Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:54:38.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lycian Relations with Persians and Greeks in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries Re-examined*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

William A. P. Childs
William A. P. Childs
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 547/6 and 541/0 Cyrus the Great defeated Croesus and the Persian Empire reached the Aegean. In the years following, his general, Harpagus the Mede, subdued the coastal Greek cities and sacked Xanthos which put up a struggle to the last. It is to be assumed that the rest of Lycia fell without event. Western and southwestern Asia Minor was divided into two administrative areas, Lydia and Ionia (Yauna). Although the Lydian satrapy was often predominant, the basic unit in the southwest was Ionia which comprised during much of its existance Ionia proper, Aeolia, Caria, Lycia, Milyas, and Pamphylia. This large area left Lycia without a satrap in the proximity and consequently without a provincial court with its attendant strong official influence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 55 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hdt. 1. 176. The conquest of Lycia must fall between the sieges of Sardis and Babylon which are usually dated 547–538. See Metzger, H., FdX, II, Paris, 1963, pp. 18Google Scholar note 11, 80; Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 90–4Google Scholar. The destruction is generally recognized in the excavations of Xanthos: Metzger, , FdX, II, pp. 1, 17–18, 31–2, 46–7Google Scholar. The date of the fall of Croesus is determined from the Nabonidus Chronicle. In year 9 (547) the tablet is damaged but most commentators restore Cyrus' campaign against Lydia in this year: Grayson, A. K., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley (N.Y.), 1975, pp. 21, 107 (ii, 16–17), 282Google Scholar. Cargill, J., “The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of Lydia”, AJAH, 2 (1977), pp. 97–116Google Scholar, has now convincingly challenged this which leaves open the years 547/6 to 541/0 for the fall of Sardis.

2 Hdt. 3. 90. 1. This agrees with the Behistun inscription of Darius I which describes the situation at the beginning of his reign: Junge, P. J., “Satrapie und natio, Reichsverwaltung und Reichspolitik im Staate Darios' I.,” Klio, 34 (1941), pp. 10, 39Google Scholar and note 4, pp. 39–40. See further Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 4Google Scholar; Kluge, T., “Die Lykier und ihre Geschichte und ihre Inschriften”, AltO, 11 (1910), 2, p. 5Google Scholar; Treuber, , Geschichte, p. 96Google Scholar. Under Cyrus and Cambyses the limits of the satrapies were different. Xen., Cyr. 8. 6. 7Google Scholar lists under Cyrus Lydia together with Ionia; Caria, presumably with Lycia, formed a separate unit. See Gray, G. B., CAH, IV, 1962, p. 194Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that Caria (Karka) appears again after the Ionian Revolt (below note 31) as a separate satrapy and in the fourth century becomes very independent under the Hecatomnids (below note 122). See generally on the problem of Herodotus and the Persian satrapy lists: Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks, New York, 1962, pp. 108–11, 120–2Google Scholar; M. A. Dandamayev, “Politische und wirtschaftliche Geschichte”, in Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte, ed. Walser, G., Historia Einzelschrift 18, Wiesbaden, 1972, pp. 19–21Google Scholar. On the satrapal system in general see Ghirshman, R., Iran, Baltimore, 1961, pp. 142–4Google Scholar.

3 Metzger, , FdX, II, pp. 17, 81Google Scholar; IV, Paris, 1972, pp. 192–5.

4 Panegyricus 161.

5 Treuber, , Geschichte, p. 96Google Scholar, gives no reference for his statement. It is perhaps deduced from Hdt. 5. 103. 2–104. 1, who does not mention Lycia in the alliance nor in the battles in Caria (5. 117–21).

6 Hdt. 7. 92. According to Diodorus the number was 40: 11. 3. 7. See Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 96–7Google Scholar; Kluge, , AltO, 11 (1910), 2, p. 5Google Scholar; RE, Supplementband 13, 1973Google Scholar, s.v. Lykia, col. 274 (S. Jameson).

7 ATL, II, lists 3 (I. 29–30)Google Scholar, 4 (V, 32–3), 9 (III, 33–4). On the restorations, ATL, III, p. 7Google Scholar. Cf. Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 5Google Scholar.

