Reconstruction of a Siege: the Persians at Paphos1
Franz Georg Maier and Marie-Louise von Wartburg
Figure 1 Veronica
at work in the
courtyard of the
Manor House,
Kouklia
The wealth of Cypro-Archaic sculpture recovered from the
Persian siege ramp forms one of the most interesting and
important find complexes excavated at Kouklia/Palaepaphos.2
On the advice of Hector Catling, Veronica Wilson (as she then
was) was persuaded to take over the task of publishing this find
group. She came to Kouklia for the first time in 1969 to inspect
the material (‘my stones’, as she always used to say), and
returned for many seasons. In December 1974 she joined the
staff of the Greek and Roman Department of the British
Museum, but was liberally given leave to pursue the study of
the Cypro-Archaic sculpture of Paphos. While systematizing
and cataloguing the material, sitting on the site or in the
courtyard of the Manor House that served as headquarters of
the dig (Fig. 1), Veronica developed an interest in the problems
presented by the conduct of the siege and its possible
reconstruction. Inter alia, she conducted a vivid three-cornered
correspondence with E. W. Marsden, J. Boardman and V.
Karageorghis on the stone missiles found on the site.3 Such
thoughts finally motivated her to commission a reconstruction
of the siege of Paphos, drawn by Susan Bird, for the new A.G.
Leventis Gallery of Cypriot Antiquities in the British Museum
in 1987.
Paphos offers interesting opportunities to study the
problems posed by this type of reconstruction. On the one
hand, a considerable part of the siege works of 498 bc are fairly
well preserved on Site KA at Paphos. On the other hand, four
different artists drew reconstructions of the siege operations
between 1953 and 2005, documenting different stages of
excavation as well as exhibiting different approaches (Table
1). This set of drawings allow us to identify the elements
serving as the base or the inspiration for the reconstruction, to
observe the way they are being combined, and to discover
subtle reciprocal influences.
I. The evidence
Pictorial reconstructions of siege operations generally rest on a
multi-facetted factual base. They combine three different
levels of information and inspiration: the archaeological
evidence of the site itself; comparable archaeological and
historical data;5 the wide realm of free imagination.
Evidence from the site
The North East Gate of Paphos, forming a key sector of the
fortifications, represents a site of outstanding interest, both
from the archaeological and the historical point of view. The
site represents the rare example of an archaeological find
context dated to the year: one of the few ancient sieges which
can be reconstructed with remarkable precision. Its excavation
revealed extensive and elaborate siege and counter-siege works
which give a vivid picture of ancient siege warfare (Fig. 6).
Together with Lachish, Masada and Doura-Europos, Paphos
yields precious archaeological information on ancient siege
warfare.
The analysis of the archaeological evidence enables us to
follow the assault operations in detail.6 The area in front of the
walls, from the Gate to a point beyond the Tower, was covered
by the remains of a vast siege mound. The attacking army
destroyed a late Cypro-Archaic sanctuary outside the walls and
used the wreckage, together with loads of stones, boulders and
soil, to fill in the dry ditch and to raise a siege ramp against the
front of the city wall (Fig. 7). The ramp eventually reached a
height of at least 7.4m from the bottom of the ditch.7 More than
1,000 fragments of votive monuments were recovered from it.8
Severe fighting during the construction of the siege ramp is
attested by hundreds of bronze and iron weapons: 229 arrowTable 1 Pictorial reconstructions of the seige of Paphos
Artist
Description
Bibliography
Alan Sorrell
1953
Fig. 2
‘How the Persians laid siege to
Paphos in 498 BC: The attackers’
mound and the defenders’
counter-saps – vividly
reconstructed from newly
discovered evidence’.
The Illustrated
London News, 18
April 1953, 614–
15, fig. 5.
Alan Sorrell
P1a 1953
Fig. 10
‘How the Cretans undermined
the Persian Mound: reconstruction
drawing from the excavated
evidence. Firing the cauldron at
the end of a tunnel’.
The Illustrated
London News, 18
April 1953, 613.
P1
P2
Susan Bird
1987
Fig. 3
‘View of the Persian siege of Old
Paphos in 498, after Sorrell’.
Tatton-Brown
1987, 67 fig. 81.
BM Leventis Gallery
P3
Adam Hook
2005
Fig. 4
‘The Persian Siege of
Palaepaphos, 498 BC’.
Campbell 2005,
pl. A.
P4
Jörg Denkinger
‘The Persian siege of Paphos, 498 Maier 2008, 92
2005
BC’.
Abb. 142.4
Fig. 5
Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum | 7
Maier and von Wartburg
heads and 253 spear points.9 A bronze helmet of Corinthian
type, of about 500 bc, and fragments of a rare iron helmet also
recall the din of battle – representing the first Greek helmets
found in a battle context. Four hundred and sixty-four roughly
shaped limestone projectiles with one flattened side (of which
320 were found in the siege context) served as missiles hurled
by hand from the parapet by the defenders.10
The siege ramp was undermined from inside the city by
three tunnels cut through the soft conglomerate rock and
passing underneath the city wall, a fourth rock-cut tunnel
beneath the gate buildings, and two passages or saps dug
through the berm (cf. Fig. 6). Open clay lamps in niches of the
side walls enabled the working parties to move in the dark;
water jugs left on the floor testify to the thirst they suffered.
