INTRODUCTION: POSITIONING CYPRUS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HELLENISTIC MONARCHIES
During the war of Alexander the Great against Darius III, the Cypriot Iron Age polities (known in the contemporary literature as kingdoms or city-kingdoms) were part of the Achaemenid Empire. Although they must have been paying some kind of tribute to the Persian monarch and had to provide maritime military assistance to him, they seem to have maintained a form of political status and independence with a certain degree of control (Stylianou Reference Stylianou1989, 416; Reference Stylianou and Papadopoullos2000, 515–16; cf. Petit Reference Petit, Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Kuhrt1991; Zournatzi Reference Zournatzi1996, 166; Reference Zournatzi2005; Mehl Reference Mehl2004; Cadogan et al. Reference Cadogan, Iacovou, Kopaka and Whitley2012, 4; Körner Reference Körner2017; Iacovou Reference Iacovou, Guieu-Coppolani, Werlings and Zurbach2021). In 333 BC, most of the Cypriot basileis (kings) changed sides to support Alexander, assisting him in the following year in his naval siege of Tyre. Following his death in 323 BC, the island became a bone of contention among his diadochoi (successors). In the end, Ptolemy I prevailed, and Cyprus eventually became a unitary state under Ptolemaic rule (Iacovou Reference Iacovou2002, 75; Reference Iacovou, Guieu-Coppolani, Werlings and Zurbach2021; Mehl Reference Mehl2004; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 7–15; Reference Papantoniou, Scherrer, Koiner and Ulbrich2012b; Reference Papantoniou2013a).
We have to remember, however, that the epigraphic and historical records suggest that the unification – that is, the eventual elimination of the Cypriot dynasties and the imposition of a unified administrative system controlled by a strategos (a general) – of the island did not immediately follow the demise of the basileis but was rather a slower and more complex process (Keen Reference Keen2012, 201, 269–74; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 11; Reference Papantoniou2013a, 170, 190). Despite the absence of the basileis, it is likely that we should allow for a degree of continuity of the administrative and economic functions in the Cypriot cities, especially in the course of the late fourth and third centuries BC. As shown by both textual and archaeological evidence (e.g. the short-lived construction of city walls and shipyards at Kition and Amathous), the late fourth century BC in particular was a time of crisis and transformations (Fourrier Reference Fourrier2021; Reference Fourrier2024, 38–42). This is also shown by renewed traditions, as evidenced by, amongst other things, the adoption of local coinage by Ptolemy’s brother Menelaos (appointed as commander of the military forces on the island), as well as by the continuation of local administrative practices at Idalion, as we will see below.
We can observe analogous situations in other geographic regions (e.g. the Syro-Palestinian Coast, Egypt, Iran) where the main socio-economic and administrative structures originally functioned under a semblance of continuity (cf. Welles Reference Welles1970; Hauben Reference Hauben and Lipiński1987a; Joannès Reference Joannès, Briant and Joannès2006; Stolper Reference Stolper, Briant and Joannès2006; Manning Reference Manning2010). The political changes that took place during the period of Ptolemaic rule in Cyprus were likely more extensive than we know (Mehl Reference Mehl and Papadopoullos2000, 659; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2013a, 181; Reference Papantoniou2013b, 51–2). Only new documentary evidence is likely to allow us to speak with confidence about the strategia before the end of the third century BC and, more specifically, before 217 BC, when the first explicit evidence for a Ptolemaic strategos can be found on the island (Bagnall Reference Bagnall1976, 38–49; cf. Fischer-Bovet Reference Fischer-Bovet2014, 156–8).
Hölbl (Reference Hölbl2001, 28) argues that Ptolemy I’s extra-Egyptian territories were largely geared to create protective buffer zones for Egypt. It has also been suggested that during the first century of Ptolemaic rule, Cyprus’ main role was that of a protective shield for the Ptolemaic territories in Syria (Balandier Reference Balandier and Flourentzos2007, 153). The situation changed from the last quarter of the third century BC, when the Ptolemies lost their last naval bases in the Aegean and were subsequently forced to leave the southern part of Syria (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001, 127–40; Meadows Reference Meadows, Bagnall, Brodersen, Champion, Erskine and Huebner2012). Following this, Cyprus and Cyrenaica remained the only Ptolemaic possessions outside Egypt (Bowman Reference Bowman1986, 29). Recent analysis of later (late Hellenistic/early Roman) texts clearly indicates the connectivity of the island, as an extensive commercial and strategic network (Calvelli Reference Calvelli2020). Cyprus became the main transmarine base of the Ptolemaic fleet, and a new defensive network was put in place (Hauben Reference Hauben1987b, 215–16; Balandier Reference Balandier2002, 332–4; Reference Balandier and Flourentzos2007, 154–5; Reference Balandier and Demetriou2011; cf. Mehl Reference Mehl and Papadopoullos2000, 643–4; Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001, 28). The possession of the island, as an important source of copper and timber for shipbuilding, together with its expertise in sailing, became even more vital for the Ptolemies for strategic, military and economic reasons (Bagnall Reference Bagnall1976, 73–9; Mehl Reference Mehl and Papadopoullos2000, 715–27).
For a few years Salamis seems to have functioned as the administrative base of Pelops, the first securely identified strategos of the whole island; but it appears he was soon transferred to Nea Paphos, which replaced Salamis as the capital of Ptolemaic Cyprus in order to form a more direct sea lane between Alexandria and the island.Footnote 1 In the current context it is worth noting that Pelops’ wife’s sister is attested as the kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus in Alexandria for 243/2 BC (SEG XVIII.734). In the late third/early second century BC, the strategos also received the title of archiereus (high-priest) and from the mid second century BC that of nauarchos (admiral of the fleet). By the second century BC, the Ptolemaic administration began to assert its control on the island more effectively, as can be deduced, for example, by the establishment of a more complex road network and the construction of more elaborate fortifications (Bekker-Nielsen Reference Bekker-Nielsen2004, 105–7, 230). The epigraphic record relating to the administration and the Ptolemaic presence on the island allows us to assume that, in the second century BC, Ptolemaic power became more visible and unified (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.54; Keen Reference Keen2012, 161; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 12–13, 342; Reference Papantoniou2013a; Michel Reference Michel2020a).
Considering a bottom-up direction of change is important when studying ancient imperial economies and, indeed, the transition from polis to empire. Nonetheless, one should not downplay the importance of hierarchies. The Hellenistic rulers seem to have appropriated Alexander’s legacy, which appears to have been influenced by Achaemenid imperial policies (Briant Reference Briant, Kuhrt and Sancisi-Weerdenburg1988; Reference Briant1996; Ma Reference Ma and Erskine2003; Meeus Reference Meeus, Trampedach and Meeus2020; Amitay and Pestarino Reference Amitay and Pestarino2025). Ma (Reference Ma and Erskine2003), for example, argues for a ‘chameleon quality’ on the part of the Hellenistic kings, who adopted a specific role in their interactions with local structures. The best example when it comes to the Ptolemaic kings is their sculptural representations both as Egyptian pharaohs and in a Greek style (Smith Reference Smith1988, 86–98; Reference Smith, True and Hamma1996; Ashton Reference Ashton2001).