8 Diodorus 11. 60. 4.

9 Plutarch, Cimon 12. 3Google Scholar. See generally ATL, III, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 5Google Scholar; Treuber, , Geschichte, p. 98Google Scholar; Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford, 1933, I, No. 93, p. 221Google Scholar; RE, Supplementband 13, s.v. Lykia, col. 274 (Jameson). Kluge, , AltO, 11 (1910), 2, p. 5Google Scholar, and Beloch, , GrGe2, II. 1 (Strassburg, 1914), p. 68Google Scholar and note 3, place this campaign after the Eurymedon. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I, Oxford, 1956, p. 294Google Scholar, appears to favour this latter hypothesis also, although he generally rejects Diodorus' account based on Ephoros while accepting the case of Phaselis in Plutarch: ibid., note 2 on pp. 286–7, pp. 289–90.

10 Metzger, , FdX, II, pp. 22–3, 23, 26–7, 32–3, 60–1, 68–9, 81Google Scholar.

11 ATL, II, list 3 (I, 29–30)Google Scholar; 4 (V, 32–3). The tribute is considered to have been paid or recorded as a single unit.

12 ATL, III, p. 12Google Scholar. The lists at this point were geographically arranged. On the independent position of Telmessos even in the Hellenistic Period see Wörrle, M., Chiron, 8 (1978), pp. 221–2Google Scholar.

13 Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 3, 83, 99, 103–44Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 15Google Scholar. See also RE, Supplementband 13, s.v. Lykia, col. 267 (Jameson). Although not always recognized, the dispute over the ethnic and/or territorial connexions of Telmessos is complicated by the fact that there was a Carian Telmessos, also an oracular seat. See RE, s.v. Telmessos (2), cols. 413–14 (W. Ruge, 1934). Moreover, the fact that the Lycian Telmessos could be considered Carian is hardly astonishing. Hdt. 1. 173. 4 notes, for example, that the Lycians shared some Carian customs. At Cadyanda the Salas Monument is inscribed with the name Hecatomnus in Greek and Lycian: TAM I, 32eGoogle Scholar, f and n; Petersen, E. and von Luschan, F., Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, II: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratien, Vienna, 1889, p. 193Google Scholar; Borchhardt, J. and Neumann, G., “Dynastische Grabanlagen von Kadyanda”, AA, 1968, pp. 213–14Google Scholar and note 191. It is highly likely that political or geographic boundaries did not correspond with linguistic ones. Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 13–15Google Scholar, recognizes a number of Carian names in Lycia proper. Cf. a coin of Erbbina minted at Telmessos with a Carian legend: Masson, O., Kadmos, 13 (1974), pp. 127–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mørkholm, O. and Zahle, J., “The Coinages of the Lycian Dynasts Kheriga, Kherẽi and Erbbina”, ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 57Google Scholar. Strabo 14. 3. 4 has no hesitation in calling Telmessos Lycian and if the recognition of coin mints is accepted, it appears that Artumpara ruled an area comprising Kadyanda, Telmessos, Pinara and Tlos: Six, J., “Monnaies grecques, inédites et incertaines”, NC 18 (1898), p. 212Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 10–11Google Scholar and note 1 on p. 10. See most recently for objections against these localized mints: Borchhardt, , Bauskulptur, p. 101Google Scholar; Metzger, H., FdX, VI, Paris, 1979, p. 35Google Scholar.

14 ATL, II, list 9 (III, 33–4)Google Scholar.

15 Metzger, H., Laroche, E., and Sommer, A. Dupont, FdX, VI: La stèle trilingue du Létôon, Paris, 1979, passimGoogle Scholar.

16 Wörrle, , Chiron, 8 (1978), pp. 236–461Google Scholar; Metzger, , FdX, VI, pp. 32Google Scholar (lines 6, 27–8), 33, 37. The Lycian text has the same formula: Laroche, , FdX, VI, pp. 53, 54Google Scholar (lines 6, 13–14, 32), 58, 62–3, 76; Carruba, O., SMEA, 18 (1977), pp. 276–7, 291–2Google Scholar; Bryce, T. R., “A Recently Discovered Cult in Lycia”, JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 119–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The official version, the Aramaic, does not use the formula, which indicates the local and non-legal status of the division at the time of the inscription: Sommer, Dupont, FdX, VI, pp. 136–7Google Scholar.

