Review Article
Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First
Millennium b.c.: Two Distinct Cultures in
Search of Their Distinct Archaeologies
Maria Iacouvou
Department of History and Archaeology
University of Cyprus
P.O. Box 20537
1678 Nicosia
Cyprus
[e-mail]
The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, by
nium, but this would be a mistake. In fact, it is in
Nicola Schreiber. Culture and History of the An-
the Iron Age that this inherent cultural characteris-
cient Near East, Volume 13. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
tic grows to the dismay (and despair) of absolute
Pp. xxx + 409, 16 figures, 7 tables, 25 maps.
chronology-minded scholars into a major archaeo-
Cloth. $106.00.
logical problem, because of the dearth of settlement
excavations. Known almost exclusively from tomb
The study of Cypriote ceramics is beset by the groups, the White Painted (WP) wares of the Cypri-
unusually long duration in production and circula- ote Iron Age were produced during the better part of
tion of the island s principal pottery fabrics. For the first millennium, from the Cypro-Geometric to
instance, Base Ring and White Slip, the two hand- the Cypro-Classical periods. As established by Gjer-
made Late Cypriote fine wares, were manufactured stad (G), their typological classification provides the
for nearly half a millennium. Irrespective of their foundation for Cyprus s system of periods in the Iron
murkiness as precise chronological indicators, be- Age. Consequently, in the island where BoR is found
cause they were exclusively Cypriote products and in much greater quantities than in the Levant, its
shared in Cyprus s trade around the Mediterranean, production has to be set in context against the over-
they have deservedly been described as the Cypri- powering continuum of WP.
otes Late Bronze Age cartes de visite. Schreiber (S) In an authoritative Introduction (pp. ix xxx) a
would have liked to claim the same for Black-on-Red must for student curricula S analyses the origin
(BoR), which was widely distributed east and, sub- and subsequent history of  Cypro-Phoenician as a
sequently, even west of the island, for a considerable cultural term, which was constructed by the archae-
length of time during the Iron Age. To achieve this ologists of a third cultural area, Palestine. Albright
purpose, S has to prove that this highly distinctive used it first in 1924 to refer to a general region of pot-
fine ware  of well-levigated clay, slipped red or tery production, but in 1932 he described the shape
orange, usually carefully burnished and painted with most frequently encountered in the ware as the  im-
thin black horizontal lines (p. ix) was not a  Cypro- ported Cypro-Phoenician perfume juglet (p. xxii).
Phoenician hybrid assigned  to one or other of the Despite the fact that in 1948 G classified the ware
regions or both (p. xx) but, instead, an original under the descriptive term BoR,  Cypro-Phoenician
product of the island s ceramic industry. (a term not in use in the archaeology of Cyprus)  re-
One may think that the longue durée problem of mains a concept entrenched in Palestinian Iron Age
Cyprus s second-millennium wares could not possi- archaeology (p. xx). Following the chronology of
bly become more accentuated in the first millen- biblical archaeology, the absolute dates accorded to
61
62 MARIA IACOVOU BASOR 336
imported specimens of the ware in excavation con- chapter 1 (pp. 1 23). After a complicated analysis
texts in Palestine were from the start astonishingly of the prevailing confusion the mere enumeration
high (in the 11th century). G, who had ascribed the of other related types makes the trouble that Eriksson
development of BoR in Cyprus to imported (but not (1991) took to defend the Cypriote origin of Late
Phoenician) prototypes, assigned the beginning of Bronze Age Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware seem
its local production to the last of his three Cypro- like  a piece of cake  S decides that  the pottery
Geometric periods. Given that his absolute dates type to be investigated in this book is that described
for CG III admittedly, the result of a largely circu- by Gjerstad (p. 3). Hereafter, the contents of the
lar argument were 850 700 b.c. (later shortened to book become quite daunting and much depends on
850 750 b.c.), the chronological discrepancy fueled one s stamina to follow the thread of the argument
a controversy that is still very much with us and re- from chapter to chapter. The purpose of the discus-
mains inextricably linked with BoR s place of origin sion under  Earliest Appearances of BoR (p. 5) is to
and its export horizons. disprove the association of BoR with mainland lev-
Thus, to meet her target of demonstrating the els dated to the 11th century ( mainland refers to
origin and chronology of BoR, S has to fight two southeast Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine,
battles. She needs, first, to disassociate the wide geo- Jordan, and Egypt: p. xviii). From this point onward
graphical distribution of the ware from assumptions S s attentiveness to absolute chronology becomes
that arose from using the term  Cypro-Phoenician ; painfully evident and begins to gnaw on her method-
and second, to define the ware against a confusing ology. Instead of confining her argument to relative
clutter of terms that break it up into local variants terms, with reference to strata, floors, deposits and
(Cypriote, Phoenician, Syro-Palestinian) and then shared diagnostics, she focuses from the start on the
establish a single BoR type  meaningful as a re- 10th century b.c. (p. 8) as the ware s birth date.