Additionally, in terms of land tenure, the Hellenistic kings developed powerful and concrete forms that allowed them to express the dominance of the state while also accommodating a multiplicity of local participation and consent, to achieve unity and legitimacy (Ma Reference Ma and Erskine2003, 179; cf. Davies Reference Davies and Ogden2002; Christensen, Thompson and Vandorpe Reference Christensen, Thompson and Vandorpe2017; Strootman Reference Strootman, Bru and Dumitru2021). Students of the Hellenistic period are now encouraged to look at Ptolemaic power through other channels of communication and imperial integration to observe that in territories considered Ptolemaic possessions, the Ptolemaic kings, in attempting to legitimate their power more efficiently, showed a flexibility that was based on their understanding of local structures and traditions (Manning Reference Manning2003; Reference Manning2010; Reference Manning and Munn2024; Marquaille Reference Marquaille2003, 35; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a). Recent approaches to both history and religion call for an evaluation of the uneven balance between individual and collective agency, as well as the usefulness of network theory (Heitmann-Gordon Reference Heitmann-Gordon2017; Mazzilli Reference Mazzilli, Da Vela, Franceschini and Mazzilli2023; Michels, Beck and Lichtenberger Reference Michels, Beck and Lichtenberger2024). As the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus enjoyed particular attention both from the Ptolemaic state and within private life, it warrants a more focused approach as we attempt to understand Ptolemaic power in terms of political economy and imperial integration.Footnote 2 Political economy mobilises (or extracts) a surplus from the subsistence economy to sustain political, religious and social institutions; to highlight the diversity and fluidity of such approaches, especially in the early Hellenistic years, I usually deliberately use the term in the plural here (i.e. political economies).
THE RECEPTION OF THE ARSINOE CULT AND THE PTOLEMAIC THALASSOCRACY
Because of its political and symbolic significance, the cult of Arsinoe II significantly differs from the cults dedicated to the other members of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Arsinoe II was the wife and sister of Ptolemy II who was deified around 270 BC: her cult eventually became of great politico-economic importance for the state. As Marquaille (Reference Marquaille2001, 1.194) puts it, the cult of Arsinoe, which was associated with that of Aphrodite (Barbantani Reference Barbantani2005; cf. Fulińska Reference Fulińska2012; Michel Reference Michel2020a, 135–44; Reference Michel2021), the Cypriot goddess par excellence, ‘provides a better understanding of how contemporaries grasped the realities of power than does the imposition of modern theories of imperialism’ (cf. Macurdy Reference Macurdy1932, 111–30; Grabowski Reference Grabowski, Twardowska, Salamon, Sprawski, Stachura and Turlej2014). Aphrodite was also worshipped as Euploia,Footnote 3 a saviour of the shipwrecked and protectress of sailors and the navy, all of whom would have actively promoted her cult. While, as far as I can ascertain, we lack epigraphic evidence that would place the name of Arsinoe next to Aphrodite specifically as Euploia, there is adequate evidence to suggest that some of the qualities of the goddess were attributed to the queen (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.166–234; Hauben Reference Hauben2013, 47–8; Meadows Reference Meadows2013, 29–30; Thompson and Buraselis Reference Thompson and Buraselis2013, 9–10).
A temple dedicated to the queen Arsinoe Kypris – thus directly referring to Aphrodite of Cyprus – by the nauarchos (admiral), Kallikrates of Samos, at Cape Zephyrion east of Alexandria, as Posidippus (ap. Athenaeus 318d) informs us, is evidence enough to show her association with Aphrodite (Fraser Reference Fraser1972, 239; Hauben Reference Hauben2013; Cayla Reference Cayla2018, 189–90; Michel Reference Michel2020a, 139). Anastassiades (Reference Anastassiades1998, 137–8; Reference Anastassiades, Scherrer, Koiner and Ulbrich2012, 111) objects to Młynarczyk’s (Reference Młynarczyk1990, 118) suggestion that Arsinoe was worshipped at Cape Zephyria/Zephyrion in Cyprus as Aphrodite Akraia and to the proposed connection between the Cypriot and Alexandrian promontories. He also disputes the identification of Arsinoe with Aphrodite in a Cypriot context and rejects the role of Admiral Kallikrates in this identification, arguing that Cypriot epigraphic evidence is insufficient to link the queen’s name with a divinity’s name or cult title. Although his objections are reasonable, I would like to emphasise the association (not the ‘clear identification’ – as Młynarczyk proposes) of Arsinoe with Aphrodite. In addition, we must consider Caneva’s (Reference Caneva2015) interpretation; it seems that the use of compound divine names for Arsinoe is exclusively an Alexandrian habit. The Alexandrian origin (Aristokles son of Aristokles from Alexandria) of the donor of the Chytroi inscription with Naias, further discussed below, may confirm this.
The existing textual and iconographic evidence is enough to clearly illustrate the relationship of the queen with Aphrodite, even in a Cypriot ‘syncretistic context’ (e.g. Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2009). The queen was officially associated with the protectress of seafarers by the Ptolemaic admiral and, therefore, by a key figure in the promotion of the Ptolemaic cult and, consequently, in the construction of royal power and ideology. In this context, we may note that Kallikrates was also named the first eponymous priest of the Theoi Adelphoi (the sibling gods), that is, of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.196, with further references). Not surprisingly, if we accept Mitford’s (Reference Mitford1961, 9, no. 18) reading of the (indeed very fragmentary) inscription,Footnote 4 a pedestal of the statue of Kallikrates of Samos may be found in the most important pan-Cypriot sanctuary of the Hellenistic period, that of Palaipaphos. In Palaipaphos, as the epigraphic evidence informs us, the Ptolemaic royal cult, directly or indirectly, was actively practised (Mitford Reference Mitford1961; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 341–2; Dumke and Pfeiffer Reference Dumke and Pfeiffer2014; Amitay and Pestarino Reference Amitay and Pestarino2025). It is also unsurprising that five dedications, including some possible altars (see below) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, were found in the vicinity of the sanctuary (Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades1998; Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014). A fine marble portrait from the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Soloi-Cholades (Fig. 1), identified either as a head of Aphrodite or as a portrait of the Ptolemaic queen, should be viewed within the context of the ‘syncretistic process’ of associations between the two cults.
Marble head from Soloi-Cholades interpreted as Arsinoe Philadelphus. Cyprus Museum, inv. no. SH 438 (courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus).
The deployment of a naval presence and the struggle of the Ptolemies to be perceived as a maritime power in the Mediterranean have been thoroughly studied (cf. Buraselis, Stefanou and Thompson Reference Buraselis, Stefanou and Thompson2013). Hauben (Reference Hauben, van’t Dack, van Dessel and van Gucht1983, 99, 100–1; Reference Hauben2013), more specifically, has analysed the role of Arsinoe within the ideology of Ptolemaic maritime power outside Egypt. Marquaille (Reference Marquaille2001, 1.166–234, especially 173) has suggested that the development of Ptolemaic maritime power may have started under Ptolemy I, but the crucial steps in the history of the Ptolemaic navy (following the construction of a powerful fleet) most probably began under Ptolemy II, the brother and husband of Arsinoe II. When the Ptolemies lost control of the Aegean in the second century BC, they may have transferred their fleet to Cyprus – probably largely to Paphos; and this is the moment when the strategos who commanded the royal fleet appears to be holding the title of nauarchos discussed above (Hauben Reference Hauben1970; Cayla Reference Cayla2018, 82).
