Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

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

14. Restringing Kinyras

This chapter further documents Kinyras’ fundamental connection with pre-Greek Cyprus. I shall examine traces of popular narratives featuring the Cypriot king and his family which variously mythologized Aegean settlement in the eastern Mediterranean during the LBA–IA transition, and the evolving relationships between the new Greek-speaking communities and the pre-Greek and later Phoenician groups with whom they shared the island.

Aegean Foundation Legends and Epic Homecomings

Some figures, however, do represent genuinely ancient traditions. Teukros and Agapenor, associated with Salamis and Paphos, respectively, may be confidently associated with historical population movements from western Anatolia and the Peloponnese for reasons, to be discussed below, that overcome any suspicion raised by their incorporation into the epic nóstoi. That these are the two best-attested Cypriot migration legends must relate to the prominence of Salamis and Paphos on the island itself, and hence their greater visibility within early Panhellenic horizons.

I shall develop specific historical explanations for each of these strains, arguing that Kinyras was a kind of historical boundary stone delimiting Greek and pre-Greek perspectives within the evolving social landscape of IA Cyprus, even when the two populations are indistinguishable in the material record. Ultimately this ethnic, national function of Kinyras will permit further inferences about his own early history upon the island (Chapter 15).

Kinyras, Dmetor, and the Changing States of Cyprus

After Kinyras’ brief mention in the Iliad, Homer tells us nothing more about him. Instead Odysseus, lying to Antinoos about how he fell into beggary, claims that he was captured while marauding the coast of Egypt and handed over to a certain “Dmetor son of Iasos, who ruled Cyprus by force.” [26] Dmetor is envisioned as commanding the whole island. [27] Eustathios was puzzled by this:

Eustathios’ suggestion remains the most economical interpretation of the Homeric data. The alternative, to view the Odyssey poet as using a different frame of reference than the Iliad, is not merely uneconomical but discouraged by Homer’s own generous clues. For Dmḗtōr means ‘Subduer’, and is even so defined by the immediate sequel: “who ruled in Cyprus by force.” This is proof enough, were it needed, that Dmetor is no historical figure. Yet he may still have an historical dimension. Both his name and its gloss show that the Odyssey poet recognized an early Greek conquest scenario on Cyprus. That Dmetor exerted his rule “by force” naturally implies a hostile native population, which in turn suggests that his kingdom was recently established. This might be reading too much into a single name, were it not for other mythological examples of Achaean heroes establishing kingdoms on Cyprus just after the fall of Troy—only a few years of dramatic time before the action of the Odyssey (Odysseus was the last hero home).

Liar King: The Terracotta Fleet and the Curse of Agamemnon

The Unthroning of Kinyras

Kinyras and Pre-Greek Social Topography

A final topographical connection, which has presented a puzzle since antiquity, is the ‘Cinyria’ mentioned by Pliny as an abandoned site of uncertain location. I discuss this in Appendix E.

Salamis: Euagoras, Teukros, and the Daughter of Kinyras

The point is well taken. Nevertheless, we should not dismiss all ethnic distinctions on the island as meaningless. The very fact that communities cultivated legends about their past shows that such affiliations mattered to them. Such beliefs could therefore be politically exploited; and if this were to coincide with the interests of a Cypriot king, why would he have hesitated to do so?

Teukros, as an eponym of the ‘Teukrians’, is a multiform figure involved in a bewildering array of very early legends that connect him especially with the Troad and migrations thence. Homer’s Teukros is apparently but one special development. [95] An eponymous relationship between Teukros and the Tjekkeru of the Sea Peoples inscriptions remains very seductive, [96] given that Salamis arose in the eleventh century after several generations’ decline at Enkomi. [97] The contemporary (?) Tale of Wen-Amun paints a comparable picture, with the Tjekkeru pursuing the title character between Byblos and Cyprus, where Egyptian is no longer understood. [98] There is also Vergil’s picture of political disorder on Cyprus shortly after the Trojan War: Teukros was permitted to settle there by the grace of ‘Belos’, king of Sidon, who was in the process of ravaging the island. [99] Although clearly fictional in most respects, the atmosphere this passage evokes—war, hostile immigration, and political decentralization—is also ‘right’ to some extent, at least as a generalized popular memory. It is worth noting that Belos is sometimes made ruler of Egypt—in ps.-Apollodoros, for example, he is the son of Poseidon and the Egyptian princess ‘Libya’, while his twin brother Agenor moves to Phoenicia—probably reflecting popular recollection of NK expansion in the Levant. [100] Such a Belos, giving Teukros a place on Cyprus, would remind one of Ramses III’s ‘settlement’ of the Philistines, and his claimed conquest of Cypriot cities. [101]

However the Teukrid link between Saronic and Cypriot Salamis arose, it is certain that Euagoras, in using the ‘Athenian Teukros’ to promote his cause, was sensitive to the political advantages of mythical genealogy. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that he made comparable use of the “daughter of Kinyras.” But to what end? One must consider her potential appeal to two broad audiences, Athenian and Cypriot.

However Euagoras may have presented matters to his Athenian allies, a professed Kinyrad ancestry will necessarily have carried greater weight on Cyprus. And since the island was itself ethnically heterogeneous, the ‘daughter of Kinyras’ will have spoken differently to different groups.

Diodoros’ account of Euagoras prevailing over the Cypriot cities through persuasion or force indicates a two-stage policy in which he first attempted to win over all his insular peers by appealing to the political, economic, ethnic, or other ideological interests of each. Only when that failed would it be worth resorting to arms. One should therefore consider how Euagoras may have hoped that a claim of Kinyrad ancestry would ‘persuade’ not only Paphos, but the other cities as well. The explanation, I suggest, is that he wished to balance the Greek associations of his Teukrid ancestry with an appeal to other Cypriot populations. If the intensity of ethnic rivalries on the island has been overemphasized in the past, nonetheless for a king who aimed at island-wide control the value of cultivating universal appeal is obvious. Indeed Euagoras’ hybrid heritage may have been designed precisely to promote ethnic harmony, not the reverse. That Theopompos specifically dealt with the Amathousians as descendants of Kinyras’ men may even echo some of Euagoras’ rhetoric in trying to win that city over. A Cypro-Phoenician aspect would also be seen in Kinyras’ marriage into the house of Pygmalion, who clearly resonates with the dynastic names of Kition (Milkyaton’s son was Pumayyaton). Kinyras/Pygmalion might have served Euagoras equally well in his ephemeral holdings on the Phoenician coast, given the traditions of ‘Kinyras’ at Byblos and perhaps Sidon (Chapters 19 and 20).