cognisable and marketable commodity (p. 1). On Nevertheless, the discussion on the possible ante-
the first issue, S identifies an array of misinterpre- cedents of BoR (further developed in chapter 4) is
tations, which escalate into the notion that BoR decisive, as S recognizes that various traits associ-
is  a trademark ware of Phoenician commercial ated with Phoenician pottery could have inspired
enterprise, particularly connected with Phoenicians BoR s production in Cyprus. At the same time, S
in Cyprus (p. xx). In fact, since the book s title is acknowledges that the shapes and decoration of the
bound to render it uninviting to historians and theo- latest Late Cypriote pottery (LC IIIB) and the ear-
retical archaeologists, it must be stressed that this is liest of early Cypro-Geometric (CG IA) could not
not a dry, single-track study on pottery classifica- have contributed to the creation of BoR. This vital
tion. The book seriously questions the validity of en- observation (p. 15), a natural point of departure for
trenched  historical facts particularly the myth S to show her understanding and command of the
of a Phoenician monopoly of commercial networks painted pottery of Cyprus upon which a ware of
in the Aegean (Conclusion: p. 312) and rejects the foreign inspiration was grafted, remains elliptical
construct of a  Cypro-Phoenician period (p. xx) throughout the book.
or a  homogeneous Cypro-Levantine cultural prov- S prudently underlines the limitations presented
ince (p. xxiv), which has for long denied both by the often overlooked fact of the lack of exca-
Phoenicia and Cyprus their distinct Early Iron Age vated sites in modern Lebanon; she returns to this
histories. If in the end S makes scholars think twice in chapter 2 to remind us that  the only settlement
before they use the term  Cypro-Phoenician, this sites so far excavated from the period of Iron Age
will be one of her book s long-term contributions to in Phoenicia proper are Tyre and Sarepta, both of
Mediterranean archaeology. Having said this, how- which were limited soundings (p. 26). This leads
ever, one cannot avoid commenting on the paradox: her to lose confidence in  the uncertain chronology
S chose for the title the term she so successfully for Phoenician ware, which is largely typological
deconstructs. and based on tomb groups (p. 13) an assessment
The second obstacle S has to overcome is de- that also fits Cypro-Geometric like a glove. The fact,
fining BoR vis-Ä…-vis the  existence of a number of however, that the two cultural areas suspected to have
so-called Black-on-Red wares (p. 1). This must be been involved in producing BoR both lack strati-
settled before she can concentrate on the initial ap- graphic settlement excavations does not preclude
pearance of the ware, which is the main theme of the need to approach their respective Early Iron Age
2004 PHOENICIA AND CYPRUS IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C. 63
tomb assemblages with the aim of isolating the ho- tribution on the mainland in order to see whether  it
rizon in which BoR appears. Moreover, the sheer appears in context with BoR with any consistency
quantities of BoR in the confined island space of Cy- (p. 48). Had BoR pottery been produced or distrib-
prus are conducive to formulating a model of the uted through Phoenician trade, it would have accom-
ware s development. Instead, S attempts to establish panied these early Phoenician shapes; but it does
three precarious phases (in chapter 3, pp. 180, 212) not. In fact, outside Phoenicia proper the distribu-
from BoR s distribution on the mainland, where she tion of Phoenician pottery is minimal. In this in-
identifies  a broad but relatively minimal distribu- genious way, S undermines the traditional view that
tion, over a lengthy period of time (p. 80).  proposed Phoenicia as a candidate for the earliest
Having discarded tomb groups in Cyprus and manufacture and export of BoR pottery (p. 48) and
Phoenicia, S turns to Israel, where far more settle- concludes that it is unlikely that it was distributed by
ment sites have been excavated, and, in chapter 2 the Phoenicians (p. 51).