17 Wörrle, , Chiron, 8 (1978), pp. 238–9Google Scholar. Cf. Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), p. 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Laroche, , FdX, VI, pp. 62–3Google Scholar.

18 Wörrle, , Chiron, 18 (1978), pp. 239–42Google Scholar. Since many of the names of dynasts and others known from inscriptions are Persian and Greek, it is difficult to believe that a simple ethnic distinction was used. Cf. Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 121–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Geschnitzer, F., Abhängige Orte im griechischen Altertum, Zetemata 17, Munich, 1958, pp. 113–18Google Scholar, has shown that in the case of Erythrai its sunteleis were small (sometimes tiny) communities dependent on the city. This clearly favours the equation in Lycia of perioikoi and sunteleis.

19 Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 10–11Google Scholar. The evidence for this is very weak. In the trilingual of the Letoon the word tr mis clearly has no such limited sense: Laroche, , FdX, VI, p. 60Google Scholar. Imbert, J., “Notes on the Writings of the Lycian Monuments”, BOR, 5 (1891), p. 113, No. 96Google Scholar, incorrectly saw in tr mis the name of Telmessos. On the name of this city in Lycian (Telebehi) see Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 14–15Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 27Google Scholar.

20 Mørkholm, O., “The Classification of Lycian Coins before Alexander”, JNG, 14 (1964), pp. 65–76Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 5Google Scholar. The light standard weighs in the range of 8·00 to 8·60 g., the heavy standard 9·40 to 10·00 g. The Persian standard is slightly heavier than the latter. Several coins of Kuprlli are known on the real Persian standard: Mørkholm, O. and Zahle, J., “The Coinage of Kuprlli”, ActaA, 43 (1972), pp. 59–60Google Scholar (10·38 to 10·84 g.). Cf. Borchhardt, J., “Eine Doppelaxtstele aus Limyra. Zur Herrschaft der Karer in Lykien”, in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens, Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner, eds. Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E., and Wagner, J., Leiden, 1978, pp. 184, 191Google Scholar, who suggests that the two archontes of the Letoon trilingual may have been responsible for the two parts of Lycia. One small group of light thirds has, however, been assigned to a city in the east as recently as Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 31Google Scholar. Babelon, , Traité, II. 2Google Scholar, cols. 281–2, lists two coins with the legend χäkbi (Nos. 375, 376) and one with only χ (377) and assigns them all tentatively on the authority of Bugge, S., “Lykische Studien, I”, Skrifter udgivne af Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania, II, Hist.-Fil. Klasse, 1897, No. 7, p. 43Google Scholar, to Candyba in central Lycia. This was accepted by Six, J. P., NC, Series 3, 18 (1898), p. 200Google Scholar, but questioned by the TAM I, p. 116Google Scholar, and Laroche, , FdX, VI, p. 110Google Scholar note 45. The coins weigh 2·39 and 2·40 g. and are therefore certainly of the light Athena head group and cannot reasonably be attributed to Candyba which lies to the east of Phellos. Six (loc. cit.) assigns a coin of Kheriga to this group but surely mistakenly. I have no suggestion for the relocation of the city.

21 Most of the dynasts whose coinage is extensively represented in modern collections minted on both standards. For the period roughly 480–30 Ekuwẽmi, Mutlẽi, Khinakha (Khin: see Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 11, 25Google Scholar), Kuprlli, Teththiweibi, and Spñtaza all minted on both standards while Tenegure alone minted only on the light standard. In the period 430–360 the division is more clear. Kheriga, Wekhssere II, and Aruwãtijesi minted on both standards (possibly also Kherẽi, see below), while Erbbina, Ddenewele, and Artumpara minted only on the light standard; Zagaba II, Mithrapata, Trbbẽnimi, and Perikle minted only on the heavy standard. There are numerous coins with possible dynastic names which are represented by only a few examples. Most of these are heavy coins. See generally Mørkholm and Neumann, Nachrichten, passim and Babelon, , Traité, II. 2Google Scholar, cols. 183–258. Kherẽi appears to have minted only light coins with one certain exception, a tetrobol in the collection of von Aulock, H., SNG, Deutschland, Sammlung von Aulock, 10, Berlin, 1964, No. 4170Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 48Google Scholar, No. 17, 55. Mørkholm, in the SNG: v. Aulock, 10, No. 4171Google Scholar, formerly attributed a triobol to Kherẽi but in ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 48Google Scholar, No. 12, and pp. 54–5, he attributes this coin and five similar ones to Kheriga. These coins are particularly interesting because they have the Goddess Head/Owl, types otherwise known only from the heavy series of Phellos. Yet their average weight is only two grammes (ibid., pp. 57, 72–3). The weight indicates that the coins are triobols of the light western standard. No explanation is apparent for this discrepancy of weight and die types.