To conclude, on Cyprus itself Euagoras will have balanced any philhellenism he may have felt personally, or projected to his Athenian allies, with a more inclusive appeal to the island’s ancient traditions. This was evidently partially successful (Paphos and elsewhere), but in the end he could not overcome the political and/or ethnic disinclinations of Soloi, Amathous, Kition, and whatever other cities he was obliged to assail. Theopompos’ digression on the showdown of Kinyras and Agamemnon was probably intended to illuminate both the Kinyrad and Teukrid branches of Euagoras’ family tree—but perhaps especially the former, which will have been less immediately intelligible for an extra-Cypriot readership. Euagoras himself, however, is unlikely to have made divisive use of the Kinyras and Agamemnon myth, which would hardly have endeared him to Amathous, Paphos, or Kition. I suggest, therefore, that Theopompos inserted the Unthroning of Kinyras on his own initiative to explain the ‘daughter of Kinyras’ and provide ‘historical’ background for the arrival of Teukros himself. Nor is it unlikely that his account of the “men with Agamemnon” dealt with other migration figures—Agapenor, for instance.

Paphos: Agapenor, Laodike, and the Arcadian Connection

An overlooked source here is Étienne de Lusignan, who offers a more expansive version of events than Pausanias:

As always with this remarkable historian, it is hard to know what has found its way from a lost ancient source, what from oral tradition, and what is his own imaginative interpretation or extrapolation (see Appendix G). But the present passage, on the whole, seems to have some ancient or traditional basis. Lusignan’s portrayal of Agapenor as a conquering king could be seen as heavy-handed historicism, were it not for the ‘rout’ of the former royal line, which cannot be dismissed so easily. The historian makes clear elsewhere that Paphos was the kingdom of “the god Cinaras,” father of ‘Curio’ (< Koureus < Kourion), whom in turn he makes the father of a younger, mortal ‘Cinaras’. [
134] Even if this use of genealogy to disambiguate two Kinyrases is probably Lusignan’s own invention, his ‘rout of the Kinyradai’ is essentially what we find in Theopompos. And yet these two rout scenarios, though obviously cognate—and geographically quite compatible—are not identical: Lusignan overlooks Amathous, which is not even mentioned, to account for Kourion—midway between Paphos and Amathous (and not far from Limassol, where Lusignan was vicar from 1564–1568 [135] )—and “other Cypriot cities.” [136] So here too, I suggest, is a genuine popular tradition, about an explicitly Greek ‘takeover’ of the Kinyrad dynasty at Paphos. Note that elsewhere Lusignan specifies that Agapenor’s descendants continued to rule at Paphos. [137]

There can be no doubt that the alternative tradition of the sanctuary’s consecration by Kinyras goes back to the Paphian dynasty itself. [145] But how does this square with the ‘old Agapenor’? The dual tradition must be somehow related to the historical meeting of Greek and pre-Greek at Palaipaphos. But what exactly is implied? Karageorghis and Maier explained it thus:

This harmonizing approach clearly has merit, even if one questions the specific scenario proposed—as Maier himself did only two years later, stressing the lack of clear archaeological criteria, and arguing that the sanctuary’s monumentalization actually antedates the Greek influx. [
147] The lack of Aegean architectural elements shows in any case that the outward image of the cult continued unbroken. [148] Thus whatever the ethnic orientation of those who held power in the EIA, it is likely that the older royal apparatus remained at least superficially intact, just as the Kinyrad tradition asserts. As M. Iacovou writes:

Given the persistent and awkward tension between a tradition of Arcadian kingship on the one hand, and the maintenance of a Kinyrad royal pose on the other, it is unsurprising that the evidence for Agapenor is relatively scarce, and that he was seemingly ‘banished’ to New Paphos. Nevertheless, the need to accommodate Arcadians within a Paphian royal framework has left several traces in legends about two women named Laodike.

Ps.-Apollodoros cites another Arcadian legend involving a Laodike who also appears in the royal lineage, but much earlier—married to Elatos, son of the eponymous Arkas, and elder brother of Apheidas; “these sons divided up the land, but Elatos wielded all the power.” [161] Quite remarkably, this Laodike is said to be a daughter of Kinyras. This must make her a native of pre-Greek Cyprus, since Elatos lived five generations before Agapenor’s arrival to the island. Observe the deep antiquity this assigns to Kinyras, recalling his proverbial old age. [162] There is a curious paradox here. No doubt there were sporadic marriages between Greeks and Cypriots throughout the LBA. But in a mythological genealogy involving eponymous figures—Arkas, Amyklas, Stymphalos, and others—marriage to a ‘daughter of Kinyras’ should symbolize a quite general intermingling of Arcadian and Cypriot populations. Yet such a situation only makes sense following Aegean immigration to Cyprus, and only on the island—the more logical arrangement of Teukros and the daughter of Kinyras; or of Diodoros’ South Pacific scenario for the Dryopes, who, “sailing to the island of Cyprus, and ‘mixing it up’ (anamikhthéntes) with the locals, settled there.” [163] It appears, therefore, that with Elatos and the daughter of Kinyras, the fusion of Greek and Cypriot culture has been exported back up the migration path and pushed into the deep past. [164] Note that diasporas do often involve cyclic returns to the homeland. [165]

In any case, marriage into a local royal establishment is one likely way that Aegean immigrant kings or chieftains renovated their power within their new insular environment, achieving royal legitimacy in the pre-Greek theological context of the goddess’s cult. [172] For Agapenor, such a scenario comes only if one may ‘pool the resources’ of the two Laodikes. Such a procedure is not completely gratuitous, given the nature of mythological doublets; we have already seen that the two Laodikes ‘traded’ certain attributes. In other words, ‘Laodike’ was a multivalent figure for whom we have but two ‘samples’. Her full mythological potential can be mapped by ‘multiplying’ the samples and redistributing the results between Agapenor and Elatos, the two Arcadian kings with whom they are connected. The results for Agapenor are as follows:

  1. If Agapenor marries Laodike, and Laodike = Kinyras’ daughter, then Agapenor marries Kinyras’ daughter;
  2. If Laodike = Kinyras’ daughter, and Agapenor = Laodike’s father, then Agapenor = Kinyras;
  3. If Agapenor = Kinyras, and Laodike is Kinyras’ daughter, then Agapenor/Kinyras marries his own daughter.

Is it coincidence that these gyrations not only connect Agapenor to Kinyras’ family line, and indeed make a Kinyras of him, but also generate the most famous episode of Kinyras’ own mythology—an incestuous union with his daughter? [173] Frazer saw in the myth of Myrrha/Smyrna a reflection of ritualized incest allowing continuous patrilineal control of an otherwise matrilineal royal line. [174]


The material analyzed here and in Chapter 13 derives from of a multiform mythmaking tradition going back to sub-Mycenaean times on Cyprus. Not every sample is equally old: specific historical developments induced various modulations over time. Taken as a whole, however, the simple existence of such legends is clear evidence that many of the island’s communities maintained and cultivated a distinct sense of Greekness down through the centuries—a striking contrast to the thoroughly hybrid material record. But of course there must also have been extensive intermarriage with the pre-Greek population, whose contribution to IA Cypriot culture can hardly be overstated.