The tunnels, 0.90–1.70m wide and 1.40–2.30m high, led to the
bottom of the filled-in ditch. From there ramp material was
removed through the tunnel and dumped near the entrance.11
The expanding cavity underneath the ramp was shored up
with timber work, resting partially on mud-brick piers. Finally
the supporting timbers were fired by means of some
inflammable substance carried in large bronze cauldrons, thus
causing a certain area of the ramp surface to collapse
suddenly.12 The fire was so intense that the ramp above the
cauldrons turned into a compact cone-shaped mass of calcined
stone and lime.
Both siege-mound and mine were the most formidable
weapons of siege-craft borrowed by the Persians from the
Assyrians (Appendix: Conspectus A1–2, at the end of the text),
later adapted by the Greeks, and still in use in Crusader
warfare.13 In the 6th century bc Lydian and Achaemenid
armies employed ramps and mines in their siege operations.
Ramps were erected by Croesus’ troops at Smyrna and by
Harpagos’ forces in Ionia, Teos and Phocaea in particular.
Mines were dug by the Lydian army at Ephesos, by Persian
forces at Miletus, at Soloi in Cyprus, and at Barke in Libya.14
The purpose of ramps was to move forward wooden siege
towers whose lower storey sheltered a ram, while archers firing
from the top tried to sweep the defenders off the parapet.
These siege tactics explain the counter-measures adapted by
the Greek defenders of Paphos: the skilful use of mining in an
attempt to damage ramps and towers. This offensive use of
counter-siege-mines at Paphos seems so far unique.15
We cannot ascertain from the archaeological evidence how
far the countermining operations succeeded in putting the
siege towers out of action. Success of the defenders must at
least have been limited. The excavation of the Gate showed
that the assault parties fought their way through the narrow
passage covered by the crossfire of the defenders on the gate
bastions, and forced open and burnt the wooden gate doors.
These siege and counter-siege operations occurred in a
clearly defined stratigraphical context which can be dated to
the very end of the 6th century bc. The archaeological evidence
thus points to the Ionian Revolt, or rather its aftermath in
Cyprus. The siege of Paphos represents part of the Persian
operations of 498 bc: a specific event in the history of the city,
barely recorded in a text but recovered from the earth.
Herodotus refers to these operations in one brief sentence: ‘the
Cypriot cities except for Salamis were being besieged ... Soloi
held out longest; it fell only in the 5th month, after the Persians
had undermined the walls all round’ (V, 115).
8 | Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum
Comparable archaeological data
There is no specific literary evidence to aid the reconstruction
of the Paphos siege, but there are abundant non-local sources of
inspiration, namely comparable archaeological evidence and
pictorial representations. Prominent parallels for siege warfare
in the Cypro-Archaic period are presented by the Assyrian
palace reliefs. They offer by far the largest number of
illustrations of siege operations surviving from the ancient
world. In this context, Lachish, in Palestine, represents a nearperfect case: both the actual siege ramp and the reliefs of
Sennacherib depicting the siege in 701 bc (Appendix:
Conspectus B) survive as a safe documentary base (Fig. 8).16
Indeed, inspiration for most elements of the Paphos
drawings which cannot be based on archaeological evidence
from the site, derive from Assyrian reliefs in general and from
Lachish in particular. This is obvious from comparison, but
there is also an actual link in the person of the artist Alan
Sorrell. A few years before illustrating the Paphos siege for The
Illustrated London News, he drew the – often reproduced –
reconstruction of the siege of Lachish, exhibited in the British
Museum Assyrian galleries (Fig. 9).17
II. Evidence and reconstruction
The caption of Sorrell’s drawing in The Illustrated London News
reads: ‘vividly reconstructed from newly discovered
evidence’.18 How far do the reconstruction drawings conform to
the archaeological evidence of the site – how far are they not
supported or contradicted by it? How far are comparable
archaeological data legitimately adapted as pictorial elements?
How far are the rendering of people and their actions the result
of free imagination? In discussing these questions, we shall
confine ourselves to features which are crucial for the
recreation of the tactical and technical conduct of the siege
operations.
Reconstruction: evidence from the site
The earliest reconstruction was produced by Sorrell in 1952/53
(Table 1: P1, Fig. 2). Drawn after only three seasons of
excavation, it was necessarily based on incomplete evidence.
The early stage of investigation explains a number of errors in
the architectural features: The plan (and therefore the
elevation) of the Gate was known only partially and drafted
ashlar masonry does not appear in the gate buildings before
the 4th century. The battlements look somewhat exaggerated,
reminiscent of elaborate Assyrian representations of
‘crenellated parapets and towers which were finally
standardized in Late Assyrian times’19 (cf. Appendix:
Conspectus A1–2). Battlements of a less sophisticated form, as
depicted on the François Vase or in the Trysa reliefs,20 would
seem more appropriate.
The dramatic scene of rebuilding and heightening the
fortifications is impressive, yet this section of the city wall was
erected after the end of the siege.21 This scene also affords a
good example of even small details being copied from Assyrian
images: the figure of the man carrying stones up a ladder finds
its exact counterpart in a relief from Nineveh (Appendix:
Conspectus C).