22 As Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 112Google Scholar, and Borchhardt, , Bauskulptur, p. 108Google Scholar, point out, the coins do not really give a very clear picture of the political system because we have no evidence why dynasts minted in different cities and how the various dynasts are to be related. The fact that several dynasts minted on both eastern and western standards in the period 480–30 (supra, note 21) is difficult to explain particularly because Kuprlli seems to have reigned throughout the period (Mørkholm and Zahle, op. cit., pp. 75–7), and, from the quantity of his coins, is generally considered a dominant figure in the period. See the conclusions of Moretti, L., Ricerche sulle leghe greche, Rome, 1962, p. 179Google Scholar, which are close to those expressed here. Borchhardt, J., “Zur Deutung lykischer Audienzszenen”, Colloque, p. 8Google Scholar, note 2, suggests that a unified rule came into being only under Kheriga and Kherẽi, yet there is little evidence for such under these dynasts. The chronological formula ẽnẽ χñtawata plus name of person in the genitive, meaning in the reign of, does not occur before Kheriga (Sarcophagus, Merehi, TAM I, 43Google Scholar; see below note 78 for references) or Harpagus, if he is indeed the father of Kheriga and Kherẽi (see below), TAM I, 77Google Scholar. This formula is widely used later, particularly with the name of Pericles of Limyra, (TAM I, 67, 83, 103, 104, 132, 133Google Scholar) and indicates a title of authority and may perhaps be used to argue the existence of a unified rule as early as Harpagus and Kheriga and probably earlier. It is interesting to note that all the cities mentioned in the text of the Inscribed Pillar (TAM I, 44Google Scholar, see further below) are in the western part of the peninsula (including χãkbi which cannot be Candyba, see above note 20) and, as I argue below, this monument must be attributed to Kherẽi. Equally the inscriptions of Erbbina/Arbinas in the Letoon refer only to towns in the Xanthos valley and Erbbina is a successor of Kherẽi. Neither minted coins on the heavy standard with one possible exception for Kherẽi; see above note 21. Therefore, with Bryce, T. R.,JRH, 10 (1978–1979), p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar, I am inclined to think that Kheriga may represent the last ruler to claim hegemony over most of the Lycian peninsula until Pericles of Limyra in the second quarter of the fourth century.

23 Hdt. 7. 98. The textual change was suggested verbally by J. P. Six on the basis of the coin legend KVB (see Babelon, , Perses, Nos. 431–2, p. 64, pl. XI, 203Google Scholar) and accepted by Babelon, ibid., p. XCIII; Hill, G. F., CatCoinsBM, Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia, London, 1897, p. xxviGoogle Scholar; Heberdey, R., JOAI, 1 (1898), p. 41Google Scholar; Meyer, , GdA, IV. 16, p. 147Google Scholar; How, W. W. and Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotos, Oxford, 1936, II, p. 163Google Scholar; Ph.-E. Legrand in the Budé text, Paris, 1951; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 5 and note 2Google Scholar. The emendation was not adopted by R. Dietsch in the Teubner text (1894) or by C. Hude in the Oxford text (3rd. ed. 1927). Imbert, , BOR, 5 (1891), p. 111Google Scholar, No. 34, and König, F. W., “Die Stele von Xanthos, I”, Klotho, 1, Vienna, 1936, p. 57Google Scholar note 3, identify Kubernis with Kuprlli, but this is denied by Babelon, , Traité, II, 2Google Scholar, col. 254; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 6Google Scholar and note 7; Neumann, G., “Beiträge zum Lykischen”, Die Sprache, 13 (1967), p. 33 and note 5Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 111Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 6Google Scholar. Herodotus names three prominent Carians, Histiaios, Pigres, and Damasithumos, and adds Artemesia (7. 99) because she was a particularly courageous woman. She ruled Halicarnassus and furnished five ships of Caria's total of seventy.