The choice of the name Arsinoe for cities founded in the Ptolemaic sphere of influence in the Aegean and the Mediterranean relates to the dynasty’s growing maritime power (Cohen Reference Cohen1995, 34–5; Gordon Reference Gordon2012, 68–9, 74 n. 305; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 117, 195; Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014, 97). There are at least 16 Ptolemaic settlements bearing the name of Arsinoe, covering a very large area of the Mediterranean and beyond: Lycia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, mainland Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Keos and the Red Sea (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.175, maps 1 and 3; Caneva Reference Caneva2016, 171–2). One should not, however, view these cities as merely naval bases in the service of the Egyptian fleet; one of the objectives of these foundations, which line the coast from southern Anatolia to Syria and the Aegean, was control of the eastern Mediterranean. Marquaille (Reference Marquaille2001, 1.187) is correct in suggesting that, at the time of the foundation of these Arsinoe cities, Seleucid access to the Mediterranean was extremely limited due to Ptolemaic control of Phoenicia, Cyprus and the Cilician coast.
ARSINOE CITIES IN CYPRUS
Scholars have identified evidence for the foundation of three Arsinoe cities in Cyprus (Cohen Reference Cohen1995, 134–7; Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.187; Michel Reference Michel2020a, 130–44; Reference Michel2021): Marion/Arsinoe towards Lycia, Pamphylia, Cilicia and the Aegean; Arsinoe near Salamis directly facing Syria; and Arsinoe near Palaipaphos pointing towards Alexandria. Cohen (Reference Cohen1995, 135) suggests that all three cities may have been founded by Ptolemy II. While the archaeological evidence is far from clear in all cases, we are in a better position concerning the first foundation, i.e. Marion/Arsinoe. What we know about the other two foundations is based solely on problematic textual sources (Fig. 2).
Map of Cyprus with the Arsinoe cities and other sites mentioned in the text (produced by V. Trigas; digital data courtesy of the Geological Survey Department, Republic of Cyprus).
Fig. 2. Long description
A topographical map of Cyprus uses green for lowlands and brown/red for high elevations. A North arrow is in the top left and a scale bar from 0 to 40 kilometers is in the bottom right.
Coastal and Western Sites:
On the West coast, labels include Cape Lara, Cape Drepanon, and Marion/Arsinoe. Moving South along the coast are Nea Pafos, Geroskipou, Palaipaphos, Kourion, Amathous, and Kition (Larnaka). On the East coast are Leukolla? (Protaras), Arsinoe? (Famagusta), and Salamis. The far Northeast peninsula contains Karpasia. On the North coast is Morphou Bay, Soloi, and Larnakas Lapithou.
Inland Features:
In the Southwest, the Troodos Mountain range is shown in dark brown with numerous blue river lines radiating outward. In the North, the Pentadaktylos Mountains run parallel to the coast. Between these ranges lies the Mesaoria plain. Inland city labels include Ledra (Nicosia), Chytroi (Kythraia), Kafizin, Idalion, and Achna.
Arsinoe on the western coast was established on the remains of the polity of Marion which, according to Diodorus (19.79.4), was destroyed in 312 BC by Ptolemy I and its population transferred to Nea Paphos. According to Cohen (Reference Cohen1995, 134), it is possible that the restoration of Marion coincided with its renaming by Ptolemy II, which may explain why it was called Arsinoe (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.176). The foundation may be coupled with a new objective for the harbour of Marion to serve the Ptolemaic thalassocracy (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.177; cf. Strootman Reference Strootman, Strootman, van den Eijnde and van Wijk2019; Terpstra Reference Terpstra2019, 83–124). I would be careful, however, in making a fine distinction between the roles of the harbours of Nea Paphos and Marion, i.e. the first as a shipbuilding centre and the latter as intended for other tasks, including the shipping of copper (cf. Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.177; Balandier Reference Balandier, Balandier and Chandezon2014; Brillante Reference Brillante2020; Mauro Reference Mauro2022). Based on the existing evidence, we cannot make such an assumption. Nonetheless, I am in total agreement with Marquaille that the city of Marion/Arsinoe should be inserted within the broader Ptolemaic economic and military maritime networks. The archaeological evidence from the site strongly suggests a thriving Hellenistic urban centre (Childs, Smith and Padgett Reference Childs, Smith and Padgett2008, 234–43).
Arsinoe near Salamis on the eastern coast is strategically located, facing Syria. Here too, Strabo (14.6.3) mentions a city and a harbour, between Salamis and Leukolla, the latter tentatively identified as a small town at Protaras on the coast south of Famagusta (Ammochostos) (K. Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou and Stillwell1976). This Arsinoe seems to have been located on the site of modern Famagusta (Cohen Reference Cohen1995, 136). It remains unknown whether the city was established anew as Arsinoe, or whether there existed a small town which was renamed Arsinoe in the Hellenistic period. While Strabo in the first century AD refers to Arsinoe as a city and as a port, in the second century AD the geographer Claudius Ptolemy was not aware of any city called Arsinoe. An anonymous geographer (Stadiasmos 297–317) of the third or fourth century AD mentions a deserted city with a good port, named Ammochostos (K. Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1966, 95–6; Iacovou Reference Iacovou1993; Theodoulou Reference Theodoulou2007, 169, 172; Arnaud Reference Arnaud, Castro-Páez and Andreotti2020). At what point Ptolemaic Arsinoe was forgotten and when it became known as Ammochostos are unclear. Also unclear are the reasons why this city, with such a good natural harbour, was abandoned. While in the case of the first Arsinoe we have been able to identify the architecture of the city, in the case of the second Arsinoe the building of medieval Famagusta and the current political status of Cyprus, which does not allow any legal archaeological exploration at the site, prevent us from identifying and more precisely estimating the significance of this city.
Following Strabo (14.6.3), Arsinoe near Palaipaphos has been located on the south-western coast. Strabo mentions an Arsinoe with an anchorage, a shrine and a sacred precinct. The precise location is not known (Cohen Reference Cohen1995, 136) and we do not know which divinity (or divinities) were worshipped in the temple or to whom the sacred grove was dedicated. If Strabo is correct, this Arsinoe was located on the processional way in honour of Aphrodite linking the Old and New cities of Paphos, as he lists Zephyria, Arsinoe and Hierokepis (i.e. Geroskipou) between the two centres (cf. Balandier Reference Balandier, Balandier and Chandezon2014, 194–5; Cayla Reference Cayla2018, 28–9). Considering the evidence relating to Cape Zephyrion in Alexandria (see above), this further suggests that the city of Arsinoe was incorporated into the cult of Aphrodite, constituting another strong symbolic relationship (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.199).