This first visual reconstitution of the siege operations at
Paphos suffers from a basic misconception regarding the
function of the ramp. It is drawn on the assumption that it
Reconstruction of a Siege
served for an infantry attack only – an interpretation due to the
advice of the excavators who at that time did not consider the
possibility of siege-engines being employed on the ramp.22
Furthermore, the siege mound – extending correctly beyond
the tower – appears definitely too high, compared with the
parapet level.23 Inspired by Assyrian siege representations,
Sorrell nonetheless introduced two battering rams. There is no
tangible evidence for a battering-ram being used in front of the
Gate, but this would have been possible according to the
archaeological evidence, as the ramp did not bar the gate road.
The position of the second engine, being dragged towards the
city wall across the fields in the distance, seems slightly more
fanciful. The shape of Sorrell’s four-wheeled rams, retained in
identical form by Bird (P2, Fig. 3), does not match any Assyrian
relief (Appendix: Conspectus D).
The use of trees and brushwood to strengthen the Paphos
ramp has often been supposed,24 and still forms a pictorial
element in P3 and P4 (Figs 4, 5) (possibly also in P2). A number
of Assyrian reliefs show tree trunks in the core of siege ramps,
yet at Paphos the use of this method is disproved by the
evidence.25 Opinions also differ about the question whether
and in which way logs or stone slabs formed the surface of
ramps (Appendix: Conspectus E).26 Yet despite its errors
Sorrell’s work had a lasting impact: in several respects his
legacy is still discernible in later versions of the Paphos siege.
Bird’s reconstruction (P2) dates from 1987 and represents
the status of archaeological evidence at the end of the
excavations. The plan and elevation of the Gate have been
remodelled accordingly, showing a gate courtyard flanked by
two massive bastions, closed at the front and the end by cross
bastions. The only architectural elements still questionable are
the battlements (slightly modified from P1 (Fig. 2) but still too
elaborate), and the misplaced entrance to Tunnel 4 at the back
of the Gate.
The representation of the ramp is more debatable. It is
shown on a too narrow front, ending already at the tower; its
curved access seems pure conjecture (or a misreading of P1
(Fig. 2)?). Here as well as in P3 (Fig. 4), the height of the ramp
in relation to the parapet level contradicts the evidence and
misrepresents the tactics of the attackers. The ramp must have
reached a height of at least 6m above the foundation level of
the city wall. The wall was 5.8m wide at the time of the siege;
this would allow (even at a conservative estimate) a total
height of c. 8–8.5m. In this case, the surface of the ramp would
have been c. 2–2.5m lower than the top of the parapet. As siegeengines were between 3–4m high, this would have enabled the
archers on their tower to attack the defenders on the wall,
while the ram head was worked against the lower part of the
city wall.
These conclusions seem to tally with the Assyrian siege
reliefs. There battering rams often attack the lower parts of city
walls (Appendix: Conspectus F1); in other cases they seem to
thrust their ram heads at the battlements (Appendix:
Conspectus F2). This latter version appears in Sorrell’s and Le
Grange’s reconstructions of the siege of Lachish (Figs 9, 11); it
is adapted in principle by Bird and Hook – therefore the
excessive height of the ramp.27
In Hook’s reconstruction (P3, Fig. 4), the most recent one,
the plan and elevation of gate and city wall conform to the
architectural evidence of the site – except for the very elaborate
battlements which closely resemble Sorrell’s drawing. The
height and shape of the ramp, extending only to the tower and
narrowing towards its base, contradict the archaeological
evidence. Denkinger’s (P4, Fig. 5) representation of the
architecture agrees with the archaeological information
available on the site. Evidence is missing only for the tower at
the far end and the adjoining 90° turn of the fortifications, yet
the topography of the site seems to suggest such a trace of the
city wall.
Reconstruction: comparable archaeological data
The use of siege-engines can be inferred from the
archaeological evidence: the position of tunnels and saps as
well as the measures taken at their end underneath the ramp
can only be explained as operations aiming at overturning one
of the attackers’ siege towers. The sudden collapse of restricted
parts of the ramp surface, however, would not present a serious
obstacle to an infantry attack. On the strength of these
arguments, siege-engines on the ramp were introduced into
the reconstructions. Neither at Paphos nor anywhere else do
remains of such engines survive,28 but Assyrian reliefs provide
a variety of models (Appendix: Conspectus G1).
Bird’s (P2, Fig. 3) machines with their box-like shape with
prominently marked corner-beams betray only faint echoes of
Assyrian models; their ram heads, looking somehow like oversized pencils, lack the usual metal sheeting.29 Hook’s (P3, Fig.
4) battering ram is clearly modelled on certain Assyrian
machines (Appendix: Conspectus G2), but the position of the
counter-siege mines makes it very unlikely that only a single
machine was employed. Denkinger (P4, Fig. 5), on the other
hand, draws four battering rams which could have found space
on the ramp and in front of the Gate. His massive siege-engines
are constructed of small plates, a version that appears on
Assyrian reliefs (Appendix: Conspectus G3); these machines
were obviously made of ‘pre-fabricated segments for easy
dismantling and reassembling’.30 Their towers appear rather
large and fairly overcrowded with soldiers.
The camp in the background, drawn by Sorrell (P1, Fig. 2)
and repeated by Bird (P2, Fig. 3), derives from representations
of Assyrian army camps (Appendix: Conspectus H) and may
thus convey a touch of authenticity.
