1990:190–192). But Birney 2007 has shown that the shapes are consistent with domestic use, not mercantile activity, a conclusion supported by other finds of domestic application. It is therefore clear that there was early Aegean settlement here.

[ back ] 45. See p157 and cf. AMEL:99–100.

[ back ] 46. See generally Machinist 2000.

[ back ] 47. Dothan 1971 1:138–139, 2:162–163 and fig. 76.1, pl. 69.7; Keel 1997:666–667 and fig. 15, with further bibliography.

[ back ] 48. Dothan 1971 fig. 62.1, pl. 55.1; Dothan 1982:249 and pl. 35; SAM:159 no. 123.

[ back ] 49. See above p13n64, 348n63. The Luw. aphaeresis of Ahhiyawa > Hiyawa is already attested in a LBA text (Singer 2006:242–262, especially 251), and recurs in an eighth-century inscription from Çineköy, Cilicia (Tekoglu and Lemaire 2000, especially 968–972).

[ back ] 50. For the Karatepe texts (KAI 26; ANET:653–654; CS 2 no. 21 and 31), see now W. Röllig in Çambel 1999:50–81 (cf. 108–110) for the Phoenician text (with philological commentary supplementing Bron 1979), and Hawkins 2000 no. I.1 for the Luwian text (with extensive earlier bibliography).

[ back ] 51. Strabo 14.4.3: τοὺς δὲ λαοὺς μετὰ Μόψου τὸν Ταῦρον ὑπερθέντας τοὺς μὲν ἐν Παμφυλίᾳ μεῖναι τοὺς δ᾽ ἐν Κιλικίᾳ μερισθῆναι καὶ Συρίᾳ μέχρι καὶ Φοινίκης. Whether or not Mopsos was an historical individual is another question. Representative recent discussions are Finkelberg 2005:150–152; Jasink and Marino 2007; Oettinger 2008; Hawkins 2009:165–166; López-Ruiz 2009. Most of the primary sources are collected in Houwink ten Cate 1961:44–50.

[ back ] 52. HKm 73 and pl. 14–15 no. 43–44. The Syro-Anatolian lyre is well paralleled by an instrument from the Zincirli reliefs: HKm pl. 13 no. 39, and the Hittite precedent in pl. 9 no. 28.3.

[ back ] 53. Hypakhaioí : Herodotos 7.91. Cf. Lanfranchi 2005:482; Oettinger 2008:66n9.

[ back ] 54. Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7, proto-bichrome kalathos, LCIIIB: CCSF 1:5, 2:1–3; Iacovou 1988:72 (Cat. no. 29), fig. 66–70. For the obelós , see p14.

[ back ] 55. Coldstream 1989, especially 330–331 (eleventh-century chamber-tombs with long drómoi have higher concentration of status symbols than other burial types, and appear in areas of later Greek-speaking kingdoms); cf. Rupp 1985:126–127; Sherratt 1992:330.

[ back ] 56. Sherratt 1992:332–333.

[ back ] 57. Iacovou 1988:71 (Cat. no. 15), fig. 34; Sherratt 1992:335 (quotation).

[ back ] 58. Sherratt 1992:336.

[ back ] 59. Homer Iliad 9.189 (with [Plutarch] On Music 1145f), cf. 13.730–731; Odyssey 21.406–411 (for which see p387 and n99); Terpandros 5 (Gostoli); Arkhilokhos 1 West IEG; Alkman 41 PMGF; Pindar Olympian 1.1–12; Euripides fr. 759a.1622–1623 TGF; cf. Plato Laws 804d; Plutarch Lykourgos 21.4; Moralia 238b; etc. For the motif, see further Moulton 1977:145–153; Thalmann 1984:170–184; Goldhill 1991:1–68; Franklin 2003:297–301. It is still found in one version of the medieval epic Digenes Akrites (4.396–435, Grottaferrata codex: Mavrogordato 1956): the hero λαμβάνει καὶ κιθάραν … κάλλιστα δ’ ἐπεπαίδευτο ἐν μουσικοῖς ὀργάνοις (397–399), κτλ.