Following a comparison between Strabo’s (14.6.3) and Ptolemy Geographer’s (5.13) descriptions of ancient Cyprus, Bekker-Nielsen (Reference Bekker-Nielsen1999) concludes that the currently accepted locations of Arsinoe and Cape Zephyria (in Strabo) or Zephyrion (in Ptolemy Geographer) on the south-west coast of Cyprus need re-evaluation. He suggests that Arsinoe near Palaipaphos may be a duplication of Marion/Arsinoe on the north-west side of the island, while Cape Zephyria/Zephyrion may be modern Cape Lara on the coast between Nea Paphos and Marion/Arsinoe. While we cannot be certain that Lara is Cape Zephyria/Zephyrion, it is a sheltered natural anchorage (rather than a bigger harbour), as suggested by Strabo. The tombs in the broader area of Cape Drepanon suggest that the region was intensively settled during the Hellenistic period (Raptou Reference Raptou and Flourentzos2007, 241). Bekker-Nielsen’s interpretation may explain why it has been impossible to archaeologically or even geographically locate this third city of Arsinoe between Palaipaphos and Geroskipou. Indeed, I suggest that we should probably abandon the idea that an Arsinoe city near Palaipaphos existed at all (but cf. Balandier Reference Balandier, Balandier and Chandezon2014, 194–5). The Nea Paphos harbour, directly facing Alexandria, was enough to cover the needs of the Ptolemaic maritime network.
Following the above discussion, it becomes clear that the foundation of cities named Arsinoe relates to the military and economic networks that, at least initially, the Ptolemies wished to successfully establish. Many Arsinoes were founded next to promontories with easy access to anchorages; the harbour-cities were also important military and economic transit points across the eastern Mediterranean, serving as way-stations for a trip to Alexandria or other places under the Ptolemaic sphere of influence (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.188–9). Marquaille (Reference Marquaille2001, 191) makes a clear case: the Ptolemaic settlements named after other members of the dynasty outside Egypt – for example Ptolemais or Berenike – did not differ from their counterparts in Egypt itself, but rather they were an expression of the power of the central government; on the other hand, the Arsinoe cities represent a homogeneous group within the Ptolemaic foundations (or re-foundations) outside Egypt with agendas alluding to a specific form of power, that is Ptolemaic maritime power. The reason that the Ptolemies decided to found an Arsinoe city in every case was to provide them with excellent anchorage facilities (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.188). With the demise of the Ptolemaic Empire, these cities or anchorage towns were abandoned or diminished in importance – most probably well before the Romans took control of the eastern Mediterranean – for reasons we cannot precisely identify. Perhaps these already diminished cities did not fit the much larger-scale Roman imperial economic network.
LOCALISATION OF THE CULT: INSERTING KAFIZIN INTO A BROADER COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK
In this section, I wish to show that the grotto sanctuary of the Nymph at Kafizin hill offers a unique case study for addressing the reception of the Arsinoe cult in a Cypriot context, as well as for the interweaving of Ptolemaic interests and local practices and identities (Fig. 3). Reviewing more closely the evidence from the sanctuary, where the name of the queen seems to have held a vital place, we may suggest that the use of local scripts during the Hellenistic period was not confined only to private and religious life but also incorporated into Ptolemaic economic activities and mechanisms of administration. This interpretation is in accord with contemporary scholarship on Ptolemaic economies suggesting plurality in administrative mechanisms, regional diversity, manipulation of indigenous economic systems, contractual relationships, and the employment of rituals and ideology to achieve a greater degree of political and economic integration (von Reden Reference Reden, Bang, Ikeguchi and Ziche2006). Evidence from both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires suggests that local languages and scripts continued to be used in administration as well.Footnote 5 While the existing evidence from the island is limited and problematic, we should consider that this might be the case in Cyprus as well.
The Kafizin hill (after Mitford Reference Mitford1980, frontispiece; reproduced with permission of the Mitford family and De Gruyter Brill).
The finds from Kafizin appear to constitute the most eloquent expression of Cypriot identity during the Hellenistic period. In the last quarter of the third century BC,Footnote 6 Cypriot potters inscribed earthen pots both in the Greek alphabet and in the Cypriot syllabary (Mitford Reference Mitford1980). In recent decades an increased interest in the production of written artefacts, even when not related to monumental objects, and a concern with their archaeological contexts have significantly transformed the study of ancient history (Caputo Reference Caputo, Caputo and Lougovaya2020; Caputo and Lougovaya Reference Caputo and Lougovaya2020). As suggested elsewhere, based on the recovery of material culture bearing the Cypro-syllabic script at various sites dating to the Hellenistic period (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 16–17 with footnotes, 141–7; Reference Papantoniou2013a, 187–9), the Kafizin phenomenon may not simply relate to the expression or maintenance of local identity in specific (mainly religious) contexts (cf. Steele Reference Steele2013, 238–9; Consani Reference Consani and Consani2015).
In addition, comparisons with evidence from similar shrines in the Hellenistic countryside may show that the rural setting of Nymph caves need not imply rural demographics and economics. Kafizin itself may reflect concerns which were bourgeois in nature; and it may have been ‘a religious locus for commercial enterprise’ (Larson Reference Larson2001, 258; cf. Ustinova Reference Ustinova2009, 61–2; Wagman Reference Wagman2015, 86 n. 38; IG 15 2.1, 147). The recent epigraphic study of the Karapla cave at Pharsalus in Greece, for example, which presents some similarities with Kafizin, clearly shows that the marginal nature of its location did not mean that it was understood as a marginal place (Wagman Reference Wagman2015, 86, 90, 94). Such places may well have been viewed as ‘central places’ in an ‘uncentral landscape’ (Vionis and Papantoniou Reference Vionis and Papantoniou2019).
The interaction of the Arsinoe cult with that of the Nymph in Cyprus testifies to the reception and accommodation of this cult (along with its connotations) within a Cypriot context (cf. Lejeune Reference Lejeune2009; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 146–7). The title Adelphe (Fig. 4), inscribed almost exclusively on decorated wares from Kafizin, and the unique mention of the Philadelphus title in inscription no. 300 (Fig. 5) reflect the connection between the worship of the Nymph and the Ptolemaic cult, more specifically the cult of Arsinoe (Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 262). This evidence was considered by Mitford in association with worship at neighbouring areas, including Chytroi and Idalion (see for example Fig. 4 where Idalion is mentioned) (Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 253–5; cf. IG 15 2.1, 145–7). An inscription – a marble statue base – from Chytroi is very important in this context, as it is the only source from Cyprus that directly connects the Ptolemaic queen to a divinity, and specifically the Nymph Naias, protectress of the sweet waters of springs, rivers and lakes (Masson Reference Masson1971, 450–2; I. Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1993, 228, no. A; Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades1998, 134; Michel Reference Michel2020b, 223). Although the epiklesis of Arsinoe as Naias is not known in Alexandria (Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades1998, 134), according to the inscription the dedicator, Aristokles, was the son of Aristokles from Alexandria. Thus, the inscription may imply the localisation of the cult and its reception by newcomers on the island, and should be viewed in the context of current Cypro-centric approaches, emphasising regional variations and the contributions of local cultures (Iacovou Reference Iacovou, Crawford, Ben-Tor, Dessel, Dever, Mazar and Aviram2007; cf. Beck Reference Beck2020; Ager and Beck Reference Ager and Beck2024).
Inscription from Kafizin, mentioning Adelphe, dekatephoros, Onesagoras, Androklou oikos and Idalion (after Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 217 n. 283; reproduced with permission of the Mitford family and De Gruyter Brill).
Fig. 4. Long description
A technical line drawing of a ceramic amphora is positioned at the center. The left half shows the exterior profile with a handle, while the right half is a cross-section showing the thickness of the clay walls.
Surrounding the vessel are hand-drawn Greek inscriptions:
- Above the vessel are two small blocks of text. The left block has two lines and the right block has three lines.