(pp. 25 81), begins to analyze the distribution of A study on packaging and size standardization
BoR in the Levant and the nature of its trade. S fol- of BoR juglets for the trade in oils (pp. 65 66) and
lows her evidence systematically, making a clear dis- a survey of ancient perfumes and perfume produc-
tinction between cultural areas (Palestine, Phoenicia, tion recipes (pp. 69 70) are among the highlights of
Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt) and successfully de- this chapter in which S s command of classical ar-
picts the geography of the distribution of BoR and chaeology is made evident. S masterfully relates the
its relative amounts per region. The idea of compar- replacement of BoR juglets by Corinthian aryballoi
ing the distribution of BoR with that of WP and with the late currency of BoR in the Dodecanese
Bichrome (p. 34) on the mainland is brilliant and (p. 66). Do not miss the climax of this accomplished
allows for sensitive conclusions: WP and Bichrome study in chapter 5 (pp. 281 306), on the later his-
began earlier than BoR but continued alongside it; tory of BoR and its dispersal to the West. One must
from the moment of its introduction, BoR exceeds point out, however, that the statement regarding Lin-
WP and Bichrome in popularity (p. 38). While this ear B tablets at Knossos which  record Cyprus as an
phenomenon is clearly related to the popularity of exporter of this or that commodity (p. 69) propa-
the BoR juglets (and/or their contents), she shows gates a false impression: the name of the island of
well that the less popular open shapes are not absent Cyprus has not been identified as such in Linear B.
from the ware s first phase on the mainland. This  The earliest Greek attestation of Cyprus is in Ho-
correlates with the evidence from Cyprus, where mer, John Bennet declares in his analysis (in Knapp
 BoR bowls begin contemporaneously with BoR 1996: 52) of Linear B references to Kuprios (but not
juglets (p. 47). How do we then define this phase, Kupros). Also, S describes the Cypro-Syllabic in-
which has to be more or less contemporary in both scription on the scapula from Tel Dor as  still un-
areas? S does not commit herself on the relative date deciphered (p. 76) when both the script and this
of the WP/Bichrome pottery found in mainland lev- particular inscription have been deciphered. In fact,
els before the appearance of BoR, despite the fact Stern states in the opening paragraph of his article
that this has been clarified in Gilboa s recent reas- (1994: 1) that the scapula  bears an inscription in a
sessment: with the exception of a few pieces from Greek Cypro-Syllabic script, which Olivier Masson
Tel Dor, which are safely dated to CG IA, the rest reads and discusses.