24 The most prominent symbol is the ↓-which occurs on the issues of Teththiweibi (Forrer, L., The Weber Collection, III. 2Google Scholar: Greek Coins, Asia Minor, London, 1929, No. 7226Google Scholar; SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4158; both coins are light); Kheriga (Babelon, , Traité, II. 2, No. 371Google Scholar; Aphrodite/Owl); Kherẽi (ibid., Nos. 344, 348, 358, etc.; SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4170; Aphrodite/Owl); Erbbina (ibid., No. 382); Ddenewele (ibid., Nos. 404 etc.); and Wekhssere (ibid., No. 430). These dynasts, according to current opinion, cover the second half of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth. Perhaps the symbol is genealogical? Cf. the Greek epigram of the Inscribed Pillar (references below in note 86) in which the dedicator says [πο]λλὰς δὲ ἀκροπόλες σύν Ἀθηναίαι πτολιηόρθωι/[π]έρσας συνγενέσιν δῶκε μέρος βασιλέας. On these symbols or devices see now Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 61–70Google Scholar. For the use of different types consistently in the East and West in conjunction with the two weight standards see Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 70Google Scholar. A possible exception to the rule was noted above, note 21. Another is perhaps a coin of Aruwãtijesi, Babelon, , Traité, II. 2Google Scholar, No. 435, a stater weighing 8·62 gr. yet with the Lion Scalp/Triskeles. See also Kheriga's stater, ibid., No. 366, weight 7·70 gr., Goddess Head/Athena Seated, legend Arnñai. Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 55Google Scholar (pl. II P) consider this a forgery. Of particular interest is the fact that Kheriga minted a coin on the heavy standard, the die of which was used by Kuprlli later on the light standard: Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 54Google Scholar.

25 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 112Google Scholar, and Borchhardt, , Bauskulptur, p. 108Google Scholar, consider it possible that the city mints used by the dynasts represent only their private estates and not coherent areas which they ruled as states. Yet the very real fact that the central and eastern Lycian cities used a slightly debased Persian standard for their coins from the late sixth century on indicates both local cohesion and a real separateness from the western cities. As already mentioned (above note 22) the chronological formula ẽnẽ χñtawata plus name in the genitive may indicate as early as Harpagus (date unknown but roughly 440?) or Kheriga, (TAM I, 77, 43Google Scholar) a unified rule which, I believe, applies even earlier. It might help if the early middle coin standard could be localized. One legend may suggest Limyra but this is uncertain and only two dynasts are recognizable in the legends of the middle standard, Ekuwẽmi and Kuprlli, both of whom (later) minted on heavy and light standards: Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 10–11Google Scholar. Cook, J. M., “The Problem of Classical Ionia”, ProcCambPhilSoc, 187 [7] (1961), pp. 9–18Google Scholar, points out that large tracts of the Ionian seaboard, nominally under Athenian control, must have remained tributary to the King. The existence of large royal fiefdoms independent of adjoining cities gives a plausible explanation of the status of eastern Lycia as a separate political area with separate coinage though still clearly tied to western Lycia. Bernard, P., Syria, 41 (1964), pp. 208–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has emphasized the importance of Persians resident in Lycia which suggests strongly the validity of a close parallel between the situation in Lycia and Ionia as described by Cook. The fact that Telmessos not only appears in the Athenian tribute lists separately from Lycia but also in the Hellenistic period is considered King's land may suggest that it was a fiefdom in the Persian period; see Wörrle, , Chiron, 18 (1978), pp. 207–12, 221Google Scholar. Even the son of Harpagus who raised the Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos (see below) is widely believed to have been a descendant of the sixth-century general: Anat St, 29 (1979), p. 97 note 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Even so, many dynasts bear Greek names also, notably Kuprlli: Neumann, , Die Sprache, 13 (1967), pp. 33–4Google Scholar. Shahbazi, A. Shapur, The Irano-Lycian Monuments, 1975Google Scholar, has not been available to me (cf. Borchhardt, , Colloque, p. 8Google Scholar note 8).