[ back ] 60. Franklin 2014:214–216.

[ back ] 61. Coldstream 1989:330–331; cf. Paleocosta 1998:56.

[ back ] 62. Sherratt 1992:337.

[ back ] 63. Deger-Jalkotzy 1994:21 and 18 fig. 4.3. This figure did not necessarily carry a lyre.

[ back ] 64. See p159–161.

[ back ] 65. Deger-Jalkotzy 1994:18 fig. 4 (cf. already Aign 1963:352); SIAG:16 fig. 2b (Chania), 18 fig. 3b (Tiryns).

[ back ] 66. Nicosia, Kaloriziki Tomb 11 no. 5: Dikaios 1936–1937:71; Rutten 1939:442; CCSF 1:33, 2:97–98 (no. IX.1).

[ back ] 67. Hubbard amphora: Nicosia, 1938/XI-2/3: Dikaios 1936–1937; CCSF 1:8–9, 2:7–9.

[ back ] 68. Markoe 1988.

[ back ] 69. RS 24.252 = KTU/CAT 1.108. See p134–141.

[ back ] 70. For these seals and their interpretation, see p517.

[ back ] 71. Collon 1987:43 no. 148 (correcting Porada 1956:204). The challenge these posed to an exclusively Aegean interpretation was recognized by SIAG:9 (even on the basis of their former dating to ca. 1200).

[ back ] 72. Li Castro and Scardina 2011; similarly DCPIL:47–49: “The trait began already at Tarsus and Mardin … before its association with the Aegean, i.e., this trait was integral to round-based lyres at their very their inception.”

[ back ] 73. DCPIL:47, is appropriately agnostic on their affiliation. Li Castro and Scardina 2011:211 (with fig. 13–15) decline to address them as being too vaguely rendered.

[ back ] 74. I include here the Hattic/Hittite form in z- and cognates: p55, 89–90.

[ back ] 75. Franklin 2014.

[ back ] 76. The best discussion known to me of lyre-playing female figures is Monloup 1994:109–117, on those from Salamis. But I disagree with her view that the rounded Cypriot lyres normally represent tortoiseshell instruments; the clearer lines of limestone sculpture show that this is generally not the case. Tortoiseshell-lyres are indeed occasionally attested, but most of these are comparatively late; and while examples include votive figurines (e.g. Cesnola 1894, pl. XXXIV no. 285), they are often found in fairly clear Greek iconographic contexts (imported Attic black-figure, white-ground lekythos: Karageorghis 2002a:126 no. 146; limestone statue of Apollo, Salamis, ca. 450: Yon 1974:21–25 (no. 5), fig. 12 and pl. 3; Cesnola 1885, pl. LXXIV, 476–479 (sympotic sarcophagus scene, ca. 500–450) = Myres 1914:226–229 no. 1364 = Karageorghis et al. 2000:204–206 no. 331 = Aspects:210–211 no. 208, fig. 224; cf. Karageorghis 2002a:154–155 no. 192; Sophocleous 1985:157 and pl. XXXVII.3–4, with further references.

[ back ] 77. CAAC II:LGA[iii]5, pl. XXXV.5, classified here as CG I (ca. 1050–950), but apparently re-dated in Aspects:101 by association with LGA[iii]6, which is moved to CG III (900–750).

[ back ] 78. CAAC Va:II[xiv]1 and 3; Vb:VIII[iii]19, 21. See also Monloup 1994 no. 406, with comment on 110 about probable distortions introduced by the moulding technique.

[ back ] 79. See for instance CAAC Va (Cypro-Archaic), female lyrists: I[xi]i.67, 70 and 77 (Lapethos); 71–73 (unknown provenance); Yon and Caubet 1988b:4–5 no. 11, pl. II (female lyrist, Lapethos). An earlier possibility is CAAC II: LGC1, a sidesaddle lyrist-horseman from Palaipaphos-Skales (Cypro-Geometric II–III).