of the WP from the mainland cannot be associated The reader now expects the author to proceed to
with material in Cyprus that is earlier than CG IB/ examine the more plausible view, which assigns  to
II;  neither is Black-on-Red attested in any of the Phoenicia the inspiration behind BoR s production
assemblages that could safely be attributed to this in Cyprus (p. 48); but S commits, instead, a tactical
horizon (Gilboa 1999: 124). This has direct reper- error. She introduces in chapter 3 (pp. 83 213) the
cussions on the initial production horizon of BoR. It argument on chronology and steps right into the con-
is quite obviously a post-CG I phenomenon. But is it troversy over historical dates (the notorious problem
CG II, or post-CG II? This is still the crux of the of Shishak: p. 85) and their association with specific
problem. destruction levels in a swathe of sites on the main-
Next, S identifies the most prominent pottery in land. This chapter, the longest by far as it contains
the early Phoenician repertoire (Phoenician Bichrome the masterpiece of S s research a systematic pre-
and Phoenician Red Slip shapes) and traces its dis- sentation of BoR pottery found in stratified levels
64 MARIA IACOVOU BASOR 336
on mainland sites, with bibliography and much more the origin of the ware, the keynote is borrowed from
(pp. 92 212) may deservedly win the author the Bikai. Having come to Cyprus with an intimate
title of BoR s acclaimed authority. It is also bound knowledge of early Phoenician material culture on
to win her as many critics as supporters from the the mainland after excavation and publication of
Palestinian archaeology front. The standard practice the Tyre sounding, where BoR was found to be an
for archaeology monographs is to leave the discus- alien element,  clearly an import (p. 231) Bikai
sion on chronology, especially absolute chronology, was able to identify the true Phoenician imports and
to the very end. Why does S make it the centerpiece group them into four horizons on the basis of their
of her work? What the reader has begun to suspect Cypriote contexts (Bikai 1987). Later, she expressed
since chapter 1 (a hang-up on absolute chronology) her amazement at  the suggestion that Black-on-Red
is clearly manifested in chapters 3 and 4. S works on is Phoenician (p. 231). Given S s strong support for
the assumption that BoR is  a  hallmark of the 10th BoR s Cypriote origin, this quotation ought to have
century (p. 84) on the mainland; but, if she is to been the book s frontispiece. Despite the fact that
prove that BoR originated in Cyprus, she cannot have S adopts Bikai s suggestion endorsed by Karageor-
it appear on the mainland as early as 950 b.c. and on ghis (1983: 374) that the inspiration for BoR may
the island after 850 b.c. So S tries to prove G wrong: lie in the Phoenician  Red Ware imports identified
the production of BoR did not commence in Cyprus in CG I tombs (pp. 259, 275), she rejects Bikai s
in CG III but in CG II, as it may very well have, but relative chronology scheme as  ultimately no more
all this fuss is in the name of the absolute dates with satisfactory than that of Gjerstad (p. 233). Granted
which G associated CG II (950 850 b.c.). Amazing that in the same chapter S devotes a section to  De-
though it sounds for this otherwise decisively impor- constructing Gjerstad (p. 239), only to re-endorse
tant work, S takes the traditional absolute chronolo- his typology (because  examination of the general
gies of the mainland and Cyprus at face value and sequence of White Painted development suggests
cast in stone. Her argument, therefore, is driven by a that the typology established by Gjerstad for these
crusading effort to reconcile  the two chronological wares is satisfactory : p. 256), the reader is bound to
trends (p. 221) and to close the gap between a high run out of patience. Since only a handful of scholars
(Palestinian) and a low (Cypriote) absolute chronol- will have the stamina to get to the bottom of this frus-
ogy, both of which, for all we know, may share in trating argument, it may be worth trying to identify
any errors. the reasoning behind S s stubborn adherence to G s
It is not for this reviewer to comment on the sequence of WP and her rejection of post-G studies
former, but one can think of few things in Cypriote that attempt to refine G s typologies, especially with
archaeology that have a lower degree of credibility regard to CG I. They are principally a series of arti-
than the absolute dates accorded to the three peri- cles (1965; 1966; 1972) and a monograph (1973) by
ods of Cypro-Geometric (100 years each). In fact, the erudite Pieridou, whose work remains the back-
the only absolute date worth trusting, which is close bone of the study of PWP and WP I; Catling s (1976)
enough to Cypro-Geometric, is the start of LC IIC groundbreaking discussion of the  telescoping of
around 1300 b.c. (Manning et al. 2001). The length WP/Bichrome pottery in a review of Salamis Tomb I
in years (or 25-year-long generations) of LC IIC, (Yon 1971); and Adelman s (1976) contribution on
IIIA, and IIIB, which come before CG I, remains refinements in classification and ware compression.
nebulous. The stylistic dependency of the White Only this last is found in S s bibliography where,
Painted Wheelmade III fabrics on LH IIIC pottery by the way, no distinction is made between the pub-
renders the dates of the last phases of Late Cypriote lications of the same author which happen to have
sensitive to the fluctuations of Late Helladic chronol- the same date (e.g., Bikai 1987 in the text refers to
ogy. Thus, 1050 b.c. for the beginning of CG IA is one of three entries with the same date in the Bibli-
no more than a conventional date after which we ography: p. 366).