26 Wade-Gery, H. T., “The Peace of Kallias”, HSCP Supplement 1 (1940), pp. 132–43Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., pp. 134–6; Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire, Oxford, 1972, pp. 147–50Google Scholar. Oliver, J. H., Historia, 6 (1957), pp. 254–5Google Scholar, and Meiggs (p. 147) argue that Kyaneai is not the Lycian city but at the mouth of the Euxine. This appears to be very likely and removes the problem of a fluctuating border in Lycia, placing all of Lycia within the area ostensibly controlled by Athens. Neither the reality nor the date of the peace concern me here because it seems clear from Plutarch, Cimon 13. 4–5Google Scholar (see Gomme, , A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I, p. 295Google Scholar) coupled with Isocrates Panegyricus 118 that Athens had de facto if not de iure control of the Aegean as far as Phaselis. See most recently on the peace Hands, A. R., “In Favour of a Peace of Kallias”, Mnemosyne, 28 (1975), pp. 193–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldstein, M. S., “Athenian–Persian Peace Treaties”, CSCA, 7 (1975), pp. 155–64Google Scholar; J. Hofstetter, “Zu den griechischen Gesandschaften nach Persien”, in Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte, ed. Walser, G., Historia Einzelschrift, 18, 1972, pp. 95–6Google Scholar; Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, pp. 129–51Google Scholar; Murison, C. L., “The Peace of Callias; Its Historical Context”, Phoenix, 25 (1971), pp. 12–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Connor, W. R., Theopompos and Fifth Century Athens, Cambridge (Mass.), 1968, pp. 77–89Google Scholar.

28 Borchhardt, , Colloque, p. 7Google Scholar. Cf. Demargne, P., RArch, 1979, p. 295Google Scholar. Cook, , ProcCambPhilSoc, 187 [7] (1961), p. 9Google Scholar, makes the same observation of Ionia. See further below, note. 31.

29 Borchhardt, , Colloque, pp. 7–12Google Scholar. The only change is the introduction of the light coin standard in the west. Rather than indicating the suppression of the dynasts in Lycia, the introduction of the light coins coincides with the regular placement of dynasts' names on coins in both east and west. For the Athenian attitude to local governments see ATL, III, pp. 149–54Google Scholar; Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, pp. 207–33Google Scholar.

30 Akurgal, E., Colloque, pp. 13–14Google Scholar; Metzger, , FdX, II, pl. 38–9Google Scholar; Coupel, P. and Metzger, H., RArch, 1969, pp. 225–32Google Scholar; Bernard, P., Syria, 42 (1965), pp. 268–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Cook, , ProcCambPhilSoc, 187 [7] (1961), pp. 9–18Google Scholar; cf. Borchhardt, J., “Epichorische gräko-persisch beeinflusste Reliefs in Kilikien”, IstMitt, 18 (1968), pp. 161–211Google Scholar. The chronology of un-sculptured monuments in Lycia is still very uncertain. Kjeldsen, K. and Zahle, J., “A Dynastic Tomb in Central Lycia”, ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 29–46Google Scholar, have perhaps located a major tomb in Apollonia of the mid-fifth century. Clearly, however, the whole of western and southern Asia Minor suffered a major eclipse of its former prosperity in the period from ca. 480 to 400. In Lycia, even at the end of this period when sculpture reappears, the monuments are of limestone not marble as Demargne has observed, FdX, I, p. 86Google Scholar. Two factors seem paramount. First, the loss of the wide network of trade after the Ionian Revolt must have been significant. Second, the break-up of Ionia into large tracts of King's land independent of the cities coupled with crippling taxation by the Persians and the milder taxation of the Delian League can only have produced chaotic conditions for trade. Herodotus (3. 90) gives the sum of tribute to the King as 400 talents for Ionia, 500 talents for Lydia, 360 talents for Hellespontine Phrygia, and 500 talents for Cilicia. This must be compared with the relatively small sum which Athens collected, gauged at between 400 and 500 talents all told: Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, p. 253Google Scholar. The Lycians paid Athens only ten talents, Telmessos alone one talent. On the harsh effects of Persian taxation see Olmstead, , History, pp. 295–301Google Scholar. Although Persia and Athens inevitably took political sides in the internal disputes of areas under their control, there is no reason to believe that either side actively restructured the political complexion of its allies. The view of Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 95–6Google Scholar, and Olmstead, , History, pp. 242–3Google Scholar, is probably correct that Persia left the internal structure of Lycia alone, although the creation of one or more fiefdoms might have caused economic stagnation with the subsequent conquest of part of the land by the Athenians. In the final analysis, the dislocation of society and commerce by competing jurisdictions must have been more destructive than heavy tribute or political manipulation. The appearance of a satrapy Karka after the Ionian Revolt certainly suggests Persian interest in the southwest corner of Asia Minor shortly before Lycia entered the Delian League: Junge, , Klio, 34 (1941), pp. 16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar and note 3, p. 18. There is, nonetheless, no specific evidence for Persian activity in Lycia at this time and the royal fiefdoms here posited may have been created after the original conquest of the land.