Reconstruction: the role of imagination
The free imagination of both artists and archaeologists plays a
considerable role in all reconstruction drawing, especially in
recreating actions. One especially important act of imagination
is the choice of over-all perspective: it emphasizes certain
points of view. Crucial was Sorrell’s change from the attackers’
view, usual in Assyrian art, to the outlook of the defenders. He
possibly deemed this necessary to show the mining operations,
but one is tempted to ask whether it also reveals subconscious
partisanship for the Greeks fighting the Persian army.
Bird’s (P2, Fig. 3) reconstruction basically retains the
perspective of Sorrell, while Hook (P3, Fig. 4) introduces a new
compositional axis – still retaining the defenders’ outlook but
obtaining a different, if more restricted view of the attackers’
operations. Denkinger (P4, Fig. 5) exchanges the bird’s eye
perspective for a point of view almost from ground level. This
choice enables him to combine factual excavation records (the
stratigraphic drawing of Section B) with elements of
Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum | 9
Maier and von Wartburg
reconstruction and imagination – in this way making it easier
to understand the character of the mining operations.
A different case of emphasis by imagination is represented
by Sorrell’s drawing of lighting the wooden scaffolding inside
the ramp (P1a; Fig. 8). The vivid scene tends to exaggerate the
number and structural role of mud-brick pillars – not more
than four pillars are recorded at the end of the tunnels. But this
exaggeration strongly emphasizes the tense atmosphere in
these siege tunnels.
In other cases, objects can set the imagination to work. We
possess no direct evidence for the numbers and types of troops
deployed by the Persian army against Paphos. Yet the
numerous finds of bronze and iron weapons, 229 arrow heads
and 253 spear points, testify to a massive exchange of fire
during the operations. Sorrell (P1, Fig. 2) consequently shows
sufficient archers on both sides; the Assyrian bowmen
correctly use the cover of their siege-shields. On the contrary,
Bird (P2, Fig. 3) represents almost all fighting troops on both
sides as spearmen, except for one or two figures on top of the
tower – a choice which does not tally with the find evidence.
The same applies to Hook’s (P3, Fig. 4) drawing in which the
spearmen also hide in a rather unusual way behind siegeshields. Denkinger (P4, Fig. 5) again shows a sufficient number
of archers on both sides, combined with attacking spearmen.
These appear in dense, massed formations – intended to render
the impact of the Persian assault.
The addition of stone throwers amongst the defenders is
indicated by the 464 stone missiles found (320 of those in the
actual siege context). Stone throwers thus appear on gate
bastions and tower in Hook (P3) and in Denkinger (P4). This
type of defender is attested, inter alia, in Assyrian reliefs
(Appendix: Conspectus J) and in the frieze of the Heroon of
Trysa.31 The find spots of these missiles also prove that the
attackers had indeed moved up very closely to the walls, as
shown on all four drawings, and entered the gate court.
Yet there are also free flights of imagination, such as the
donkeys carrying earth and stones through the siege tunnels.
Introduced by Sorrell (P1), the motif proved irresistible for Bird
(P2) and Hook (P3). But these poor animals flatly contradict
the evidence: loaded donkeys could never have passed the
narrower parts of these underground passages.
Reconstruction: problems of reliabilty
The siege of Paphos may seem an event of narrowly
circumscribed importance. But our brief discussion of its
various reconstructions illustrates some of the problems posed
by reconstruction drawing in archaeology in general.
In the study of the ancient world, visual reconstruction
looks back upon a long tradition, closely linked with the
rediscovery of Antiquity. One of its prominent aspects is the
reconstitution of ancient buildings – the domain of architects
10 | Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum
since Fischer von Erlach or Stuart and Revett. In schools of
Greek and Roman architecture like that of F. Krischen, the
drawing of reconstructed buildings developed into a fine art.
The recreation of historical scenes and events in painting and
drawing represents another equally important aspect. After its
heyday in the 19th-century schools of historical painting, it had
an unexpected and astonishing revival in the late 20th century
– a tendency intensified to no small degree by both the
efficiency of CAD methods and publishers’ demands.
The ever-increasing use of reconstructions, partly based on
very questionable evidence, tends to be justified as a way to
make the public understand antiquity and history better. But
the proliferation of images also threatens to turn the Past for
the general public into a Disneyland peopled by cinema figures.
Benefits and inherent dangers of this situation cannot be
discussed in this context, but one question must be addressed
briefly: how far are such visual reconstructions reliable as
historical documents?
Images have a subtle yet powerful impact – they suggest
that reconstructions are a kind of visual ‘re-enactments of past
experience’, to use R.G. Collingwood’s persuasive formula.32
But there are objections to such an assumption. Pictorial
reconstruction of past events rests on a delicate balance of
observation and imagination which cannot be described
adequately in terms of ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’. Many archaeological
and historical data, considered as ‘facts’ upon which to base
visual reconstructions, turn out on closer scrutiny to be
nothing but re-enactments of past experience themselves.
Seen from this basic point of method, the question of
historical reliability of the various reconstructions of the
Paphos siege cannot be separated from the problem of factual
reliability of the Assyrian reliefs. They represent the only
parallel information available, but this information already
constitutes an Assyrian interpretation of events. The rigid
pictorial conventions are obvious: the want of perspective is as
undeniable as the repetitive and schematic character of the
drawing.33 The difficulties arising out of these formal
constraints of visual representation are demonstrated by the
debate over the reconstructions of the siege of Lachish (Figs
10, 11).34 Here opinions differ sharply: while D. Ussishkin
assumes that the reliefs ‘attempted to portray a realistic view of
the city’,35 other scholars contradict such an interpretation.36
As regards Paphos, we can accept the drawings of the siege
as attempts at visual re-enactment of a past event. The critical
discussion of these reconstructions acts as a positive stimulus,
forcing archaeologists, and especially excavators, to reconsider
their own interpretations and conclusions. But the Past that the
artists recreate blends various levels of information and
imagination, and can never be used as a reliable pictorial
source in historical reconstruction.
