By describing the great Xerxes'army marching against Greece in 480 BC,Herodotos (7.90) states that the Cypriot component was made up of 'these peoples:some from Salamis, some from Athens, some from Arcadia, some from Kythnos, some fromPhoenicia, some from Ethiopia, as the Cypriots themselves say'. This paragraph offers sound evidence for the existence of three distinct linguistic groups in Cyprus: Greek-speaking,Phoenician-speaking and 'allophones' (Ethio-pians). Herodotos presents here the Cypriot situation no later than the middle of the 5thcentury BC, or during the third quarter of the same century, when he conceivably wrote the Historia (Petit 1998b). By a process of elimina'tion, the third group (the Ethiopians) mustl ogically correspond with the 'Autochthons' int he work of Pseudo-Skylax or with the 'descen-dants of Kinyras' in Theopompus, i.e. theAmathusians (Petit 1998b). The end of the sentence suggests that the Cypriots themselves were diffusing these accounts and, in the case of the Ethiopians, most probably the Amathu-sians themselves (Petit 1995: 54; for the mythological and ideological implication of this affiliation, see Petit 1998b).In their attempt to dispose of the Eteo-cypriots, Reyes and Given do not draw all the inferences from the epigraphic evidence.Indeed, we cannot simply consider every unintelligible text as an Eteocypriot docu-ment (Reyes 1994: 15-17; Given 1998a: 22),and surely one must stick to the texts showing similar and recurrent grammatical forms (as Itried to do: Petit 1998a: especially §66). But conversely we cannot call into question all these epigraphic documents because they are unintelligible: in fact, it is a common sci-entific mistake to reduce reality, in this case linguistic reality, to what we can understandat a given stage of our knowledge.The opinions of Reyes and Given about the nature of this (or these) enigmatic lan-guage^) are ambiguous. Are they pseudo-lan-guages (Given seems to have given up suchan opinion: see Petit 1995: 53, and n. 10)? If not, what about them? How must we consider them in relation to Greek and Phoenician?On the other hand, one can hardly deny that they are mostly characteristic of Amathus.Consequently, what relation could the inhab-itants of the city have had with these texts(see Silberman 1998: 115)
Eteocypriot Myth and Amathusian Reality
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00 ... TPMyth.pdf