- A large arc of Greek text curves around the left side and bottom of the vessel, starting from the top left and ending near the bottom right.
- A second, shorter arc of text curves along the right side of the vessel.
Below the vessel is the label K.8363 and a horizontal scale bar. At the bottom of the page, the inscriptions are transcribed into three distinct sections:
- Section a contains two lines of Greek text.
- Section b contains three lines of Greek text.
- Section c contains a longer paragraph of Greek text spanning two lines, which includes the names Onesagoras and Idalion as mentioned in the caption.
Inscription from Kafizin, mentioning Philadelphus (after Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 236 n. 300; reproduced with permission of the Mitford family and De Gruyter Brill).
Fig. 5. Long description
A line drawing shows several irregular pottery sherds arranged to form the circular rim of a vessel. Each sherd is labeled with a reference number starting with R R.
* Starting at the top left is fragment R R 2256 number 256, which is blank.
* Moving clockwise to the top right, fragment R R 2257 number 204 and R R 2256 number 258 contain vertical Greek characters.
* Continuing down the right side, fragments R R 2385, R R 2257 number 203, and R R 2386 show a continuation of the Greek text.
* At the bottom right and center are fragments R R 2256 number 257 and R R 2234, which contain the word Philadelphus in Greek characters.
* At the bottom left is fragment R R 2385.
* On the far left, fragment R R 2257 number 108 contains a vertical inscription.
A scale bar is located at the bottom center. Below the drawing, a line of Greek text provides a transcription of the full inscription mentioning Philadelphus.
At Idalion the cult of the queen is indicated by an inscription dated to 254 BC, mentioning a kanephoros and an Arsinoeion (Michaelidou-Nicolaou Reference Michaelidou-Nicolaou1976, 32, no. 24; I. Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1993, 228, no. D; Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades1998, 134–5; Michel Reference Michel2020b, 249). It is important to note, however, that, contrary to the cases of Kafizin and Soloi-Cholades for example (see below), we are not dealing with a sanctuary ex novo but, instead, with a new temple dedicated to the queen within the traditional temenos of Apollo/Reshef or Adonis (Senff Reference Senff1993, 12; Mehl Reference Mehl and Papadopoullos2000, 743). As in the cult of the Roman emperors, in the Hellenistic period traditional sanctuaries came to include the ruler in two main ways: first, separate buildings dedicated to the cult of the ruler might be placed within the sanctuaries (cf. Price Reference Price1984, 147), and second, as seen in the cases of Amathous and Soloi-Cholades, inscriptions or archaeological indicators refer to Ptolemies and other divinities as synnaoi theoi, temple-sharing gods (Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades2003, 51; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2009). In the case of Idalion, while the institution had been imported rather than emerging from the traditional religious system, the Arsinoe priesthood and cult were sufficiently absorbed into the local religious system that they were easily recognisable and adapted into the local mentalité; it seems that local elites, including Phoenician-speakers and members of the previous royal families, were accommodated in mechanisms of the Ptolemaic administration and in the diffusion of the Ptolemaic royal cult, maintaining both their political and religious functions (Marquaille-Telliez Reference Marquaille-Telliez and Papantoniou2008, 51; Keen Reference Keen2012, 158–9; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 138–9; Reference Papantoniou2013a, 180–1, 190; Dumke and Pfeiffer Reference Dumke and Pfeiffer2014, 78–9; Fourrier Reference Fourrier, Aliquot and Bonnet2015; cf. Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014, 103). I am in total agreement with Caneva (Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014, 87; cf. Reference Caneva and Caneva2020b), that ‘a certain degree of freedom and of individual initiative (within a framework set/accepted by central religious policy) must have played a crucial role in making the cults of Arsinoe a part of a shared religious and political identity connecting the individual with the collective sphere’.Footnote 7
The epigraphic evidence across Cyprus is rather indicative of the localisation of the cult. Inscriptions mentioning the name of Arsinoe have been found on a variety of objects (mainly ‘altars’, plaques or more rarely oinochoai) from various sites in Paphos, Marion/Arsinoe, Chytroi, Idalion, Soloi, Amathous, Kourion, Karpasia, Salamis, Kition and Ledra (Fig. 6; Hill Reference Hill1940, 184–5; Thompson Reference Thompson1973; I. Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1993; Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades1998, 132; Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.212–15; Keen Reference Keen2012, 166 n. 399; Schreiber Reference Schreiber2011; Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014; Cayla Reference Cayla2018, 128–30; Michaelides Reference Michaelides, Jakubiak and Łajtar2020). Although the exact function (or functions) of these objects remains open to interpretation, they indicate that the queen’s cult was widespread on the island, both in public and also probably in domestic/private life, although such clear distinctions when referring to ancient ritual and cult, and especially to the cult of Arsinoe II, are problematic.Footnote 8 According to Keen (Reference Keen2012, 164), dedications to the Ptolemies as deities demonstrate mutual participation in the royal cult between mercenaries and the local population. The inscribed Arsinoe ‘altars’, plaques and oinochoai bear witness to similar practices in the worship of Arsinoe in Cyprus and at Alexandria itself and the ideological integration of the island into the Ptolemaic royal ideology and economic networks (Keen Reference Keen2012, 163–4, 166–9; cf. Meadows Reference Meadows2013, 30; Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014).
Stone altar of Arsinoe II Philadelphus from Soloi (c. 270 BC). Cyprus Museum, inv. no. INS GR 168 (courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus).
Pilides (Reference Pilides2004, 161–4; Reference Pilides2009, 60–1) has attempted to determine the exact relationship between the urban settlement at Agios Georgios hill in Nicosia (i.e. the ancient city of Ledra), where weaving and ceramic production were practised, and the nearby Nymph’s grotto at Kafizin, where dedications were made by potters and by associates of a company producing flax and linseed. In this context we should consider the significant role that such commodities played in the daily lives and economies of ancient societies (Karg, Spinazzi-Lucchesi and Diederichsen Reference Karg, Spinazzi-Lucchesi and Diederichsen2024). Although no definite conclusions regarding the relationship between the sites are currently possible, the common provenance of the wares from the two sites has been verified by chemical analyses (Pilides Reference Pilides2009, 60–1). The contributions of Mitford, and more recently of Pilides, to our understanding of the economic organisation of Hellenistic Cyprus and its relation to Ptolemaic ideology are of great importance.
The epigraphic evidence from Kafizin suggests that one (or more) company or organisation, variously called ‘Zenon’s’ and ‘of Androklos’, was involved in the farming of flax and linseed.Footnote 9 Pilides (Reference Pilides2004, 163–4), based on a comparison of the finds from Kafizin and from the settlement at the Agios Georgios hill, suggests that other organisations similar to the Kafizin association were probably active on the island, and that some sort of connection existed among them. The term ‘association’ is regularly used by scholars in relation to Kafizin, but its use and applicability, especially in a Cypriot context, need to be critically reassessed in the light of recent scholarship and in comparison to other areas of the Mediterranean (e.g. Constantakopoulou Reference Constantakopoulou, Taylor and Vlassopoulos2015b; Gordon, Petridou and Rüpke Reference Gordon, Petridou and Rüpke2017; Boyxen Reference Boyxen2018; Eckhardt Reference Eckhardt2019; Thomsen Reference Thomsen2020; Last and Harland Reference Last and Harland2020; Demaille and Labarre Reference Demaille and Labarre2021; Gabrielsen and Paganini Reference Gabrielsen and Paganini2021; Noreña Reference Noreña, Beck and Vankeerberghen2021; Cazemier and Skaltza Reference Cazemier and Skaltza2022; Pázsint Reference Pázsint2022, esp. 11–38 for terminology; Sänger Reference Sänger and Munn2024). Although the word koinonia is repeatedly used in the epigraphic record of Kafizin, the term koinon (in its conception as a union or guild) has rarely been analysed by modern scholarship (cf. Lund Reference Lund, Karagerghis, Rasmussen, Sørensen, Lund, Horsnǽs and Nielsen2001, 51; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 141; Cayla Reference Cayla2018; IG 15 2.1, 147). Cult associations in particular were usually not simply religious groups and their association with the cities was far more complex than modern scholarship suggests (Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou, Cartledge, Millett and von Reden2002, 81).