Reconstruction of a Siege
Appendix: Conspectus of selected pictorial elements representing siege operations on Assyrian reliefs in the British Museum
A1 Ramps constructed - Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
for the use of siegeBarnett-Falkner 1962, 12 (Relief 13), BM 118902, pl. 34; 14 (Relief 17) pl. 32.
engines
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, i. pl. 77, v. 132 (Porte H, salle II; ii); pl. 90, v. 138, no. 6 (salle V) (cf. Yadin 1963, 423); ii. pl. 145, v. 162, nos 1 and
2 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 425); no. 12 (salle XIV), ii. pl. 147, v. 164 (cf. Yadin 1963, 422).
A2 Soldiers tunnelling
underneath the
walls from outside
Soldiers with tools
destroying outer
wall
- Nimrud, palace of Ashurnasirpal II (884–859 BC):
Barnett-Forman 1959, 30 (nos 10-12), BM 124552-124554 (cf. Yadin 1963, 392–3; Read 1998, 40 fig. 38).
B
Siege of Lachish
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC), ‘Lachish Room’:
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 101–5, ii. pls 322–52; especially pl. 328 (no. 430a), pl. 329 (no. 430c), pl. 330, pl. 331,
pls 333 (nos 430c–432c) BM 124906-07, pl. 335 (no. 431b) (drawing), pls 349–50 (no 429c) BM 124905, (no. 430c) BM
124906, pl. 351 (no. 430c) (detail), (no. 431c) BM 124907.
C
Transport of stones: - Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
- by men
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 68, (no. 156b-c), ii. pls 118–19 (cf. Read 1998, 26 fig. 17).
- on a cart
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 111 (no. 475a), ii. pl. 373.
D
Siege-engine in
front of gate
E
Constructive
elements of ramps:
- use of trees and
brushwood
- Nimrud, S.W. Palace, (Wall f), Reign of Ashurnasirpal II (884–859 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 25 (Wall f no.1b), pl. 118 (drawing).
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 29 (Relief 3a), BM 118934, pl. 91 (cf. Yadin 1963, 410).
- Nineveh, part of frieze from the palace of Ashurbanipal (669–631 BC):
Barnett 1976, 40 pl. 17a (Slab 3), BM 124931, ‘Susiana Room’; 40 pl. 21, Room F (Slab 15) (drawing); 47 pl. 36 (Slab 17), BM
124928 (cf. Reade 1998, 84 fig. 101, 87 fig. 104).
- Gates of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC), embossed bronze BM 124651-63:
Barnett-Forman 1959, 35 (no. 140a); 38 (no. 162a) (cf. Yadin 1963, 400-1).
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 11 (Relief 10), BM 118882, pl. 4 (cf. Yadin 1963, 413).
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, ii. pl. 145, v. 162, nos 1 and 2 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 425).
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 112, (nos 481 and 482), ii. pls 374–5; further drawings of Slab 13-14 (nos
227a–228b) in Room 12, i. 75-6, ii. pls 151–153; also no. 652 in Room 70, i. 132, ii. pl. 471.
- surface of stone
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721-705 BC):
slabs (cf. Yadin
Botta 1849, i. pl. 77, v. 132 (Porte H, salle II); ii. pl. 90, v. 138, no. 6, salle V (cf. Yadin 1963, 423); ii. pl. 145, v. 162, nos 1 and
1963, 315, 422-423, 2 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 425); ii. pl. 147, v. 164, no. 12 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 422).
425)
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner, i. 112, ii. pl. 374, (no. 481) (with ‘a row of men, carrying large slabs’).
- surface of wooden - Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
logs ?
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 101–3, (nos 429c, 430c, 431c) (BM 124905-7), pls 331 and 333 (see Fig. 9):
Interpretation obviously influenced by Sorrell’s reconstruction, see Fig. 2 (cf. Yadin 1963, 315, 436; Read 1998, 65 fig. 69).
F1 Rams attacking
lower parts of city
walls
- Nimrud, palace of Ashurnasirpal II (884–859).
Barnett-Forman 1959, 30 (no. 12), BM 124554 (cf. Yadin 1963, 393, Read 1998, 40 fig. 38); 30 (no. 23), BM 124536 (cf.
Yadin 1963, 391).
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC).
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 14 (Relief 19), BM 118903, pl. 39.
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, ii. pl. 147, v. 164, no. 12 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 422).
F2 Rams attacking
battlements
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 12 (Relief 13), BM 118902, pl. 34.
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, ii. pl. 145, v. 162, nos 1 and 2 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 425).
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 101-2 (no. 430c), BM 124906, ii. pls 329, 331 (detail).
G1 Types of siegeengines
- In general see above 1a and 1b (cf. Yadin 1963, 314–15).
G2 - similar to P3
(Fig. 4)
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705):
Botta 1849, ii. pl. 147, v. 164, no. 12 (salle XIV) (cf. Yadin 1963, 422).