are in the dark. S s ulterior motive is to raise the absolute date for
Chapter 4 (pp. 221 80) sets out to investigate the introduction of BoR to the mid-tenth century.
the origin of BoR in terms of its inspiration and CG II is traditionally dated 950 850 b.c. S, there-
main place of manufacture but returns instead to a fore, wants BoR to become a characteristic of CG II
tedious analysis of G s work and to Post-Gjerstad- tomb groups. Groups that do not contain BoR have
Reassessments (p. 226). When S begins to deal with to be pushed out of CG II; and the only way to do
2004 PHOENICIA AND CYPRUS IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C. 65
this is by updating them to CG I. To achieve this, S imports in CG I assemblages from which BoR is ab-
follows G s seriation of tomb groups from Amathous sent. It was therefore possible, indeed necessary, for S
and Lapithos (p. 222), unperturbed by the fact that to have specified the pre-BoR phase(s) in local terms.
they have been at the heart of the compression of Through them she would have gained an under-
WP I and WP II shapes into a seemingly contempo- standing of the temporal and stylistic developments
rary CG I burial horizon.  Compression of wares is of the WP/Bichrome shapes that have to be accom-
the result of interpreting multiple burial deposits modated in CG I III. This in turn would have made
. . . as one burial stratum dating to a specific point in her more appreciative of recent attempts to remedy
time. Large groups of pottery from tombs that Gjer- the compression phenomenon, such as the study of
stad classified as CG IA included CG IB and, at Steel (1996), whom S charges with uncritical re-
times, CG II types (Iacovou 1988: 7). Thus, S claims adjustment (p. 265) of the Kaloriziki groups. Finally,
that Aupert and Tytgat s (1984) dating of the two it must be understood that a definitive move away
North Cemetery Amathous tombs to CG II is too late from G s tomb seriation and decisive refinements in
(they do not contain BoR) and suggests that they the classification of WP I into early, advanced, and
 belong to a pre-BoR phase (p. 263). By the same late CG I shapes was quietly accomplished in 1983 in
token, S could update to CG I a whole series of Karageorghis s magnum opus on the Early Iron Age,
semi-published Amathous tomb groups (pp. 263 the publication of the Palaepaphos-Skales cemetery,
64), which Tytgat (1989: 201 3) has assigned to which S uses as her test case (p. 255).
CG II. S describes Tytgat 1989 as  [t]he most recent In the end, although all in Cyprus suspect that
publication of Iron Age tombs at Amathus (p. 263), BoR starts earlier than G suggested, S fails to anchor
despite the fact that Amathous Tomb 194, another its production horizon to a revised and secure se-
Iron Age group, was published in Tytgat 1995. S quence of WP. Nor can S suggest a substitute for
is also unaware of Amathous T. 521 (Karageorghis G s phases of BoR: based on the ware s circulation
and Iacovou 1990) and Amathous Diplostrati T. 109 on the mainland, S s Phases 1 3 are useless in a Cyp-
(Hermary and Iacovou 1999). riote context. With the development of the WP wares
What does S wish to define as a pre-BoR phase, being manipulated to fit the demands of a mainland-
since on this issue she disagrees with G? For him based (and not altogether unbiased) absolute chro-
CG II is a pre-BoR phase. Had S explored the devel- nology, the contextual history of BoR in Cyprus has
opment of PWP, which is largely LH IIIC in origin not been adequately addressed. There is not even a
and, therefore, largely monochrome, into WP, she list of the published tomb groups that contain BoR.
would have isolated the ceramic phase in which the Consequently, a chapter is still missing from this
globular neck-ridged jug is incorporated into the otherwise impressive research. One sincerely hopes
WP I repertoire. This is a Phoenician shape which that S will persevere, as few synthetic works in the
in bichrome or polychrome represents, as S herself archaeology of Iron Age Phoenicia and Cyprus ever
notes (p. 14), the earliest phase of Phoenician pottery come this far. The book awaits its companion vol-
production in Lebanon a phase that does not con- ume on BoR in Cyprus, in the name of which this
tain BoR. S could have also noted that the rare ap- hopefully constructive criticism has been written in
plication of a second, red color on PWP vases was goodwill. S has an ideal opportunity to accomplish
discontinued in CG I; it was replaced by a new style, this with her study on  The Black-on-Red Pottery
which was formalized in Bichrome ware (Pieridou from Kition in the forthcoming Excavations at
1966: 11; Iacovou 1991: 202). This new style (solid Kition (Volume VI), edited by Karageorghis.
red bands) was introduced via the early Phoenician
references
Adelman, C. M. Aupert, P., and Tytgat, Ch.