Kinyras came to serve as a common mythological reference point for pre-Greek, Greek-Cypriot, and Cypro-Phoenician communities alike in their shared and sometimes contested history. Naturally, Greeks and pre-Greeks will have been at their most distinct at the time of heaviest Aegean immigration. And it was precisely this moment that was replayed in the various tales of Kinyras and the Achaeans. While Cypriot exposure to the Greek epic cycle may account for Kinyras’ encounters with Agamemnon, Menelaos, Odysseus, and Talthybios, it does not explain his dominant image as a pre-Greek culture-hero, which takes precedence. This virtuous, Golden Age Kinyras, however much the Paphian kings may have promoted him, was not theirs alone, but a tenacious contribution by pre-Greek communities generally to IA Cypriot mythmaking. It is all the more striking, therefore, that Kinyras unanimously symbolized the disjunction of cultures. This is also why Kinyras must have been introduced before the ninth-century Phoenician colonial ventures. [178] To be sure, Phoenician-Cypriots may have rightly insisted that ‘Kinyras’ was originally at home in the Levant before ever coming to Cyprus. [179] But while this might account for myths about Kinyras crossing to the island, and his mythological co-ordination with Pygmalion, it is insufficient to explain his ubiquitous association with the pre-Greek island. [180] The epicenter of any historicizing interpretation must be the assumption that Kinyras was already established as a potent figure on Cyprus at the time of Aegean immigration.


[ back ] 1. Cf. Franklin 2014:219–221, and p250–253.

[ back ] 2. Various subsets of the sources are collected and discussed by Engel 1841:210–229; Gjerstad 1944; Gjerstad 1948:428–429; CAH3 II.2:215–216; Khatzēiōannou 1971–2001 1:46–67; Fortin 1980; Maier 1986b; Vanschoonwinkel 1994; Franklin 2014:219–221.

[ back ] 3. We know of Κυπριακά by Hellanikos (FGH 4 F 57, 756 F 1), Palaiphatos of Abydos (FGH 44 T 3), Kreon (FGH 753), and Timomakhos (FGH 754 F 1–2); there were Περὶ Κύπρου by Philostephanos (FHG 3:30 fr. 10–14), Alexandros Polyhistor (FGH 273 F 31), and a certain Androkles (FGH 751 F 1; some would emend to Menandros [of Ephesus]: FHG 4:448 fr. 7; cf. Fraser 1979:335n2; note that Menandros dealt with relations between Tyre and Kition: FGH 783 F 4). Asklepiades of Cyprus (FGH 752) wrote a Περὶ Κύπρου καὶ Φοινίκης. Amathous was the subject of works by Eratosthenes (FGH 241 F 25: see below, p546) and Paion of Amathous (FGH 757). The Suda reports a Cypriot ἱστορικός named Xenophon as an author of a Κυπριακά (s.v. Ξενοφῶν = FGH 755): for this controversy, see p565–567. Of course many other works contained information about Cyprus, and other Cypriot or Cyprus-based authors (like Demetrios of Salamis: FGH 756 F 1) will have discussed the island. See further Engel 1841 1:3–11.

[ back ] 4. Gjerstad 1944:107.

[ back ] 5. Malkin 1998 (quotation 157; “proto-colonization” is also his term).

[ back ] 6. See with further references Franklin 2014:227–229, 232–233.

[ back ] 7. Janko 1982.

[ back ] 8. Homer Odyssey 4.83. See for now Franklin 2014:221–222n23, 231. I shall deal with the poetics of ‘Eastern Wandering’ more fully in Franklin forthcoming.

[ back ] 9. See Franklin 2014:221–224 et passim.

[ back ] 10. Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.432–433.

[ back ] 11. Seibert 1976:19–23; Greenfield 1987:395–396; Maier 1985:35 stresses the inadequate factual basis beneath repeated scholarly assertions of dynastic changes at Lapethos due to fifth-century Persian interventions. Lapethos is called a Phoenician city by [Skylax] 103 (GGM 1:78). Honeyman 1938:289 suggested that ‘Lapethos’ derives from a pre-Greek TN, given its divergent representation in Greek and Phoenician; but the correspondence of Gk. θ/Phoen. š is now known to be normal (Lipiński 2004:62).

[ back ] 12. HC:87n2.

[ back ] 13. Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Ἰδάλιον, πόλις Κύπρου. χρησμὸς γὰρ ἐδόθη … ὅπου ἴδοι [sc. ὁ Χαλκήνωρ] τὸν ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα, πόλιν κτίσαι, κτλ. The tale is repeated by Étienne de Lusignan Chorograffia p. 16a (§42), who attributes it to the time “before the gods existed.”

[ back ] 14. Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Γολγοί· πόλις Κύπρου, ἀπὸ Γόλγου τοῦ ἡγησαμένου τῆς Σικυωνίων ἀποικίας. Cf. Gjerstad 1944:121. Sicyon is represented in the Catalogue of Ships: Homer Iliad 2.572. Or should we look instead to Eusebios’ primeval Sicyonian dynasty (Schoene 1967 1:173)? Étienne de Lusignan assigns the foundation to Pygmalion, here a Sicyonian (Description pp. 34–34a, 38, 91a–92); it is unclear how this squares with his being the son of Cilix (see further Appendix F)! For the Golgoi tablets, see p350.

[ back ] 15. See especially Herodotos 7.90, reporting Cypriots’ claims to know their origins—though here too history and myth are blended.

[ back ] 16. Herodotos 5.113; Strabo 14.6.3. While ‘Argives’ (Ἀργεῖοι) is used flexibly in Homer, a narrower connection with the Mycenaean royal house may be seen at Iliad 1.30, 79, 119, 2.107–108, 3.82–83, 11.154–155, etc.; according to [Apollodoros] Library 2.1.2, Argos named the Peloponnese after himself.

[ back ] 17. Lykophron Alexandra 586–591, with Σ 586 (= Philostephanos FHG 3:31 fr. 12); Strabo 14.6.3. Étienne de Lusignan calls Praxandros ‘Pixando’ (Chorograffia p. 36 [§180]), and places his origin in Thessaly, presumably for an etymology of Lapethos from the Lapiths.

[ back ] 18. Lykophron Alexandra 586–587 οὐ ναυκληρίας / λαῶν ἄνακτες, ἀλλ’ ἀνώνυμοι σποραί. A similar ‘scattering’ is found in Herodotos 7.91, of the followers of Amphilokhos and Kalkhas (Οἱ δὲ Πάμφυλοι οὗτοι εἰσὶ τῶν ἐκ Τροίης ἀποσκεδασθέντων ἅμα Ἀμφιλόχῳ καὶ Κάλχαντι); this is reprised by Strabo 14.4.3 (τινὰς δὲ σκεδασθῆναι πολλαχοῦ τῆς γῆς), where it anticipates the diaspora of Mopsos (for which cf. p252).

[ back ] 19. Lykophron’s sources: Fraser 1979, especially 335–341, seeing Eratosthenes as primary (his geographical work, the Amathousia [cf. p546], and perhaps the Hermes [cf. p505]), Philostephanos as secondary; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 1994:327.