[ back ] 80. Coroplastic examples are CAAC IV:I[v]3, Cypro-Archaic, Kourion, sanctuary of Apollo Hylátēs ; the lyre, which is carefully rendered, has a flat-base and tapering arms. Also n.b. my Figure 18 (autopsy 7/2015). In limestone, Hermary 1989:388 no. 791 (Louvre AM 2987), Golgoi, female, ca. 575; also 388 no. 792 (Louvre N 3522), female, ca. 550 (note the nearly horizontal playing position, typical of the Levant). Cf. Monloup 1994:111 and n2, possible Syrian influence here and the close parallel of the Canaanite figurine from Kamid el-Loz: DCPIL, fig. 1o = my Figure 4.1o.

[ back ] 81. I follow Markoe’s catalogue numbers in PBSB where possible. The literature is enormous. A good doxographic survey is Neri 2000:3–13; cf. Falsone 1988:95.

[ back ] 82. Falsone 1988.

[ back ] 83. Barnett 1939, etc.; Winter 1976:6–11; Falsone 1988:80–81 with references.

[ back ] 84. Cf. Winter 1987, identifying an intermediate ‘South Syrian’ style of ivory carving, which she convincingly connects with Aramaean Damascus.

[ back ] 85. Neri 2000:3–13; Markoe 2003; Falsone 1988:94–95.

[ back ] 86. Vella forthcoming.

[ back ] 87. Winter 1976:11–22; more broadly Winter 1988, especially 356–365.

[ back ] 88. Falsone 1988:106; Popham 1995; Neri 2000:12; Markoe 2003:211.

[ back ] 89. Winter 1976:17–20.

[ back ] 90. Falsone 1988:105–106; Neri 2000:4–5.

[ back ] 91. Gjerstad 1946; PBSB:6–9; Falsone 1988:94–95.

[ back ] 92. See Gjerstad 1946:5, 7, diagnosing Cypriot pottery and dress in Cy3 (Idalion, his Proto-Cypriote I class, which otherwise exhibits clear North Syrian stylistic traits: Falsone 1988:96) and Cy5 (Kourion, Gjerstad’s Proto-Cypriote III).

[ back ] 93. Culican 1982:14 (vehicles in outer band of Cy13).

[ back ] 94. Gjerstad 1946:12–16.

[ back ] 95. Neri 2000:4–5 with her table.

[ back ] 96. PBSB:59 (but cf. Winter 1990:241); Neri 2000:4–5; Fariselli 2007:13–14. G3, however, also appears to depict a male deity (PBSB:204).

[ back ] 97. Fariselli 2007:13 (comparing cultic costumes of Cr7 and G8); Fariselli 2010:14–16.

[ back ] 98. Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1 (p103–126).

[ back ] 99. As female cult scenes, see e.g. Karageorghis et al. 2000:187–188, on no. 306 (Cy3) = Aspects:112–113 no. 84, fig. 97. Their gender is questioned by Burgh 2004:131–133 (on Cy3), who suggests intentional ambiguity; cf. Knapp 2011:125. Karageorghis 1999a:16 believes that, of the two mirrored groups now known to have graced the presumed royal banquet of Cy6, one was female and the other male. Fariselli 2007:11–12n10 notes the male pipers on Cy5 and Cy13 (third band: reclining symposiast).

[ back ] 100. Note the suggestion of Fariselli 2010:16 that the offering-bearers of Cy6 are also dancing.

[ back ] 101. The argument for Cy5 hinges upon Κυπρομέδουσα (‘She Ruling Cyprus’) over the female figure; with ‘king’ perhaps over the male: Karageorghis 2002b:156 (with fig. 322), 177. Cy6 depends upon the addition of orgiastic-sympotic imagery: Karageorghis 1993.

[ back ] 102. Neri 2000:3–4; Fariselli 2010:13–14.

[ back ] 103. In these two cases, where mythological narratives are suspected, the musical processions may evoke an underlying ritual reality. Marquand 1887:225–226 wished to interpret the scenes of Cy7 as the adventures of Kinyras himself, and its musical element as Adonis-like lament.