1976 Cypro-Geometric Pottery: Refinements in Clas- 1984 Deux tombes géométriques de la nécropole
sification. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeol- nord d Amathonte (NT 226 I-II). Bulletin de
ogy 47. Göteborg: Åström. Correspondance Hellénique 108: 619 53.
66 MARIA IACOVOU BASOR 336
Bikai, P. M. Knapp, A. B., ed.
1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: 1996 Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third
Leventis Foundation. to the First Millennia BC. Sources for the His-
Catling, H. W. tory of Cyprus 2. Altamont, NY: Greece and
1972 Review of Salamine de Chypre II: La tombe T.I Cyprus Research Center.
du XIe s. av. J.C., by M. Yon. American Jour- Manning, S. W.; Weninger, B.; South, A. K.; Kling, B.;
nal of Archaeology 76: 222 28. Kuniholm, P. I.; Muhly, J. D.; Hadjisavvas, S.;
Eriksson, K. Sewell D. A.; and Cadogan G.
1991 Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A Product 2001 Absolute Age Range of the Late Cypriot IIC
of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Pp. 81 96 in Period on Cyprus. Antiquity 75: 328 40.
Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Pieridou, A.
Record, eds J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and 1965 An Early Cypro-Geometric Tomb at Lapethos.
B. Kling. University Museum Monograph 74; Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cy-
University Museum Symposium Series 2. prus: 75 111.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University 1966 A Tomb-Group from Lapithos  Ayia Anasta-
of Pennsylvania. sia. Report of the Department of Antiquities,
Gilboa, A. Cyprus: 1 12.
1999 The View from the East Tel Dor and the 1972 TavfoÍ up ar. 503 ek Laphvqou, AgÇa Anasta-
Earliest Cypro-Geometric Exports to the Le- sÇa. Report of the Department of Antiquities,
vant. Pp. 119 39 in Cyprus: The Historicity Cyprus: 237 50.
of the Geometric Horizon, eds. M. Iacovou 1973 O PrwtogewmetrikovÍ RuqmovÍ en Kuvprw. Athens:
and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of Athens Archaeological Society.
Cyprus. Steel, L.
Hermary, A., and Iacovou, M. 1996 Transition from Bronze to Iron at Kourion: A
1999 Amathous-Diplostrati Tomb 109. Report of the Review of the Tombs from Episkopi-Bamboula
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 151 62. and Kaloriziki. Annual of the British School at
Iacovou, M. Athens 91: 287 300.
1988 The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century b.c. Stern, E.
Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 1994 A Phoenician-Cypriote Votive Scapula from
79. Göteborg: Åström. Tel Dor: A Maritime Scene. Israel Exploration
1991 Proto-White Painted Pottery: A Classifica- Journal 44: 1 12.
tion of the Ware. Pp. 199 202 in Cypriot Tytgat, Ch.
Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, 1989 Les nécropoles sud-ouest et sud-est d Ama-
eds. J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and B. thonte, Vol. 1: Les tombes 110 385. Études
Kling. University Museum Monograph 74; Chypriote 11. Nicosia: Service des Antiquités
University Museum Symposium Series 2. de Chypre.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University 1995 La Tombe NW 194 de la nécropole nord d Ama-
of Pennsylvania. thonte. Report of the Department of Antiqui-
Karageorghis, V. ties, Cyprus: 137 85.
1983 Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Yon, M.
Cyprus. 2 vols. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag 1971 La tombe T. I du XIe s. av. J.C. Salamine de
Konstanz. Chypre 2. Paris: de Boccard.
Karageorghis, V., and Iacovou, M.
1990 Amathus Tomb 521: A Cypro-Geometric I
Group. Report of the Department of Antiqui-
ties, Cyprus: 75 100.