[ back ] 20. Akamas, Demophon, and Phaleros at Soloi: Lykophron Alexandra 494–534; Strabo 14.6.3; Plutarch Solon 26; cf. [Apollodoros] Epitome 6.17.

[ back ] 21. Gjerstad 1944:120–121. For the political situation, see HC:121–125.

[ back ] 22. For which see HC:117.

[ back ] 23. Khytroi and Khytros: Xenagoras FGH 240 F 27 (= Harpokration Lexicon of the Ten Orators and Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Χύτροι); Gjerstad 1944:120.

[ back ] 24. Fortin 1980:26–35.

[ back ] 25. See p1, 322.

[ back ] 26. Homer Odyssey 17.442–443: αὐτὰρ ἔμ’ ἐς Κύπρον ξείνῳ δόσαν ἀντιάσαντι, / Δμήτορι Ἰασίδῃ, ὃς Κύπρου ἶφι ἄνασσεν.

[ back ] 27. Ἀνάσσειν takes the dative of peoples ruled, but typically genitive of a place within which and over which one holds supreme power, including islands: Homer Iliad 1.38, 452 (Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις, of Apollo), 6.478, Odyssey 4.602; Hesiod fr. 141.16 M-W; Homeric Hymn to Apollo 181 (Delos), Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 112 (all Phrygia).

[ back ] 28. Eustathios on Homer Odyssey 17.442–443: εἰ δὲ Κινύρας ἐν Ἰλιάδι Κύπρου ἦν βασιλεὺς, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνου μηκέτ’ ὄντος ὁ ῥηθεὶς Δμήτωρ βασιλεῦσαι δοκεῖ (expanding the blunter statement of a scholiast ad loc.: Κινύρου ἀποθανόντος Δμήτωρ ἐβασίλευσε Κύπρου).

[ back ] 29. Cf. the astute comments of Serghidou 2006:171–173.

[ back ] 30. Hellanikos FGH 4 F 36; [Apollodoros] Library 2.1.3. Cf. HC:88.

[ back ] 31. [Apollodoros] Library 3.9.2.

[ back ] 32. Alkidamas Odysseus 20–21; [Apollodoros] Epitome 3.9; two versions in Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20. While the earliest text is the fourth-century Alkidamas, this is clearly a fashionable sophistic exercise comparable to the revisionist encomia of Helen by Gorgias and Isokrates, and Gorgias’ Defense of Palamedes (Gorgias DK 82 B 11 [Helen], 11a [Palamedes]; Isokrates 10; I assume the Gorgianic works are authentic: Untersteiner 1954:95; Segal 1962:100, 136–137n10 with further references). Alkidamas’ ‘Defense of Kinyras’ only makes sense as systematically correcting a traditional epic episode that cast the Cypriot king in a negative light, shifting all blame to Palamedes. I shall deal more fully with the interrelationships of these texts, and the episode’s position within a larger tradition of Eastern Wandering, in Franklin forthcoming. See for now Franklin 2014.

[ back ] 33. The text has the plural “breastplates.”

[ back ] 34. [Apollodoros] Epitome 3.9: Ὅτι Μενέλαος σὺν Ὀδυσσεῖ καὶ Ταλθυβίῳ πρὸς <Κινύραν εἰς (suppl. Wagner)> Κύπρον ἐλθόντες συμμαχεῖν ἔπειθον· ὁ δὲ Ἀγαμέμνονι μὲν οὐ παρόντι θώρακα[ς] ἐδωρήσατο, ὀμόσας δὲ πέμψειν πεντήκοντα ναῦς, μίαν πέμψας, ἧς ἦρχεν … ὁ Μυγδαλίωνος, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ἐκ γῆς πλάσας μεθῆκεν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος.

[ back ] 35. See p1n2, 211n139.

[ back ] 36. See p328.

[ back ] 37. Emendation: Wilamowitz-Möllendorff 1900:535n1; West 2003:72–73. Kinyras and the daughter of Pygmalion: [Apollodoros] Library 3.14.3; see further p498, 504.

[ back ] 38. KAI 32–33, cf. 34, 39, 41; for the new inscription, see p357. The proposal of Cross 1972 to see a similar pairing in the Nora Stone (Sardinia, ca. 800; KAI 46) has not been generally followed; most would see in pmy of line 8 a reference to the Cypriot/Phoenician god Pummay (whence Hesykhios s.v. Πυγμαίων· ὁ Ἄδωνις παρὰ Κυπρίοις). See Amadasi 1967:86; Lipiński 2004:236n52, 240. Phonological considerations indicate that the Pygmaion/Pummay (corresponding to the theophoric element in ‘Pygmalion’) goes back on Cyprus to a borrowing from Canaanite, i.e. before ninth-century Phoenician colonization: Cross 1972:18; Brown 1981:390n31. For Pygmaion and Pygmalion, see further p315 and n210.

[ back ] 39. Lewy 1895:238; Kapera 1971; Kapera 1972:197–199.

[ back ] 40. I owe this observation to G. Fawkes. Homer’s Phoenicians: Winter 1995; cf. Morris 1997:612.

[ back ] 41. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20.

[ back ] 42. Aphrodite is “ruler of well-founded Salamis / And Cyprus on the sea” in Homeric Hymn 10.4. An early ‘epic environment’ has often been suggested on the basis of the royal tombs at Salamis: Karageorghis 1967:117–124; CAH2 III.3:60–62; Karageorghis 1999b. Cf. also Nonnos Dionys. 13.463: ἀειδομένην Σαλαμῖνα.

[ back ] 43. Pausanias 10.24.3: ἐπ’ ἀγροῦ … / νόσφι πολυκτεάνοιο … Σαλαμῖνος. This oracle accords with Hellanikos FGH 4 F 5b, where Εὐκλέης appears as the grandson of Orpheus, and thus a distant ancestor in a continuous line down to Homer. His name appears in a slightly different form in Pausanias (cf. 10.12.11, 10.14.6). For this important figure, see further below and Franklin 2014:227–228.

[ back ] 44. See p211.

[ back ] 45. See p1n2, 211n139.

[ back ] 46. Note that inscriptions to the Paphian goddess have been found at Khytroi, Golgoi, Ledroi and Keryneia: HC:87; NPHP:70 and n20; Kypris:167, 198, 200. For the Kinyradai of Paphos, see Chapter 16.

[ back ] 47. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20: φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν ἀμελήσαντα ἐπικατάρατον γενέσθαι ὑπὸ Ἀγαμέμνονος. Eustathios’ version is cited more fully on p187.

[ back ] 48. Flower 1994.

[ back ] 49. Theopompos FGH 115 F 25–26 and T 28a, with discussion of Flower 1994:18–19, cf. 201.

[ back ] 50. Photios Library 121a35–41 (FGH 115 T 31). Cf. Flower 1994:29 and 160–165 on Theopompos’ essentially Herodotean digressive technique. Cicero (On the Laws 1.5) refers to the “countless tales” of both authors (et apud Theopompum sunt innumerabiles fabulae); these included, besides the legends of Kinyras and Mopsos (see p252 and below), the myth of Midas and Seilenos (FGH 115 F 75).