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC), ‘Lachish Room’:
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 101-5, ii. pl. 329 (no. 430c), pls 331 and 333 (nos 430c-431c), BM 124906-07.
G3 - similar to P4
(Fig. 5)
- Nimrud, palace of Ashurnasirpal II (884–859):
Barnett-Forman 1959, 30 (nos 11-12), BM 124554 (cf. Yadin 1963, 392-3; Reade 1998, 40 fig. 38).
H
- Nimrud, palace of Ashurnasirpal II (884–859 BC):
Barnett-Forman 1959, 30 (no. 21), BM 1245448.
- Gates of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC), embossed bronze, BM 124651-63:
Barnett-Forman 1959, 36 (no. 141a); 36 (no. 145b); 37 (no. 150b+c); 37 (nos 156a+b); 37 (no. 157b).
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 18-19, pl. 60 (drawing).
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, ii. no. 10 pl. 146, v. 163-4 (cf. Yadin 1963, 292).
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 104 (nos 438b-439b), BM 124914-5, ii. pls 3476-8.”
Fortified camps of
the Assyrian army
Appendix cont. on next page
Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum | 11
Maier and von Wartburg
Appendix cont. Conspectus of selected pictorial elements representing siege operations on Assyrian reliefs in the British Museum
J
Spearmen with round or
rectangular shield and/or
bowmen accompanied by
spearmen with siegeshield (see Yadin 1963,
293-6)
- Gates of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC), embossed bronze, BM 124651-63
Barnett-Forman 1959, 37 (no. 150d); 38 (nos 168b+c).
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC).
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 14 (Relief 19 and 20), BM 118903/115634, pl. 40.
- Khorsabad, palace of Sargon II (721–705 BC):
Botta 1849, ii. pl. 86, v. 138 and ii. pl. 145 nos 1+2, v. 162: rare example of spearmen among the defenders (cf. Yadin
1963, 425).
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 75 (nos 228a+b), ii. pls 152–3; i. 77 (nos 238b-241b) (BM 124785a-d), ii. pls 165,
167, 169, 171; ‘Lachish Room’: i. 101-5, ii. pl. 328 (nos 429a + 430a), pl. 329 (nos 429c + 430c), pl. 330, pls 331–2, pl.
333 (nos 430c–431c) (BM 124906-07), pls 349–351.
- Nineveh, part of frieze from the palace of Ashurbanipal (669–631 BC):
Barnett 1976, 40 pl. 21 (Slab 15) (drawing); 42 pl. 25 (Slab 5) (drawing); 45 pl. 33 (Slab 11-12), BM 124925-26; 47 pl.
36 (Slab 17), BM 124928.
K
Stone throwers
- Nimrud, palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC):
Barnett-Falkner 1962, 32 (Relief 44), pl. 61.
- Nineveh, palace of Sennacherib (705–681 BC):
Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998, i. 75 (no. 227a+b), ii. 151; i. 77 (no. 240a+b), ii. pls 168+9; ‘Lachish Room’: i. 101–
5, ii. pls 349–351 (nos 429c, 430c, 431c) (BM 124905-7).
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Barnett 1958; Barnett and Forman 1959; Barnett and Falkner 1962;
Barnett 1976; Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner 1998; Botta 1849;
Campbell 2005; ILN 1953, 613–16; Maier 2008; Reade 1998; TattonBrown 1987; Uehlinger 2003; Ussishkin 1978; Ussishkin 2004;
Yadin 1963.
As the name Palaepaphos does not appear before the end of the 4th
century bc, Paphos is used throughout the text.
‘Spherical stone balls, flattened on one face’ are mentioned already
in ILN 1953, 613.
Maier 2008.
Pictorial representations, historians’ narratives or technical
treatises on warfare.
Maier 2008; see further Maier 1985, 15–18, 22–3; Maier 1996, 124–7;
Maier and von Wartburg 1985, 153–7.
The actual surface of the ramp is not preserved. It is difficult to
decide whether ‘concrete caps’ observed on the top of the ramp
(Iliffe and Mitford 1951, 56; Iliffe and Mitford 1952, 33) were part of
the ‘mantle of the ramp’, as seen at Lachish (Ussishkin 1978, 71;
Ussishkin 2004, ii. 741).
The destroyed cult place represented a sanctuary of traditional
type, containing numerous statues and ex-votos in an open air
temenos: see Tatton-Brown 1994, 76.
See Erdmann 1977, 4–52; Maier 2008, 175–81.
Not as ammunition for stone-throwing engines, as supposed for a
time; e.g. Maier 1974, 30–1; Tatton-Brown 1987, 68.
Similar tactics were adapted by the Plataeans during the siege of
429 bc when the defenders drew away ramp material through a
tunnel: Thucydides ii. 75. 6.76. 2; Lawrence 1979, 41.
Part of the collapse within the ramp can be recognized in the
photograph of Section B, Fig. 7.
See Marshall 1992, 210–56.
Smyrna: Nicholls 1958/9, 88–91, 128–34; Boardman 1980, 96–7;
Garlan 1974, 142–3; Winter 1971, 130–1.
Ephesus: Aelian, Var. hist. iii, 26; Polyaen. iii, 60.
Ionia with Phocaea and Teos: Her. i.162. 168.
Miletus: Her. vi. 18.
Barke: Her. iv. 200. 2; Garlan 1974, 176.