32 Pliny, , NH, 13. 11 (52)Google Scholar; 16. 59 (137) mentions excellent Lycian cedar and 12. 5 (9) a Lycian tree especially notable for its size. It appears that Lycia must have been widely forested as parts of it are still today. It is, however, a supposition that there was an economic interest in the wood for ship-building.

33 Three complete tribute lists for 442/1, 441/0, and 440/39 omit Lycia, and Telmessos, : ATL, I, pp. 334, 420Google Scholar. These lists correspond roughly with the reduced Carian and Ionian listings and it seems clear that Athens felt unable to maintain these tributaries and ceased to try to collect at all:ATL, III, p. 212Google Scholar (cf. register in Vol. I). As the ATL further observes (III, p. 210)Google Scholar, Lycia may in any case have been only a sporadic contributor. A date for the final severing of ties ca. 440 has long been generally accepted: Treuber, , Geschichte, p. 100Google Scholar; Benndorf, O., JOAI, 3 (1900), p. 118Google Scholar; Beloch, , GrGe2, II. 1, pp. 197–8Google Scholar and note 1 on p. 198; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 5Google Scholar and note 7; Meiggs, and Lewis, , Selection, No. 93, p. 283Google Scholar; Metzger, , FdX, VI, p. 34Google Scholar. Most recently Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 75–6Google Scholar, have suggested a later date, ca. 430. They base this on the appearance of Attic type Athena heads on Kheriga's coinage which, they suggest, may have been introduced when Lycia quit the Athenian sphere of influence and Kheriga found pseudo-Attic coins of economic advantage.

34 Olmstead, , History, p. 343Google Scholar, suggested that the events surrounding the Samian revolt caused the Persians to make an active attempt to reorganize the western provinces before Athens became aggressive again. Cf. Metzger, , FdX, VI, p. 34Google Scholar; ATL, III, pp. 210, 212Google Scholar; Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, pp. 189, 246–7Google Scholar.

35 Thuc. 2, 69.

36 TAM I, 44Google Scholar, line a 45. The first full text of the pillar was published by Fellows, C., The Inscribed Monument at Xanthos, Recopied in 1842, London, 1843Google Scholar, “On an Inscribed Monument at Xanthos”, TRSL, 2nd series, 1 (1843), pp. 254–6Google Scholar. A facsimile and transliteration with full references to earlier literature is given in TAM I, 44, pp. 38–48Google Scholar. Two lengthy studies of the Lycian inscriptions have been published: König, F. W., “Die Stele von Xanthos, I”, Klotho, 1, Vienna, 1936Google Scholar, passim, and Stoltenberg, H. L., Die termilische Sprache Lykiens, Leverkusen, 1955, pp. 35–6Google Scholar. On the inaccuracies of these studies see Neumann, , Die Sprache, 7 (1961), pp. 71–2Google Scholar and Pedersen, H., Lykisch und Hittitisch, Copenhagen, 1945, pp. 62–5Google Scholar. For broader studies of the whole stele see especially Benndorf, , JOAI, 3 (1900), pp. 98–120Google Scholar, and Demargne, P., FdX, I, Paris, 1958, pp. 79–105Google Scholar; V, Paris, 1974, pp. 113–16. E. Laroche in ibid., pp. 142–8, publishes the new fragments of the inscription.