[ back ] 51. Photios Library 120a6–14.

[ back ] 52. His epitome closes with the strong declaration ἃ μὲν οὖν ὁ ἠφανισμένος Μηνοφάνει δωδέκατος λόγος περιέχει ταῦτά ἐστιν (120b17–18). Against Photios’ claim in the prologue to have made his summaries solely from memory, T. Hägg, by comparing the extant Vita Apollonii of Philostratos with its epitome, showed that Photios sometimes worked with open book: episode sequences are repeated exactly and in detail, with even a textual problem taken over (Hägg 1973, especially 218; Hägg 1975:195–204). When Photios is indeed recollecting, sequences are slightly jumbled and extraneous material mistakenly inserted. Had he epitomized Book 12 of Theopompos so, one would expect an unbroken account of Euagoras’ career. Instead, it is ‘interrupted’ by the ‘digressions’ on Kinyras and Mopsos; and the obscure daughters of Mopsos would hardly have been recalled by name.

[ back ] 53. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103: Ἀβδύμονα … τὸν Κιτιέα ταύτης ἐπάρχοντα; Diodoros Siculus 14.98: Ἀβδήμονα τὸν Τύριον.

[ back ] 54. Isokrates 9.30–32; HC:126–127.

[ back ] 55. See generally RE 6 (1907), 820–828 (8); Spyridakis 1935; HC:125–143. The source for Euagoras’ Phoenician possessions is Diodoros Siculus 15.2.4: ἐκυρίευε … κατὰ δὲ τὴν Φοινίκην Τύρου καί τινων ἑτέρων.

[ back ] 56. For the battle and Euagoras’ role, see Xenophon Hellenika 4.3.10–12; Diodoros Siculus 14.39; HC:130–131; Maier 1985:39–40. Flower 1994:165 suggests that Theopompos’ treatment of Cyprus, Egypt, and Asia Minor served as background to Philip’s intended conquest of Asia.

[ back ] 57. The key evidence linking Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120b8–13) to the Meliac War is a Hellenistic inscription from Priene: FGH 115 F 305 and Hiller von Gaertringen et al. 1906 no. 37. See the discussion of Huxley 1960; cf. Huxley 1966:22.

[ back ] 58. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120a20–22): ὅν τε τρόπον παρὰ δόξαν Εὐαγόρας τῆς Κυπρίων ἀρχῆς ἐπέβη Ἀβδύμονα κατασχὼν τὸν Κιτιέα ταύτης ἐπάρχοντα· τίνα τε τρόπον Ἕλληνες οἱ σὺν Ἀγαμέμνονι τὴν Κύπρον κατέσχον, ἀπελάσαντες τοὺς μετὰ Κιννύρου [sic] ὧν εἰσὶν ὑπολιπεῖς Ἀμαθούσιοι· ὅπως τε ὁ βασιλεὺς Εὐαγόρᾳ συνεπείσθη πολεμῆσαι. For the viable alternative spelling ‘Kinnyras’, see p214–215.

[ back ] 59. So Baurain 1984:111.

[ back ] 60. Thus, for example, in Neanthes FGH 84 F 31 (191), οἱ σὺν Εὐρυμένει is soon varied as τὸν μὲν Εὐρυμένην καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ. The context is also clear in Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 1: τῶν σὺν Μόψῳ ἀφικομένων. Other comparable and unambiguous expressions are e.g. Lucian A True Story 2.26: τοὺς δὲ ἀμφὶ τὸν Κινύραν; Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 11: οἱ περὶ τὸν Μενέλαον. Further parallels: Herodotos 5.58; Hellanikos FGH 4 F 31; Xenophon Anabasis 1.2.15, etc. Photios himself has Ἀδελφιὸς καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, Library 12b30; Ἄτταλος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, 72a33. As a counterexample one might cite Xenophon Anabasis 4.1.1, οἱ σὺν Κύρῳ ἀναβάντες Ἕλληνες, where Cyrus is already dead; yet the aorist participle clarifies that σύν Κύρῳ was true in the past. Without such qualification, we must assume the presence of Agamemnon.

[ back ] 61. Agamemnon’s direct agency is rightly accepted by Stiehle 1853:73–74; Cesnola 1877:4–5; Wagner 1891:182; HC:68; Gjerstad 1948:428–429; Kapera 1969; Kapera 1971:132; Kapera 1972:192; Dussaud 1950:58; Shrimpton 1991:90–91; Flower 1994:163.

[ back ] 62. Reported by John Adorno (1470): “Helena while she was on her travels was captured at the temple [sc. of Venus at Paphos]” (SHC 8:173). There is a variant in Ludolf of Suchen (after 1350), De itinere terrae sanctae liber (Mas Latrie 1852–1861 1:211–212; SHC 8:169): In hoc templo primo de perdicione Troye tractatum est, nam Helena tendens ad templum istud in via capta est (“It was in this temple [of Venus at Old Paphos] that counsel was first taken regarding the destruction of Troy. For Helen was captured en route while journeying there”). Cf. Hogarth 1889:190.

[ back ] 63. Recall that some conflict between Alashiya and Ahhiyawa is attested by the Indictment of Madduwatta (KUB 14.1 rev. 84–90 = CTH 147); but this is now dated to the fifteenth century: see p13n64.

[ back ] 64. Dussaud 1950:58; cf. Baurain 1980b:299–300; Baurain 1984:111.

[ back ] 65. [Skylax] 103 (GGM 1:78): Ἀμαθοῦς αὐτόχθονές εἰσιν. This and the following material is treated with undue skepticism by Reyes 1994:13–17 and Given 1998, despite the latter’s excellent account of how the British colonial authority promoted the ‘Eteocypriots’ to undermine the Enosis movement. See the responses to Given by Petit 1999; Egetmeyer 2010; Steele 2011; Steele 2013:101 and n9.

[ back ] 66. ICS 190–196 (quotation p207); DGAC:580–590; Steele 2013:99–172. The case for Eteocypriot as a late Hurrian dialect is renewed by Fournet 2013; for Hurrian as the/a language of the LBA Cypro-Minoan tablets, see p440n110.

[ back ] 67. For Salamis, see p354. Cf. Papantonio 2012:281, “Such an autochthony legend could reinforce the anteriority of the Amathousians in Cyprus, and the mythological precedence of the local dynasty over the other Basileis.”

[ back ] 68. Herodian De prosodia catholica 242.34 Lentz (Ἀμαθοῦς πόλις Κύπρου ἀρχαιοτάτη, cf. Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Ἀμαθοῦς) and p. 294.4 (Ἀμαθουσία. οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ Κύπρος), cf. Pliny Natural History 5.35.129. Note also Étienne de Lusignan Chorograffia p. 9 (§12), where an indigenous horizon still older than ‘pre-Greek’ is envisioned: “Amathus was an ancient city, built before the gods came to the island.” That these “descendants of the gods” ruled on the pre-Greek island is shown by e.g. p. 36 (§180), on Paphos (cited below, p561).