For siege ramps generally see Garlan 1974, 142–3; Lawrence 1979,
41; Winter 1971, 85, 110, 307. For mines: Garlan 1974, 133, 143–5;
Lawrence 1979, 41, 56; Winter 1971, 110, 133–4, 155–6, 218–20, 307.
For siege-engines: Garlan 1974, 170–1, 225–34; Lawrence 1979, 42,
56.
The sinking of countermines into enemy mines, discovered by the
repercussions of a shield laid on the ground, at Barke (Her. iv. 200.
3) represents a somewhat different operation.
See Ussishkin 2004, ii. 695–767.
See below n. 34, L1.
ILN 1953, 615; ibid. 613: ‘a reconstruction drawing from the
excavated evidence’.
Lloyd 1984, 186.
Benndorf and Niemann 1889, pls 12, 13; Eichler 1950, pls 18, 19;
Campbell 2005, 15, 61; see also Lawrence 1979, 21.
Admittedly, the excavators originally assumed that the wall had
been built during the siege.
12 | Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum
22 Neither in their Preliminary Reports (Iliffe and Mitford 1951,
51–66; Iliffe and Mitford 1952, 29–66) nor in their articles in the
ILN May 10, 1952, 802–3, and ILN 1953, 613–16.
23 For the estimated height of city wall and ramp see below.
24 Already in ILN 1953, 614: ‘rubble sliced with the stems and roots of
trees’.
25 During the siege wooden posts and frames were employed only in
shoring-up the cavities at the end of the tunnels. All other wood
and tree fragments were found in an area close to the Revetment
Wall, disturbed in the Classical period during the rebuilding of the
fortifications. Other ramps were strengthened by woodwork, e.g.
the Spartans’ ramp at Plataea in 429 which consisted of ‘wood and
stones and earth’; its sides were shored up with a wooden structure
(Thuc. ii. 75. 1–2), or the Masada ramp: Yadin 1967, 226.
26 See Barnett 1958, 205; Ussishkin 1978, 71; Ussishkin 2004, ii. 741.
27 See below n. 34. It seems questionable to interpret these relief
scenes as denoting a special Assyrian reconstruction of the siege of
Lachish tactics (Ussishkin 2004, ii. 740–1: the engines with curious
spear-like battering rams built as machines for attacking the
‘balconies at the top of the wall and at warriors manning them’).
28 See Ussishkin 2004, ii. 765.
29 Ram head of c. 440 BC from Olympia: Kunze 1956, 75, fig. 30, pls 40,
41.
30 Ussishkin 2004, ii. 765. This seems to apply also to Hook’s siegeengine.
31 Benndorf and Niemann 1889, pl. 12; Eichler 1950, pl. 18.
32 Collingwood 1946, 282–302.
33 See e.g. Hrouda 1965, 17–19; Barnett 1958, 162; Uehlinger 2003,
254–6, 273–8; Ussishkin 1982, 119; Ussishkin 2004, ii. 740–1; also
Lawrence 1979, 15–23, and generally Russell 1991, chapts 7 and 8.
The existence of Assyrian ‘field draftsmen’ is considered possible
by Lawrence 1979, 18–19, but dismissed by Uehlinger 2003, 265,
274, 293.
34 See chart below.
Reconstructions of the siege of Lachish
Art
Description
Bibliography
L1
Alan Sorrell
1951 (Fig. 10)
‘Reconstruction of the
assault on the gate of
Lachish’
Barnett 1958, 162 pl.
30B. Cf. Yadin 1963,
436–7; Reade 1998, 65.
L2
Judith Dekel
1978
‘Nineveh - The Lachish
Ussishkin 1978, 72 fig.
Reliefs: Sennacherib’s main 20. Cf. Reade 1998,
siege ramp’
65–8 fig. 71; Campbell
2005, 4.
L3
Gert le Grange
c. 1978 (Fig. 11)
‘Sennacherib’s main siege
ramp, a reconstruction’
L4
Gert le Grange
c. 1978
‘An Assyrian siege machine Ussishkin 2004, 767 fig.
in action: reconstruction’
13.59; id. 1982.
L5
Christoph
Uehlinger,
assisted by Jürg
Eggler
‘Tentative re-assemblage
of slab 6-9, with selective
restorations including the
now-missing citadel’
Ussishkin 1978, 71–3
fig. 21
Uehlinger 2003, 269
fig. 7.
Reconstruction of a Siege
35 Ussishkin 2004, ii. 740–1.
36 Jacoby 1991, 112–31; Uehlinger 2003.
Bibliography
Barnett R.D. 1976, Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at
Nineveh, London
Barnett R.D. 1958, ‘The siege of Lachish’, IEJ 8/3, 1958, 161–4.
Barnett R.D. and Falkner M. 1962, The sculpture of Aššur-Nasir-Apli II
(883–859 bc), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 bc), Esarhaddon (681–669
bc) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud (London).
Barnett R.D. and Forman W. 1959, Assyrische Palastreliefs (Prague)
Barnett R.D., Bleibtreu E. and Turner G. 1998, Sculptures from the
Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, 2 vols (London).
Benndorf O. and Niemann G. 1889, Das Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa
(Vienna).
Boardman J. 1980, The Greeks overseas (3rd edn, London).
Botta P.E. and Flandin E. 1849–50 , Monuments de Ninive, vols. i–ii.
drawings (Paris 1849); vol. v. text (Paris 1850).