[ back ] 104. Fariselli 2007:11 and n6 would see single-pipes on Cy5 and Cy7. But these are surely double, simply shown in parallel (as often in Greece); this seems guaranteed by Comp7, where the pipes diverge just enough to prove their doubleness. Her final single-pipe example (Cy13, inner band) is more persuasive; but here the exceptional rustic context (played by stable-boy) only proves the rule that the more sophisticated cult-music used double-pipes.

[ back ] 105. RS 24.252 = KTU/CAT 1.108; 1 Samuel 10:5–6. See further p421–424.

[ back ] 106. See further p134–135, 156–157. Is it significant that no ‘western’ lyres are duplicated? Or is this due to the late, abbreviated iconography of those particular bowls?

[ back ] 107. Fariselli 2007 (11 and n6, 12 and n12) would see two pipers in Cy7, seemingly misreading the drawing in PBSB; a photograph (Karageorghis et al. 2000:186–187 no. 305) shows clearly that the leftmost figure has a round-based lyre, as Marquand 1887:326–328 already saw (for its telltale floral decor, see below). Cy13 (second band) may have had two pipers; but the following figure is broken, and could have been lyrist or drummer. Even so, the bowl is very late, and we are at some remove from the basic cultic scene; the context is strongly sympotic, which accounts for the oddity of a reclining male piper and seated female drummer in the third band.

[ back ] 108. By catalogue numbers in PBSB, except for OJA = Popham 1995.

[ back ] 109. Markoe’s dating scheme in PBSB (used here) is, after close inspection, fundamentally compatible with Gjerstad 1946. Both are based on an assumed typological development towards greater complexity. But the reliability of this criterion is partially undermined by the existence of multiple workshops/sub-traditions, some potentially more conservative than others: Culican 1982:22; also the critique of Winter 1990.

[ back ] 110. Back to front: L = lyre; P = double-pipe; D = frame-drum.

[ back ] 111. I retain Lawergren’s ‘eastern’ (E) and ‘western’ (W) without equating ‘western’ and ‘Aegean’ (see above).

[ back ] 112. The ‘Kourion’ bowls come from Cesnola’s notorious horde, suspected of being a sensationalist assemblage by Cesnola himself; but Kourion may still be the general area of origin: PBSB:176–177.

[ back ] 113. The instrument played by the hetaíra (?) on the klínē is quite ambiguous; but that of the processional orchestra does seem round-based.

[ back ] 114. See Culican 1982:15.

[ back ] 115. Fariselli 2007 (17n40) states that Culican 1982:15 detected a distinctly Assyrian character to the lyre in the outer band of Cy13; hence she groups it with other ‘eastern’ examples (Cr11, Cy3, U6). But Culican’s phrase “particularly Assyrian features” applies only to the player—an important distinction. That the lyre is in fact ‘western,’ as suggested by his drawing, is confirmed by its vertical orientation.

[ back ] 116. Winter 1976:20.

[ back ] 117. Since minor variations are always attributable to different workshops. But this question may reward closer scrutiny: cf. p268 and n118.

[ back ] 118. See p262n92. Nimrud pyxis (ND1642): Mallowan 1966:216, 218 fig. 168; assignment to North Syrian group: Barnett 1935:189. U6 is closely related to Cy3, but travelled to Iran.

[ back ] 119. L. R. Binford, quoted by Winter 1990:14.

[ back ] 120. See 262n92–93.

[ back ] 121. MMA New York inv. no. 74.51.2509 (45.2 cm high): Cesnola 1885, pl. XII; Myres 1914:198 no. 1265; Karageorghis et al. 2000:132 no. 198, where the instrument is misidentified as a triangular harp (also Myres 1914:199 no. 1264; Aspects:147); Lawergren 1984:152n4 rightly recognized a round-based lyre with only the front portion sculpted. A comparable αὐλός-player, probably also from Golgoi, was perhaps a companion piece: MMA inv. 74.51.2517; Myres 1914:198 no. 1264; Karageorghis et al. 2000:133 no. 199. A rather similar figure and lyre, but lacking the floral details, is Hermary 1989:284–285 no. 577, also dated to ca. 575.