[ back ] 69. [Skylax] 103 (GGM 1:78): εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι πόλεις ἐν μεσογείᾳ βάρβαροι.

[ back ] 70. Paphos: DGAC no. 123, 148–149, 249; Egetmeyer 2010:72–73; Steele 2013 no. EC 19–22, cf. pp. 119–120. Kourion: ICS 183; DGAC no. 10; Steele 2013 no. EC 23.

[ back ] 71. Steele 2013:100–101.

[ back ] 72. See p440.

[ back ] 73. Egetmeyer 2010, 71, 73–74; Egetmeyer 2012; cf. Steele 2013:110–111; Fournet 2013:26–30.

[ back ] 74. Son/Daughter Kypros: Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 11; Istros FGH 334 F 45; Herodian De prosodia catholica 204.4 Lentz; Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Κύπρος; Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 508–512; Constantine Porphyrogenitos On the Themes 1.15. Father/mother Paphos/Paphia: Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27a (father Paphos), 2.28 (mother Paphia or perhaps ‘a Paphian nymph’; of course ‘Paphia’ was an epithet of the goddess herself); Ovid Metamorphoses 10.297–298 (Paphos, apparently feminine); Σ Dionysios the Periegete 509 (father Paphos); Hyginus Fabulae 242, 270, 275 (father Paphos); Theodontius in Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.50–51 had father Paphos, apparently misinterpreting Ovid (whence Bustron and Chorograffia/Description): see p499. Son Koureus: Herodian De prosodia catholica 200.2 and 358.19 Lentz; Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Κούριον. Mother Amathousa: Herodian De prosodia catholica 242.34 Lentz; cf. Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Ἀμαθοῦς. Son Marieus: Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Μάριον. These sources are conveniently tabulated in Baurain 1980b. There is another probable reference to Paphos as the father of Kinyras in lines 4–13 of Pap.Oxy. 2688 (early third century CE): see further p499n30.

[ back ] 75. That is, Agapenor versus the Kinyradai at Paphos (cf. p359–368); Teukros and the daughter of Kinyras at Salamis (see below); Argives versus Koureus son of Kinyras at Kourion. Presumably something similar is implied by Kinyras’ associations with Lapethos and Tamassos (see p325), and perhaps indirectly with Idalion through his son ‘Amaracus’ (p331–332).

[ back ] 76. Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.432–463. For Étienne de Lusignan, see Appendix G.

[ back ] 77. Not only did it survive the epitomizer’s cuts, but, as Shrimpton 1991:91 points out, the digression (“if digression is the correct word”) differed from others in not falling at a natural narrative break.

[ back ] 78. So Shrimpton 1991, quotations from 73 and 91; similarly Baurain 1984:112.

[ back ] 79. See p347.

[ back ] 80. See e.g. Isokrates 9.19–20 (addressed to Nikokles I, 374–ca. 360). One may note here the biographical tradition that makes Theopompos a student of Isokrates; but Flower 1994:42–62 argues that this is a Hellenistic fiction.

[ back ] 81. Maier 1985.

[ back ] 82. Seibert 1976.

[ back ] 83. Cf. Seibert 1976:26.

[ back ] 84. Diodoros Siculus 14.98: ἐπεχείρησεν ἅπασαν τὴν νῆσον σφετερίσασθαι. τῶν δὲ πόλεων ἃς μὲν βίᾳ χειρωσάμενος, ἃς δὲ πειθοῖ προσλαβόμενος, τῶν μὲν ἄλλων πόλεων ταχὺ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν παρέλαβεν, Ἀμαθούσιοι δὲ καὶ Σόλιοι καὶ Κιτιεῖς ἀντέχοντες τῷ πολέμῳ πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς Ἀρταξέρξην τὸν τῶν Περσῶν βασιλέα περὶ βοηθείας.

[ back ] 85. Cf. Tuplin 1996:75–76 (Amathous “is a case history which discloses that it is not simply ridiculous to think Cypriot politics and international relations to have had some ethnic component”).

[ back ] 86. So rightly Tuplin 1996:76 §4(a).

[ back ] 87. For further observations on the relationship with Persia, see Smith 2008:261, 264–278.

[ back ] 88. Sargon stele: ARAB 2:102 §186; Reyes 1994:24, 51, with further literature.

[ back ] 89. Pausanias 7.3.1–2 must derive from Theopompos’ use of the Mopsos legend in connection with the Meliac War: see p347n57.

[ back ] 90. Isokrates 9.57.

[ back ] 91. Pausanias 1.3.2: πλησίον δὲ τῆς στοᾶς Κόνων ἕστηκε καὶ Τιμόθεος υἱὸς Κόνωνος καὶ βασιλεὺς Κυπρίων Εὐαγόρας, ὃς καὶ τὰς τριήρεις τὰς Φοινίσσας ἔπραξε παρὰ βασιλέως Ἀρταξέρξου δοθῆναι Κόνωνι· ἔπραξε δὲ ὡς Ἀθηναῖος καὶ τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος, ἐπεὶ καὶ γενεαλογῶν ἐς προγόνους ἀνέβαινε Τεῦκρον καὶ Κινύρου θυγατέρα.

[ back ] 92. Isokrates 9.54; cf. Demosthenes 12.10. The relevant inscriptions are IG I³ no. 113 (SEG 34:24), ca. 410; IG II² no. 20 (ca. 393/392) no. 716. Cf. HC:128–129, 131.

[ back ] 93. Σ Lykophron Alexandra 450: Τεῦκρος … ἐλθὼν ἐν Κύπρῳ Σαλαμῖνα κτίσας ᾤκησε καὶ γήμας Εὔην τὴν Κύπρου Ἀστερίαν ἐγέννησεν, with variants in Scheer’s ap. crit. This identification, requiring minor emendation (τὴν Κινύρου or τὴν Κινύρου τοῦ βασιλέως Κύπρου, vel sim.), goes back to Engel 1841 2:125; cf. Stoll in Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras col. 1191; Cayla 2005:230.

[ back ] 94. Isokrates 9.18–19.

[ back ] 95. See Gjerstad 1944:114–120 with further references.

[ back ] 96. Gjerstad 1944:119–120; Giuffrida 1996:285. For the inscription, see p13.

[ back ] 97. Salamis: Karageorghis 1969:21. For the gradual abandonment of Enkomi, Webb 2001.

[ back ] 98. CS 1 no. 41. Cf. above p14.

[ back ] 99. Vergil Aeneid 1.619–622: Atque equidem Teucrum memini Sidona venire 
/ finibus expulsum patriis, nova regna petentem / auxilio Beli; genitor tum Belus opimam / 
vastabat Cyprum, et victor dicione tenebat.

[ back ] 100. [Apollodoros] Library 2.1.4.

[ back ] 101. See p14.

[ back ] 102. Homer Iliad 2.557–558; Σ Homer Iliad 2.494–877: Σόλων τὴν Σαλαμῖνα Ἀθηναίοις ἀπένειμε διὰ τὸ “Αἴας δ’ ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος ἄγεν δυοκαίδεκα νῆας.”