Campbell D.B. (illustrated by A. Hook) 2005, Ancient siege warfare.
Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians and Romans 546–146 bc (2nd edn,
Oxford).
Collingwood R. G. 1946, The Idea of history (Oxford).
Eichler F. 1950, Die Reliefs des Heroons von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Vienna).
Erdmann E. 1977, Nordosttor und persische Belagerungsrampe in AltPaphos. I. Waffen und Kleinfunde (Konstanz), 4–52.
Garlan Y. 1974, Recherches de Poliorcétique grecque (Paris).
Hrouda B. 1965, Die Kulturgeschichte des Assyrischen Flachbildes
(Bonn).
Iliffe J.H. and Mitford T.B. 1952, ‘Excavations at Aphrodite’s sanctuary
of Paphos (1951)’, Liverpool Bulletin 2, 25–36.
Iliffe J.H. and Mitford T.B. 1951, ‘Excavations at Kouklia (Old Paphos),
Cyprus, 1950’, AJ 31, 51–66.
ILN 1953: J.H. Iliffe and T.B. Mitford, ‘Light on ancient siege-warfare,
from unique Cyprus discoveries’, ILN, 18 April, 613–16.
Jacoby R. 1991, ‘The representation and identification of cities on
Assyrian reliefs’, IEJ 41 1991, 112–33.
Kunze E. 1956, Fünfte Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia
(Berlin).
Lawrence A.W. 1979, Greek aims in fortification (Oxford).
Lloyd S. 1984, The archaeology of Mesopotamia from the Stone Age to the
Persian conquest (2nd edn, London).
Maier F.G. 1996, ‘History from the earth: the kingdom of Paphos in the
Achaemenid Period’, Transeuphratène 12, 124–7.
Maier F.G. 1985, ‘Alt-Paphos auf Cypern. Ausgrabungen zur Geschichte
von Stadt und Heiligtum 1966-1984’. Trierer
Winckelmannsprogramm 1984, 1–32.
Maier F.G. 1972, ‘Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos. Sechster Vorläufiger
Bericht: Grabungskampagne 1971 und 1972’, AA, 28–48.
Maier F.G. and von Wartburg M-L. 1985, ‘Reconstructing history from
the earth, c. 2800 bc–1600 ad: excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966–
1984’, in ed. V. Karageorghis, Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985
(Nicosia), 153–7.
Maier F.G. (with H.W. Catling, A.H. Jackson, K.O. Lorentz und A.M.
Snodgrass) 2008, Nordost-Tor und persische Belagerungsrampe in
Alt-Paphos. III. Grabungsbefund und Baugeschichte. Ausgrabungen
in Alt-Paphos 6 (Mayence).
Marshall C. 1992, Warfare in the Latin East, 1192–1291 (Cambridge).
Nicholls R.V. 1958/9, ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age fortifications and
associated remains on the city perimeter’, ABSA 53/4, 35–137.
Reade J. 1998, Assyrian Sculpture (2nd edn, London).
Russell J.M. 1991, Sennacherib’s ‘Palace without Rival’ at Nineveh
(Chicago-London).
Tatton-Brown V. 1994, ‘Phoenicians at Kouklia?’, in eds F.
Vandenabeele and R. Laffineur, Cypriote Stone Sculpture.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Cypriote
Studies, Brussels-Liège 17–19 May, 1993 (Brussels-Liège), 71–7.
Tatton-Brown V. 1987, Ancient Cyprus (1st edn, London).
Uehlinger Ch. 2003, ‘Clio a world of pictures – Another look at the
Lachish reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace at Nineveh,
in ed. L.L. Grabbe, ‘Like a bird in a cage’. The invasion of
Sennacherib in 701 BCE’. Journal of the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement series 363 (Sheffield), 221–305.
Ussishkin D. 2004, The renewed archaeological excavations at Lachish
(1973–1994), vols ii–iv (Tel Aviv).
Ussishkin D. 1978, Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977, preliminary
report (Tel Aviv).
Winter F.E. 1971, Greek fortifications (Toronto).
Yadin Y. 1967, Masada (Hamburg).
Yadin Y. 1963, The art of warfare in Biblical lands in the light of
archaeological study (New York).
Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum | 13
Maier and von Wartburg
Figure 2 Reconstruction of the Paphos siege by Alan Sorrell (P1). © Estate of Alan Sorrell
Figure 3 Reconstruction of the Paphos siege by Susan Bird (P2)
14 | Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum
Figure 4
Reconstruction of the
Paphos siege by Adam
Hook (P3). Image
from Ancient Siege
Warfare, © Osprey
Publishing Ltd
Figure 5 Reconstruction of the Paphos siege by Jörg Denkinger (P4)
Reconstruction of a Siege
Figure 6 North East Gate, city wall and siege works on Site KA at Paphos
Figure 7 The Persian siege ramp at Paphos covering berm, ditch and glacis
Figure 8 ‘Firing the cauldron at the end of a tunnel’; reconstruction by Alan
Sorrell (P1a). © Estate of Alan Sorrell
Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum | 17
Maier and von Wartburg
Figure 9 The siege of Lachish. Relief from Room XXXVI, Southwest Palace, Nineveh
18 | Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum
Figure 10 Reconstruction of the siege of Lachish by Alan Sorrell (L1)
Figure 11 Sennacherib’s main siege
ramp at Lachish, reconstruction by
Gert Le Grange (L3). Courtesy of the
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University