This dissertation elaborates on previous interpretations of cultural change in Ptolemaic (294-58 B.C.E.) and Roman (58 B.C.E.-293 C.E.) Cyprus by presenting a postcolonial archaeology of cultural identity that comparatively analyzes coins, sculptures, and architecture. Although these artifacts all betray the cultural influence of Alexandria or Rome, this study shows that both local and imperial agents played a role in determining how material culture might express one’s socially recognized sense of belonging, i.e., their identity. Furthermore, by contextualizing such interactions in relation to each empire’s strategic agenda and Cyprus’ geographical and cultural values, this thesis illustrates how different empires can affect the same region in diverse ways and emphasizes the significance of geohistorical factors within colonial encounters.
An analysis of Ptolemaic motives and strategies indicates that the empire valued Cyprus for its strategic location and resources. Thus Cyprus was militarily occupied and Cypriots lost their political autonomy. Yet, because local and imperial agents shared cultural values, new identities could be interactively constructed. Ptolemaic officials dominated coin production, but used designs that linked imperial and local religious and linguistic affinities. The dialogue between imperial and local statues reveals how Cypriots manipulated Alexandrian styles within traditional contexts. Ptolemaic architecture expressed imperial power locally, but had little effect on Cypriot buildings. Alternatively, an examination of Rome’s attitude towards Cyprus shows that the empire viewed the island as strategically insignificant. This factor resulted in the increased participation of Cypriot elites in local affairs. Hence, Roman Cypriot coins reveal a dialogue between imperial and local symbols, whereas sculpture and architecture demonstrate that local elites emulated imperial types because they communicated a sense humanitas that reinforced one’s socio-political position.
Overall, this dissertation expands on colonialist interpretations of cultural change to reveal how imperial agendas, local geographies, social class, and cultural histories all influence the nature of imperial/local interactions. Moreover, its conclusions suggest that elite Cypriots adopted imperial fashions—especially in sculpture and architecture— primarily because they were polyvocal and appealed to both imperial and local sensibilities. These adoptions could then be actively adapted to suit local practices, and sometimes certain symbols, such as those associated with Aphrodite, could even influence the cultural identities of imperial agents. Thus, most importantly, this study proves that Cypriots were not merely “Hellenized” or “Romanized,” but rather that they often played an active role in constructing their local cultural identities within greater imperial worlds.