[ back ] 103. Aiskhylos Persians 895; Pindar Nemean 4.46–47 with Σ; Euripides Helen 144–150; Isokrates 9.18; [Aristotle] Peplos (fr. 640 §8 Rose); Klearkhos fr. 19 Wehrli (= Athenaios 256b), a Cypriot native; Lykophron Alexandra 450–478; Parian Marble A 26; Vergil Aeneid 1.619–622; Strabo 14.6.3 (with ‘beach of the Achaeans’ as the landing place of Teukros); Tacitus 3.62; Pausanias 1.3.2; Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.461–462; John Malalas Chronography 5.29 Thurn. Sources in Chavane and Yon 1978:33–91; cf. HC:85. Herodotos 7.90 is also relevant. A good account of the evidence is Gantz 1993:694–695.

[ back ] 104. Gjerstad 1944:119–120.

[ back ] 105. Pindar Nemean 4.46–47.

[ back ] 106. Engel 1841 2:126–127 speculated on deeper links between the myth cycles of Saronic and Cypriot Salamis.

[ back ] 107. Σ Dionysios the Periegete 509 = FGH 758 F 3a; [Apollodoros] Library 3.14.3. The Athenian dimension of these constructions was recognized by Engel 1841 1:183–186, 2:130–133; Robert 1883:441; Baurain 1975–1976:525; Baurain 1980a:9; Baurain 1980b:282.

[ back ] 108. Aristotle Constitution of the Athenians 26.3; Plutarch Perikles 37.2–5.

[ back ] 109. [Apollodoros] Library 3.14.3.

[ back ] 110. Ajax son of Teukros was said to have initiated a hereditary Teukrid priesthood at Olbe: Strabo 14.5.10; cf. 14.5.8, Cilician Soloi founded by Achaeans and Rhodians.

[ back ] 111. This was supposed by Robert 1883:441.

[ back ] 112. Giuffrida 1996:292n51.

[ back ] 113. The Lesbian historian, who must have traveled widely in collecting material for his regional histories (Dionysios of Halicarnassus On Thucydides 5.1), composed a Kypriaka, the one certain fragment of which relates to Pygmalion’s founding of Karpasia—close to where one might naturally land when crossing from Cilicia (see p345 and n3, with Chuvin’s proposed connection of [Apollodoros] Library 3.14.3 and Hellanikos FGH 4 F 57). Hellanikos, whose later career was much occupied with fabricating an Athenian past, was a master of devising early genealogies out of legendary materials and tailoring them to local interests (Franklin 2012). A hitherto unnoticed Cypriot example should be registered here: Hellanikos, in making Euklees/Euklous older than Homer in an ultimate descent from Orpheus, probably followed an insular tradition for the Cypriot prophet-poet of this name (Hellanikos FGH 4 F 5b). Finally, the time of Hellanikos’ professional activity substantially overlaps Athens’ alliance with Euagoras.

[ back ] 114. Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. Ἀῷος; Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Ἀῶος (sic); Σ Dionysios the Periegete 509 (GGM 2:450) = FGH 758 F 3a.

[ back ] 115. Criticism of their methods was not long in coming from some quarters: see for instance Philokhoros FGH 328 F 92 on Hellanikos.

[ back ] 116. See p345.

[ back ] 117. Yon and Sznycer 1991:799–800 et passim; Yon 2004:201 no. 1144 with further references, cf. 142 no. 180; Lipiński 2004:94–95 and n331.

[ back ] 118. The root sense of the Phoenician word is ‘help’: see Krahmalkov 2000:363–364.

[ back ] 119. This can be seen, for instance, in the Lydian royal line, where the intrusion of Belos and Ninos represented the client relationship with Assyria in the seventh century; the alleged descent from Herakles probably reflects alliance with Sparta in the sixth: Burkert 1995:144–145; Franklin 2008:195.

[ back ] 120. See p343n32. A. Chaniotis compares the roughly contemporary rehabilitation of Minos as a wise lawgiver, apparently connected with the publication of the Laws of Minos by Kharon of Lampsakos (communication, December 19, 2011).

[ back ] 121. But recall the possible tradition of ‘Argive’ overlordship associated with the figure of Dmetor (p342–343), seconded by the elaborations of Étienne de Lusignan (see p558n8, 561n32), and perhaps related somehow to Agamemnon’s invasion of the island.

[ back ] 122. See p381–383.

[ back ] 123. Isokrates lavished similar praise on Nikokles I in the Ad Nicoclem (Isokrates 2).

[ back ] 124. Homer Iliad 2.603–614; cf. Thucydides 1.9; Pausanias 8.1.3; [Apollodoros] Epitome 3.12.

[ back ] 125. [Apollodoros] Library 3.10.8.

[ back ] 126. [Aristotle] Peplos (fr. 640 §30 Rose); Lykophron Alexandra 479–493; Strabo 14.6.3; Pausanias 8.5.2 (see next note), 8.53.7; [Apollodoros] Epitome 6.15; cf. Herodotos 7.90 (Arcadians, Agapenor not mentioned).

[ back ] 127. Pausanias 8.5.2, where Πάφου οἰκιστής must correspond to Nea Paphos by contrast with ἐν Παλαιπάφῳ τὸ ἱερόν.

[ back ] 128. A. Cassio (communication, February 2012). I thank him for his useful discussion of these points.

[ back ] 129. ‘Arcadian’ in these traditions may be shorthand for ‘culture and language of the pre-Doric Peloponnese surviving only in Arcadia, whose linguistic and cultural affinities with Cyprus were still recognized’. But for Agapenor’s specific link to Tegea, see further below.

[ back ] 130. Cf. Voyatzis 1985:161; Coldstream 1989:331; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:326; Hall 1997:135–136. For the Opheltas obelós, see p14.

[ back ] 131. See further p407–409. The first named Paphian king, found in the Esarhaddon prism inscription (673/672), is ‘Ituandar’ = Etewandros: ARAB 2:266 §690 (cf. above p14).

[ back ] 132. See p349.

[ back ] 133. Étienne de Lusignan Chorograffia p. 36 (§180).

[ back ] 134. Chorograffia p. 20a (§71, 73, cf. Description pp. 38a–39). See further Appendix G.

[ back ] 135. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:iv.

[ back ] 136. Lusignan’s failure to mention Amathous suffices to show that he has not simply adapted the Photian epitome (see p346) for his own purposes.

[ back ] 137. Chorograffia p. 6a (§6).

[ back ] 138. Description, p. 15a.

[ back ] 139. Earthquakes that affected Paphos are recorded for 15 BCE, 77/76 CE, 332, and the twelfth century; another destroyed Salamis in 322, while some of the eight shocks documented for Antioch between 458–561 are likely to have been felt on Cyprus. See HC:232, 245, 279n4, 311. These events are mentioned very often in ancient, and especially Byzantine, sources, as one can see by going through the texts in SHC. Note e.g. John Adorno (1470): “Paphos that now is almost destroyed” (SHC 8:173).