The Kafizin company was associated with the city of Marion, which, as discussed above, was refounded as Arsinoe soon after 270 BC by Ptolemy II (Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 175–6). Pilides suggests that the relationship of Zenon’s company with an associated company in Marion (possibly involved in some other economic activities) as mentioned in the Kafizin epigraphic record may reflect a network of such organisations closely related to the upkeep of sanctuaries dedicated to Arsinoe. She further develops her argument using the evidence from Nea Paphos and Kition. At Nea Paphos, weavers (whose existence is reflected in the presence of loom weights, some of which were stamped) were manufacturing rope and textiles, while metalworkers produced weapons, all commodities of great importance for the Ptolemaic state, especially in relation to shipbuilding and military power. Pilides (Reference Pilides2004, 159, 164), finally, argues that the use of seals on loom weights at Agios Georgios hill in Nicosia should be viewed in this context, particularly if the apomoira, the tax of 1/6 on the produce of vineyards and gardens which was adapted by Ptolemy Philadelphus for the benefit of Arsinoe’s cult in 265/264 BC (cf. von Reden Reference Reden, Bang, Ikeguchi and Ziche2006, 169), was also levied on Cyprus.Footnote 10
The only probable reference to the apomoira known so far from Cyprus comes from a very fragmentary inscription from Marion, dated to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 BC), which may reflect the island’s incorporation into the Ptolemaic fiscal (and possibly cultic) system (Segre Reference Segre1952; Mitford Reference Mitford1953, 88; Bagnall Reference Bagnall1976, 78; Hadjioannou Reference Hadjioannou1980, 121–2, nos 101–2; Michel Reference Michel2020a, 191–2). The text is generally understood to preserve an official copy of a letter issued by Ptolemy II Philadelphus concerning the implementation of the apomoira tax in Cyprus. Nevertheless, the mere mention of the apomoira does not necessarily imply that the tax functioned in the same way as in Egypt, where its revenues were associated with the maintenance of the dynastic cult. The possibility of a link with the cult of the queen – particularly since the inscription was discovered in the Cypriot city of Marion/Arsinoe – is attractive but cannot be demonstrated conclusively (Michel Reference Michel2021).
The new rate the Ptolemies introduced was a reduced one of 1/10 (dekate) (von Reden Reference Reden, Bang, Ikeguchi and Ziche2006, 169). In Egypt, taxes were usually paid to the king in kind; similar practices may have been standard in Cyprus as well. In the second century BC, when Kafizin was out of use (at least after 177 if we are also to consider Lejeune’s chronology) and a strategos had been fully installed on the island, taxes in Egypt had to be paid in cash into a royal bank. This, according to Manning (Reference Manning2003, 57), reflects the Ptolemaic state’s increasing emphasis on a cash economy; and I would leave open the possibility of a move towards larger textile estates (G. Mutti, pers. comm., 21 March 2025), which may be related to the eventual shift from a segmented to unitary administration, with transformations also visible in sacred landscapes (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2013a; Reference Papantoniou2013b). Payment of taxation does not necessarily apply to the case of Cyprus, as we remain ignorant of this system on the island.Footnote 11 In addition, private associations in Ptolemaic Egypt were a more formalised form of horizontal social network, typically drawing up rules about annual dues, participation and contributions to periodic religious ceremonies (Muhs Reference Muhs and Muhs2016, 219).
One of the main principles of imperial domination in the ancient world was to keep local structures functioning, and then carefully use them for imperial tributary interests. It is in this context that I suggest that Kafizin may provide a window onto early mechanisms of Ptolemaic political economies and modes of administration at a regional level. Bagnall (Reference Bagnall1976, 75–8; cf. Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 254) is probably correct in suggesting that Androklou oikos concerns a kind of estate. Androklos could have been the former owner of this estate which then retained this tag after his death. In the epigraphic evidence from Kafizin a barber named Onesagoras appears to have held the ritual function of mantiarchos (overseer of divination) (Mitford Reference Mitford1980, 262), but in many inscriptions he appears as a dekatephoros (cf. e.g. Fig. 4), a term that has produced much debate in contemporary scholarship.Footnote 12 Onesagoras was most probably a collector of tithes from the tenants or landholders living on the Androklos estate. Building on Bagnall’s (Reference Bagnall1976, 78) interpretation of the Kafizin evidence, I would suggest that, in the third century BC, local elites were more actively incorporated in the Ptolemaic administration (cf. Keen Reference Keen2012, 160–1). In this context, it is interesting to note that the term dekate may also be attested on a recently re-edited digraphic (alphabetic and Cypro-syllabic) administrative document from Golgoi, dated to the third century BC (IG 15 2.1, 335), while a similar system of tax collection may be attested in Cypro-Classical Cyprus if we consider the Bulwer Tablet, an administrative document found near Akanthou on the north coast (Pestarino Reference Pestarino2022, 134–54; pers. comm., 23 October 2023), showing a remarkable administrative continuity.
Taking the above into account, and as we know very little about land tenure during the city-kingdom and the Hellenistic periods in Cyprus (Pestarino Reference Pestarino2022, 60–71), I would be cautious about referring to ‘an agent of the owner of the estate’ as suggested by Bagnall (Reference Bagnall1976, 78; cf. Consani Reference Consani, Campanile, Cardona and Lazzeroni1988; Reference Consani and Consani2015). An inscription found at Sinda near Lysi, however, records the existence of komae, a term which is poorly attested in Hellenistic Cyprus, throwing light upon the organisation of the chora and the administration in the mid second century BC. According to Michaelidou-Nicolaou (Reference Michaelidou-Nicolaou1963, 133–6), under the Ptolemies Cyprus retained its ancient organisation, with its cities free but garrisoned and tax-paying and possessing land in the chora on which the inhabitants lived. Moving from the second century BC to the earlier Hellenistic period, the Cypriot population may have paid a fixed percentage of their production to a local agent of the Ptolemaic state, who would have been accountable to the Ptolemaic structures for the collection of the royal taxes imposed on the land (Bagnall Reference Bagnall1976, 78). This does not mean that taxation was motivated by local interests and independent of Ptolemaic agency, but the Ptolemies would have adapted their extra-Egyptian system to the local system, both in terms of tax collection and the use of tax. Next to this interpretation, we must also consider the suggestion that we are probably dealing here with a religious rather than a commercial phenomenon, and that the dekatai were dedications rather than non-religious payments, something which is also supported by parallels in mainland Greece (Jim Reference Jim2012; cf. Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 141–2). However, we cannot neglect the allusions to the Arsinoe cult in the context of Kafizin, especially since Cyprus, contrary to mainland Greece, was part of the Ptolemaic possessions. The standard elements in Onesagoras’ dedicatory inscriptions, for example, include the phrase Tyche Agathe (Good Fortune), a form usually related to the cult of Arsinoe II (Caneva Reference Caneva, Gnoli and Muccioli2014). I feel that the localisation of the Arsinoe cult, the interweaving of private and public interests, of personal religious and imperially engineered agendas, and the insertion of Kafizin in a broader network of similar companies as suggested by Pilides offers a better interpretative framework.