[ back ] 122. Note that floral/papyrus motifs are also seen in Egyptian instruments (see AEMI s.v. Decoration>floral); one, dated to the first quarter of the first millennium, is peculiar for its round base, and might be related to the Cypriot instruments: see AEMI:87, 91. Other Cypriot floral lyres: mould-made female figurine, possibly from Lapethos and dated to ca. 600–480 (Karageorghis et al. 2000:148–149 no. 227). Another such figure (tomb, Idalion) apparently held a ‘floral-post’ lyre; unfortunately the instrument is broken (Cesnola 1894, pl. V no. 29; cf. pl. XXXIV no. 287). An especially interesting example from the Hellenistic period shows the influence of the Greek kithára and/or contemporary Levantine specimens: see p278 and Figure 34.

[ back ] 123. See p211 and further Franklin 2014:229–231.

[ back ] 124. Cf. SIAG:9: its “size … cannot be taken literally.”

[ back ] 125. Cf. Monloup 1994:111.

[ back ] 126. This is not to be confused with the term ‘cradle kithára ’ (Wiegenkithara) which M. Wegner introduced to describe the shape of round-based instruments in Attic art ca. 550–400—which apparently perpetuate the earlier so-called phórminx even as the flat-based concert kithára became the normal instrument of professionals (Wegner 1949:30–32; cf. SIAG:139). The insufficiency of this as a blanket term was noted by Lawergren 1985:27 et passim (cf. Lawergren 1984) in distinguishing a species common to Attica, Etruria, and (western) Anatolia, which he dubbed the ‘cylinder kithára ’ on the basis of the small round discs which appear to be wedged between body and arm-bases. This feature is generally lacking from Cypriot lyres, which accordingly must be recognized as yet another species.

[ back ] 127. This should be added to the evidence there for local preferences in iconography, adaptation to new materials, and reorientation of use/ideology: synopsis in Neri 2000:3–13, noting e.g. emphasis on martial themes and exclusively funerary find-contexts; Markoe 2003:213–215 (materials/media).

[ back ] 128. For which see generally Karageorghis 1977; Karageorghis 2005.

[ back ] 129. A third-century Phoenician inscription from Paphos commemorates some dedication to “Paphian Astarte” ( ]‘štrt pp[ ): Masson and Sznycer 1972:p81–86; Bonnet 1996:160; Lipiński 2004:106; Kypris:42.

[ back ] 130. See p339, 350.

[ back ] 131. Phoenician: Egyptianizing figures, vertical partition of space (cf. Falsone 1988:101). North Syrian: rendition of god(dess)/offering table motif, and central design (Frankfort 1970:327–328).

[ back ] 132. Smith 2008:264–266 (quotation), with references. Of course we must remember that eighth-century Cilicia has also produced examples of ‘western’ lyre-morphology in the Karatepe reliefs (see p251–253) and the Lyre-Player Group of Seals, which present complex interpretive challenges (Chapter 21). Nevertheless, a Cypriot origin for G3 remains the best explanation given the parallels of Cy5, Cy7, and Cy13.

[ back ] 133. See p56–57.

[ back ] 134. So Neil 1901:8; Albright 1964:171n47: “Greek kinýra … itself a loan from Phoenician kinnûr ”; cf. YGC:144n91.

[ back ] 135. YGC:144n91. For the phenomenon generally, Friedrich and Röllig 1970 §86; Friedrich et al. 1999:41–42 (§79); Krahmalkov 2001:30–31 §2b (conditioned by stress and syllable-closing).

[ back ] 136. See p134–135.

[ back ] 137. SL §21.3 and 21.9; cf. Huehnergard 2008:264.

[ back ] 138. The Can. form *ḥarūṣ(u) is reconstructible from a PN at Ugarit (ḫa-ru-ṣe-en-ni, with Hurr. suffix: Gröndahl 1967:140; Sivan 1984:228) and vocalization of the Heb. cognate ḥārūṣ. See Szemerényi 1964:53–54 (viewing the reduction of the first syllable in Greek [ḥar ūṣ– > χρυσ-] as a post-Mycenaean development, with Lin. B. ku-ru-so representing rather *χυρῡσός); Emprunts:37–38; Szemerényi 1968:195–196; Priebatsch 1980:317; Szemerényi 1981:116; SL §65.6; CAD s.v. ḫurāṣu; DUL s.v. ḫrṣ.