[ back ] 140. Paphos:20; NPHP:67–85.

[ back ] 141. See p359n126. Lusignan acknowledges Strabo as a source elsewhere, although he also makes the unparalleled assertion that Strabo himself had been a student of the Cypriot historian Xenophon: see further p564–567.

[ back ] 142. Mitford 1960b:198.

[ back ] 143. See p409.

[ back ] 144. See p359 and n127 above.

[ back ] 145. See p401–406.

[ back ] 146. Paphos: 79–80, 101. Similarly Gjerstad 1944:110–112; Maier 1983:229n6; Voyatzis 1985:154; Karageorghis 1998:32.

[ back ] 147. Maier 1986b. The Paphian cult per se was of course much older: Heubner 1963–1982 2:34; Masson 1973:113; Maier 1974; J. Karageorghis 1977:30, 223–224; Maier 1979:234; Fortin 1980:37; CAH2 III.1:514; Paphos:81–102; Maier 1986a:313; Karageorghis 1998:32–33; Webb 1999:63–64; Kypris:26–29.

[ back ] 148. Cf. Iacovou 2005:132.

[ back ] 149. Iacovou 2005:132; cf. Iacovou 2006b:46.

[ back ] 150. This has seemed plausible to Karageorghis 1980a:122–123; Fortin 1980:35–39, 44; Voyatzis 1985; Maier 1986b. A similar situation vis-à-vis Aegean settlement in North Syria and Philistia is suggested by the stories of Mopsos/Moxos and Askalos—respectively drowning and marrying a local woman, one of whom is definitely a goddess-figure, Atargatis. Mopsos/Moxos: Xanthos FGH 765 F 17a = Athenaios 346e, cf. Mnaseas FHG 3:155 fr. 32. Askalos: Xanthos FGH 765 F 8 = Nikolaos of Damascus FGH 90 F 18 = Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Ἀσκάλων. Cf. Finkelberg 2005:158, “Xanthos’ story seems to imply that Mopsos was regarded as the founder of the cult of the ‘Askalon goddess’.”

[ back ] 151. Lykophron Alexandra 484–485: χαλκωρυχήσει καὶ … / … δικέλλῃ πᾶν μεταλλεύων γνύθος (cf. Σ).

[ back ] 152. Coldstream 1994:145; Iacovou 2006a; PPC:285. Khalkanor: see p339.

[ back ] 153. See p253–255.

[ back ] 154. Pausanias 8.5.3: χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον Λαοδίκη γεγονυῖα ἀπὸ Ἀγαπήνορος ἔπεμψεν ἐς Τεγέαν τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ τῇ Ἀλέᾳ πέπλον. For the local Arcadian goddess Alea, who began to be identified with Athena in the Archaic period, see Jost 1985:368–385.

[ back ] 155. Pausanias 8.5.3: Λαοδίκης ὅδε πέπλος· ἑᾷ δ’ ἀνέθηκεν Ἀθηνᾷ / πατρίδ’ ἐς εὐρύχορον Κύπρου ἀπὸ ζαθέας.

[ back ] 156. Roy 1987.

[ back ] 157. Pausanias 8.53.7, cf. 8.5.2.

[ back ] 158. See the good discussion of Pirenne-Delforge 1994:328–329.

[ back ] 159. Gjerstad 1944:111 is surgically incisive: “It is possible to explain the legend of Agapenor’s foundation of Paphos without reference to the temple of the Paphian Aphrodite in Tegea, but it is absolutely impossible, so far as I see, to explain that a temple of the Paphian Aphrodite existed on the Greek mainland, only in the remote inland country of Arcadia and only in Tegea, if we do not bring this fact into relation with the legend of the Tegean king Agapenor’s foundation of Paphos. We may thus infer that the legend is primary, the temple secondary in their mutual relations.” (The historical sequence Gjerstad goes on to develop, however, is rather inconclusive.) Jost 1985:148 is also open to seeing a genuine tradition behind Laodike’s foundation, although she is agnostic as to its date.

[ back ] 160. Herodotos 7.90.

[ back ] 161. [Apollodoros] Library 3.9.1: οὗτοι τὴν γῆν ἐμερίσαντο, τὸ δὲ πᾶν κράτος εἶχεν Ἔλατος.

[ back ] 162. See p329.

[ back ] 163. Diodoros Siculus 4.37.2: εἰς Κύπρον τὴν νῆσον πλεύσαντες 
καὶ τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις ἀναμιχθέντες ἐνταῦθα κατῴκησαν. The generalizing masculine τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις is counteracted by the sexual connotations of ἀναμιχθέντες; indeed one might well emend to ταῖς ἐγχωρίοις.

[ back ] 164. Cf. Engel 1841 2:125.

[ back ] 165. PPC:49–50 et passim. For Cyprus itself, note that in one variant Teukros tried to return home after Telamon died: Pompeius Trogus in Justin Epitome 44.3. There is also the case of the Gerginoi (Athenaios 256b–c): see p457–458.

[ back ] 166. See p154.

[ back ] 167. See p333.

[ back ] 168. See p432–436.

[ back ] 169. Finkelberg 1991; Finkelberg 2005:65–108.

[ back ] 170. Frazer 1914 1:41–42: “These legends seem to contain reminiscences of kingdoms in Cilicia and Cyprus which passed in the female line, and were held by men, sometimes foreigners, who married the hereditary princesses.” Frazer includes here Kinyras’ father Sandokos, who immigrates from Syria to marry Pharnake: see p504.

[ back ] 171. For the latter juxtaposition, see p401–406.

[ back ] 172. Cf. Finkelberg 2005:88, “the position of the queen can be satisfactorily accounted for if we assume that she was priestess of the goddess of the land,” etc.

[ back ] 173. See further p282–289.

[ back ] 174. Frazer 1914 1:43–44.

[ back ] 175. In the case of Agapenor’s daughter, the connection with pre-Greek kingship is implicit in her efforts on behalf of Paphian ‘Aphrodite’.

[ back ] 176. For this crux, see recently Iacovou 2008.

[ back ] 177. For this phenomenon outside of Cyprus, see Hall 1989 (65 and n37, 73 on Lydia); Morris 1992:362–386; Georges 1994:76–114; Raaflaub 2000, with further literature in n7; Burkert 2004:11.

[ back ] 178. Kinyras as a first-millennium Phoenician import: Drexler, Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras; HC:69 (ambivalent); Lorimer 1950:208; Bunnens 1979:354–356. The phonology of Kinyras/kinýra provides no definite support for this view: see p272–276.

[ back ] 179. It would be fair to say, therefore, that Kinyras, perhaps like Pygmalion, stands for Canaanite cultural presence on the LBA island: cf. Kroll, RE 11 (1922):484–486; Baurain 1980b:278.

[ back ] 180. Cf. Engel 1841 1:203: “Sein Name ist phönikisch. Das ist aber auch das einzige Phönikische an ihm geblieben, und wurde in der Mythenbildung gänzlich vergessen.”