The interpretation put forward above remains preliminary and speculative. Comparisons with administrative systems in other areas brought under Ptolemaic control during the early Hellenistic period would be particularly welcome and vital to the discussion.Footnote 13 As modern scholars, we often either forget about local administrators (indigenous or foreigners) or simply equate them with the royal family. Nonetheless, many administrative issues may have been managed by the Ptolemaic attendants at a local level rather than directly controlled by Alexandria. Future research on this aspect may enable us to decipher the role of local elites and local administrative structures in early Hellenistic Cyprus, particularly before the appointment of a strategos on the island. In this context we should add that, although the published record remains limited, inscribed sherds (in local scripts, Cypro-syllabic and Phoenician, and mostly with painted inscriptions) functioning as administrative records of agricultural products have been identified in pre-Hellenistic Cyprus (Iacovou and Karnava Reference Iacovou and Karnava2019, 47–9; Pestarino Reference Pestarino2022, 197–8). Special mention should be made of the ‘palatial’ context of Palaipaphos (Iacovou and Karnava Reference Iacovou and Karnava2019), where the excavated evidence may also relate to textile production and a purple dye industry (Iacovou and Mylona Reference Iacovou and Mylona2019; Gambash, Pestarino and Friesem Reference Gambash, Pestarino and Friesem2022; cf. Cannavò Reference Cannavò2019). Also, similar ostraca found recently at Kition-Bamboula may prove the existence of a scribal office linked to the royal administration (Briquel Chatonnet et al. Reference Briquel Chatonnet, Daccache, Bernardin and Hawley2024), and most importantly at the ‘palace’ of Idalion where such inscribed objects have also been found in an archive (Sznycer Reference Sznycer2004; Amadasi Guzzo Reference Amadasi Guzzo, Papademetriou and Toli2017; Amadasi Guzzo and Zamora López Reference Amadasi Guzzo and Zamora López2020; cf. Pestarino Reference Pestarino2022, 77–107). In fact, the practice of marking pottery vessels was very common in Cyprus already from the Late Bronze Age, and epigraphic studies have concluded that some of these earlier signs belong to the indigenous, as yet undeciphered ‘Cypro-Minoan’ script (e.g. Hirschfeld Reference Hirschfeld, Nakassis, Gulizio and James2014; cf. Iacovou and Karnava Reference Iacovou and Karnava2019; Donnelly Reference Donnelly2025).
Focusing on the Cypro-Classical epigraphic material from Idalion, however, it is clear that these inscribed objects refer to the existence of a religious association. The Semitic term marzēaḥ, attested at Idalion, denotes a type of communal association known in the Levantine cultural sphere, often connected with ritual and convivial practices. In the Greek rendering of the text, this term is translated as thiasos, a word commonly used to denote a cultic association (Amadasi Guzzo Reference Amadasi Guzzo, Papademetriou and Toli2017, 281). This equivalence appears in a specific epigraphic context, however, and should not be taken to indicate a general correspondence between the two terms. Thus, it is far from clear at this stage what the relevance of these associations to that of Kafizin may be (cf. Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 141–2, 158 n. 491). Similar associations are found in many areas of the Classical and Hellenistic Greek world (e.g. Steinhauer Reference Steinhauer2014; Gabrielsen and Thomsen Reference Gabrielsen and Thomsen2015; Constantakopoulou Reference Constantakopoulou, Eidinow and Kindt2015a; Reference Constantakopoulou, Taylor and Vlassopoulos2015b; Gabrielsen and Paganini Reference Gabrielsen and Paganini2021; Grandjean Reference Grandjean2021). In this context, one should also consider the orientations of the Cypriot basileis towards mainland Greece during the Classical period (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2013a, 170–8).
The latest dated inscribed objects from the Idalion ‘palace’ include the names of Antigonos I Monophthalmus and Demetrius I Poliorcetes – who captured Cyprus for a period before the island returned to the control of Ptolemy I Soter – as well as that of Ptolemy I. This, considered together with the archaeological data from the excavations, suggests that the latest use of the archive may be placed towards the end of the fourth century BC (Amadasi Guzzo Reference Amadasi Guzzo, Papademetriou and Toli2017, 282). The epigraphic evidence from Idalion should be compared with the Phoenician epigraphic evidence from Larnakas tis Lapithou, suggesting that the first Ptolemies also incorporated or retained some Cypro-Phoenicians within the administration of the island (Michaelidou-Nicolaou Reference Michaelidou-Nicolaou1976, 13; Parmentier Reference Parmentier and Lipiński1987; Mehl Reference Mehl and Papadopoullos2000, 701–5; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 88–9, 344 n. 303; 2013a, 190; Fourrier Reference Fourrier, Aliquot and Bonnet2015; cf. Amadasi Guzzo Reference Amadasi Guzzo2015; Reference Amadasi Guzzo, Papademetriou and Toli2017, 282). In this context we should consider recent research on Ptolemaic royal–federal interaction that suggests a more symbiotic relationship with local cultures and forms of administration (McAuley Reference McAuley2025). As in the case of Kafizin, the epigraphic record of this transitional period at Idalion should also be inserted in the framework of the above discussion regarding the ideological – and most probably practical – mechanisms relating to the accommodation of both local scripts and members of the local elite in the early Ptolemaic administration.
CHANGE AND INNOVATION: THE ARSINOE CULT AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PTOLEMAIC POLITICAL ECONOMY AND IMPERIAL INTEGRATION
Change and innovation, rather than continuity and tradition, is an overarching theme in the study of Hellenistic monarchies in the Mediterranean.Footnote 14 As evidence from across the Hellenistic world, including Cyprus, has shown, Greek ‘imperialism’, especially in the early Hellenistic period, not only promoted Greek traditions but also amplified local traditions which became integrated into the imperial narratives. These approaches allowed regional elites to blend ‘Hellenism’ with their local identities (cf. Lazar Reference Lazar2024). Thus, imperial histories involve various strategies to gain control and legitimacy. The cultic honours given to human recipients, particularly Hellenistic rulers, involved rituals and political actions presented in public and private spaces by local elites. In the epigraphic evidence from Cyprus, in particular, we can identify imperial intermediaries (local and newcomers) who aimed to achieve different goals through interactions with the gods: legitimising new rulers, strengthening personal connections between imperial powers and their families, creating new spaces for local and global negotiations, and reinforcing the symbolic and economic elements of the imperial ideological framework (Bonnet Reference Bonnet, Rüpke, Biran and Pines2024).
