The sacred landscapes of the kingdoms of Kition and Idalion have been relatively well studied, most notably in the Archaic period: inventory of sanctuary sites coupled with production studies, especially of terracotta figurines, have suggested the existence of a vast Idalian territory, punctuated with many cult sites with clear Idalian affinities. By opposition, a possible Kitian territory appears difficult to grasp outside the immediate vicinity of the city. For example, evidence of a possible Phoenician-type sanctuary at Pyla is isolated and decontextualized, and it is, as such, difficult to interpret. Thus, from what we can infer from archaeological evidence of Archaic date, a vast and densely occupied Idalian territory on one hand stands in sharp contrast to an evasive and strictly limited Kitian territory on the other. This observation has led many scholars to postulate that Kition was a special case, a special kingdom (if a kingdom at all). This specificity is commonly attributed to the specific history of its supposed foundation. As a maritime, colonial city, Kition would have had no need of an important agricultural hinterland: a city-kingdom (if a kingdom at all) with no territory. This specific history would have been instrumental in Kition’s ulterior expansionism: to become a city-kingdom, the former colonial city had to acquire a territory at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms, here Idalion. What happened, then, in the Classical period, after the conquest, when Idalion lost its independence and both kingdoms were reunited under the hegemony of Kitian kings? Did the whole former Idalian territory become Kitian? How was this new topographical configuration possibly reflected, echoed in the sacred landscape? In other terms, was the political transformation visible in the archaeological evidence (abolition and/or foundation of extra-urban cult sites, “Phoenicization” of the votive assemblage and possibly of the cultic practices)? The same question pertains, perhaps even more acutely, the sacred urban topography. Commonly accepted historical narratives tend to postulate a new, radically different sacred cityscape of Idalion after the conquest: ancient Idalian sanctuaries were supposedly destroyed (such was the case of the “civic” sanctuary of Athena on the summit of the Ambelliri acropolis, according to Gjerstad’s interpretation); local Idalian gods were replaced with Phoenician deities. This narrative, which postulates not only a military and political victory of Kition over Idalion, but also a cultural and cultic one, does not satisfactorily fit the evidence, though. It does not satisfactorily recount for a more complex, nuanced and long-term proximity between the two polities and it underestimates cultic affinities between the two cities. The “tyranny of ethnic identifications” (Iacovou 2005), which tends to favour a conflict narrative, may partly account for these shortcomings. The visibility of historical events (that were documented by exceptional historical sources, like the well-know Idalion bronze tablet) may also have obscured our comprehension of a common history that was at one point epitomized by a military conflict. To overcome these difficulties, the present contribution aims at adopting a comparative perspective on the longue durée of the Iron Age. A close examination of Kitian sanctuaries shows that they do not differ radically from other Cypriot sanctuaries; moreover, common features shared by Kitian and Idalian urban cult sites, many of which possess Late Bronze Age antecedents, may be pointed out. After the conquest, with Idalion’s integration into the new kingdom of Kition and Idalion, Idalian urban sanctuaries are an essential part of the new kingdom’s sacred landscape. This is especially reflected in the dedications emanating from the Phoenician elite of the kingdom. Far from abolishing former “civic” cults and far from imposing new foreign gods to the ancient capital-city of Idalion, Kitian kings and their entourage promoted and encouraged ancient local cults. Was this part of a legitimization process on behalf of new rulers? Or was it rooted in a longer, shared history between the two kingdoms? We will try to defend the latter hypothesis. If valid, it would make sense of constant and at first sight surprising references to the Late Bronze Age history of Cyprus (in cultic practices as well as in the iconography and the use of cultic epithets), which makes of the kingdom of Kition and Idalion, and – somehow paradoxically – of its official language (Phoenician), a repository of ancient Cypriot names and places.