[ back ] 139. For the geminate –nn-, see p213–214.

[ back ] 140. Beekes 2009:xx, xxxii §6.2.

[ back ] 141. Brown 1981:397–398.

[ back ] 142. Cf. Brown 1981:397–398. Baurain 1980b:11–12 rightly stresses that Eteocypriot must have had a more important impact on ‘Greek’ Cypriot words than is generally recognized; but obviously I cannot agree with his derivation of ‘Kinyras’ from a hypothetical Eteocypriot form that was accidentally homophonous with WS knr, giving rise in later times to a false etymology from the lyre (8).

[ back ] 143. See p191n71 and 477.

[ back ] 144. The surprisingly numerous sources are assembled by AGM:59 (for the accentuation φοίνιξ, vs. φοῖνιξ [LSJ], cf. Naoumides 1968:272; West 1990:7). Those bearing most closely on the present discussion are Alkaios p. 507 Voigt = Campbell 1982–1993, 1 fr. 424A; Herodotos 4.192; Athenaios 637b (Phoenician origin, citing Ephoros FGH 70 F 4 and Skamon FGH 476 F 4); Juba FGH 275 F 15 (‘Syrian’ origin); Hesykhios s.v. λυροφοίνιξ· εἶδος κιθάρας. It is tempting to connect Herodotos’ statement that the instrument’s arms were made from Libyan antelope horns with the ‘eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician bowls. This could explain first not only the pronounced curls of the arms, but also why they are often asymmetrical and different from bowl to bowl. Admittedly, these curls can be readily fashioned in wood, as one sees in the six surviving Levantine-style lyres from Egypt (see p106). It may still be, however, that finely worked wooden instruments reproduced the lines of more rustic prototypes, just as a Greek concert kithára ’s curving back sometimes evoked the humble tortoise whose carapace was used in early and amateur lyres.

[ back ] 145. Winter 1995.

[ back ] 146. Sappho 44.30. Phoenician link: Herodotos 3.111.2, cf. 3.107.1. For the origins and routes of these spices, Miller 1969:42–47, 102–105 (frankincense and myrrh), 153–172 (cassia/cinnamon).

[ back ] 147. Similarly one finds κλεψίαμβοι and ἐννεάχορδα in Aristoxenos’ list of foreign instruments (fr. 97 Wehrli). By the later fourth century, the Greek formation ψαλτήριον (‘plucking instrument’) emerged as a generic term for ‘harp’ (AGM:74, with evidence for harps on 71–73), but could also be used to translate Heb. kinnōr: see p47n14, 194n43, 312n188. Τhe Archaic vogue for harps was seemingly stimulated by an Assyrianizing fashion in Lydia: Franklin 2008, especially 197–198.

[ back ] 148. See especially the important surveys in Athenaios 174a–185a, 634c–637f. For the σαμβύκη, νάβλα(ς), πανδοῦρα, γίγγρας, and variants, AGM:75–80.

[ back ] 149. Nábla(s): Bayer 1968 (Greek sources, 108–110); AGM:77. Cf. p53, 58.

[ back ] 150. Aristoxenos fr. 97 Wehrli = Athenaios 182f, reappearing at 636b in a discussion quoted from Phillis of Delos (FHG 4:476 fr. 2).

[ back ] 151. For this ‘same yet different’ quality of the pair, see further p47n18, 195n48, 215n64.

[ back ] 152. See p211–213.

[ back ] 153. Kinýra must therefore supersede the “lyre-cithare” used by Monloup 1994, Chapter 3, of Cypriot round-based lyres.

[ back ] 154. See Appendix D.

[ back ] 155. See p53.

[ back ] 156. See p260 and n80.

[ back ] 157. Cesnola 1885, pl. cii no. 676; Myres 1914:190 no. 1238. For the tradition of floral decor, see p269.