The development of the Arsinoe cult, together with the scatter of cities named after her, bears witness to the nature of the Ptolemaic political economy and imperial integration. The spread of the cult of Arsinoe and its development adequately illustrate its distinction from other royal cults, and its role in legitimating Ptolemaic power through other channels of communication relating to the localisation of the cult and its involvement in various ideological realms. Even outside Egypt, the combination of new and traditional elements was the main source of Ptolemaic power, and this is clearly expressed in the religious realm (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a). The localisation of the ruler cult, especially that of Arsinoe II, both in public (e.g. the Palaipaphos sanctuary) and private life (e.g. the Arsinoe ‘altars’), as well as its merging with various traditional cults in religious centres across the Mediterranean – such as Delos, Athens, Samothrake, Palaipaphos – had a positive impact on Ptolemaic political economies and imperial integration (cf. McCredie et al. Reference McCredie, Roux, Shaw and Kurtich1992; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2009, 284–5 n. 58; Caneva Reference Caneva2020a).
Arsinoe’s coin portraits, also produced at the Cypriot mints of Salamis, Kition and Nea Paphos, reference both traditional Cypriot and mainstream Greek artistic and cultural conceptions of Aphrodite, and this should clearly be seen in the context of Ptolemaic imperial agendas and ideologies (Lichocka Reference Lichocka, Kahil, Augé and de Bellefonds1986, 319; Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades2009, 263; Gordon Reference Gordon2012, 137–9 with further bibliography). The image of Arsinoe-Aphrodite, as presented on coins and sculpture, also had an impact on female limestone ‘portraits’ of the period, imitating the royal style (Connelly Reference Connelly1988, 7, 24, 28–9, 75; Gordon Reference Gordon2012, 171–3; Koiner Reference Koiner, Scherrer, Koiner and Ulbrich2012; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 195–7, 319–20, 324–5). While the local elites maintained local traditions and ways of representation, at the same time they copied ideal royal images, along with their connotations and associations. In this sense, the Cypriot portrait-like sculptures, placed in prominent positions within the traditional temene, became concrete materialisations of Hellenistic power and ideology (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 351; Reference Papantoniou, Bourogiannis and Mühlenbock2016).
The symbolic associations between Arsinoe and Aphrodite embody significant Ptolemaic agendas, related to Ptolemaic self-perception and popular reception on the international scene. The patronage of Aphrodite Euploia, if we are to accept this interpretation, by the royal house indicates both the Ptolemaic commitment to the traditional cults and its incorporation of them into royal policy. The use and spread of the Arsinoe cult, as well as its associations with other divinities – such as Aphrodite and the Nymphs – was an effective way of conveying the nature and extent of Ptolemaic power (cf. Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.175; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2012a, 190–203). This lasted until approximately the middle of the second century BC (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.175), when Ptolemaic concerns became almost exclusively limited to internal and dynastic matters that eventually led to the decline of the Ptolemaic ‘empire’. This may also explain the reduced prosperity of the Arsinoe cities in the centuries to follow. The recollection of Arsinoe and other Hellenistic queens in the persona of the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, is accordingly not surprising in the light of the latter’s willingness to restore the past predominance of the Ptolemaic sphere of influence (Marquaille Reference Marquaille2001, 1.175; Anastassiades Reference Anastassiades2009; Caneva Reference Caneva2012; cf. Ager Reference Ager2021; Gilles et al. Reference Gilles, Frank, Plastow, Webb, Gilles, Frank, Plastow and Webb2024).
This contribution concludes with a final brief comment from Cyprus that illustrates several of the points advanced above: the nature of Ptolemaic power in fostering a coherent political economy grounded in plurality and integration, the relationship between the cults of Aphrodite and Arsinoe, and the later recollection of Arsinoe II in the persona of Cleopatra VII. I refer to the ex novo foundation of the sanctuary at Soloi-Cholades, where we may have amplified iconographic evidence for the practice of royal cults, such as that of Alexander, supported by the Ptolemaic court and their attendants (Westholm Reference Westholm1936; Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2009; Reference Papantoniou2012a, 166–230; cf. Erskine, Llewellyn-Jones and Wallace Reference Erskine, Llewellyn-Jones, Wallace, Erskine, Llewellyn-Jones and Wallace2017). The sanctuary was built in the early Hellenistic period, originally following the traditional temenos type of the Cypro-Classical period, rather than any ‘Greek style’ temple.Footnote 15 As well as abundant epigraphic and iconographic evidence verifying the cult of Aphrodite at the site, during the first phase of the sanctuary, as we have seen, we also have iconographic evidence suggesting the presence of an Arsinoe II cult, merged with that of Aphrodite, as a synnaos thea (Fig. 1). In addition, the presence of an eagle statuette, a symbol of Ptolemaic maritime power (Thompson and Buraselis Reference Thompson and Buraselis2013, 10–11), hints at the importance of the sanctuary in the framework of Ptolemaic politico-economic and politico-religious agendas.
The Arsinoe cult functioned in both official and popular religious spheres, serving as a vehicle for the introduction of other saviour gods related to maritime activities, as well as deities with strong cleansing elements and soteriological associations, such as Sarapis and Isis – all promoted by the Ptolemaic administration under Ptolemy II and his sister-wife (cf. Veymiers Reference Veymiers and Samuel1970; Reference Veymiers and Cannuyer2005, 351–3; Caneva Reference Caneva2019; Reference Caneva2020c). As demonstrated above, this dual dimension of the cult operated as a mechanism linking local communities to imperial ideological and political structures, thereby illustrating the integration of religious practice and political economy. The power of the king to offer protection and salvation is an essential feature of his mortal divinity (Chaniotis Reference Chaniotis and Erskine2003, 433). Since chthonic and mystery religions offer a more direct relationship between the divine and their human suppliants, they were related to royal ideology and became particularly popular in the Mediterranean basin during the Hellenistic period. It remains open to interpretation whether at Soloi-Cholades we have a mystery religion, but the cleansing elements and the chthonic associations of the cults practised there are beyond question (Papantoniou Reference Papantoniou2009; Reference Papantoniou2012a, 184–90; Reference Papantoniou, Bowden and Rassiaforthcoming). In the second phase of the sanctuary, towards the end of the Hellenistic period, we find abundant evidence for the incorporation of the Isiac cult within the temple, demonstrating the adaptability of local religious practices to broader Mediterranean cultic trends. The role of Cleopatra VII as ‘New Isis’, together with her recollection of Arsinoe II’s image, further exemplifies how these saviour cults were both officially promoted and locally appropriated, providing a concrete case study that supports the thesis advanced in the introduction regarding the interaction between imperial agendas and local religious reception. In other words, these saviour cults were eventually localised and embedded into both official and popular lived religions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was undertaken as part of the ‘Unlocking the Sacred Landscapes of Cyprus’ (UnSaLa-CY) project. I particularly thank Sitta von Reden (University of Freiburg), Christy Constantakopoulou (National Hellenic Research Foundation) and Stefano Caneva (University of Padua) for fruitful discussions on Kafizin and the Ptolemaic economy. Nevertheless, I bear full responsibility for the arguments put forward here. This article was completed during my research leave (Hilary Term 2025) spent at the Irish Institute of Hellenic Studies at Athens and while making use of the excellent library of the British School at Athens. I am also grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and feedback, and to Jennifer M. Webb for linguistic proofreading.
Open access