37 Pedersen, , Lykisch und Hittitisch, p. 14Google Scholar; Neumann, G., Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischen und römischer Zeit, Wiesbaden, 1961, p. 46Google Scholar, par. 22; HbOr, series I, volume 2, parts 1–2, fascicule 2, Leiden-Köln, 1969, p. 366. See the two early attempts at translation: König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 99–140Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., “Zur Xanthosstele”, Acta Jutlandica, 9 (1937), pp. 513–17Google Scholar.

38 See below note 55.

39 Anat St, 29 (1979), pp. 97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 This date is now widely accepted: Laroche, , FdX, VI, p. 54Google Scholar; Demargne, P., “Athéna, les dynastes lyciens et les héros grecs”, in Florilegium Anatolicum: Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche, Paris, 1979, p. 98Google Scholar; FdX, V, p. 113Google Scholar; Moretti, , Ricerche sulle leghe greche, pp. 180–1Google Scholar. For further references see Childs, , ORom, 9 (1973), p. 113Google Scholar note 57. The Danish scholars O. Møprkholm and J. Zahle maintain a lower date of ca. 390–80: ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 111Google Scholar and note 435; ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 88Google Scholar; JdI, 94 (1979), pp. 314, 320, 326 No. 13Google Scholar. Borchhardt, J., AA, 1970, p. 378Google Scholar, proposed a broad range of 400–380 but has recently suggested an even lower date, after 380, because of the new Letoon trilingual but this must be rejected as unsound: Festschrift Dörner, note 20 on pp. 190–1. See Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 120–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

The date of Kherẽi is derived largely from his coinage: Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 72Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 59Google Scholar, give the dates 430/20 to 390/80. The terminal date for his reign is derived from the late date these scholars give the Inscribed Pillar. Earlier studies have given Kherẽi a slightly earlier terminal date (425–410). Perhaps one of his latest coins is one in Boston with the dynast's portrait in three-quarter view: Brett, A. B., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Catalogue of Greek Coins, Boston, 1955, p. 265, No. 2086, pl. 95Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 50 No. 42, p. 80 No. 2, p. 81 fig. 9Google Scholar. Brett, (loc. cit.) and Robinson, E. S. G., AJA, 60 (1956), p. 299Google Scholar, first argued for a lower date for Kherẽi ca. 400 or slightly later. Cf. Schwabacher, , Essays, pp. 114–15Google Scholar. The low date of Mørkholm and Zahle of 390/80, dependent on their excessively low date for the Inscribed Pillar, goes too far however, and a terminal date for Kherẽi of 400/390 is the latest arguable.

41 AnatSt, 29 (1979), pp. 98–100Google Scholar.

42 Laroche, , FdX, V, p. 147Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., “Der Indogermanismus des Lykischen”, in Germanen und Indogermanen, Festschrift für H. Hirt, Heidelberg, 1936, II, p. 277Google Scholar.

43 Meriggi, , Germanen und Indogermanen, II, pp. 277–8Google Scholar; see pp. 277–81 generally for the bottom of the south side.

44 Cf. TAM I, 104Google Scholar: perikle tebete artumpara; Imbert, J., “Pharnabazus and Tissaphernes Mentioned on the Great Stele of Xanthos”, BOR, 4 (1889–1890), p. 161Google Scholar, note.

45 Bugge, S., “Zur Xanthos-Stele”, in Festschrift für Otto Benndorf, Vienna, 1898, p. 232Google Scholar. Amorges did have mercenaries with him at Iasos but they are only said to be Peloponnesians: Thuc. 8. 28. 4. See further Meriggi, , Germanen und Indogermanen, II, p. 279Google Scholar; Neumann, , HbOr, I. 2, 1–2, 2, p. 373Google Scholar; Laroche, , FdX, VI, pp. 100–1Google Scholar. König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 80–1Google Scholar, does not make this identification but does see reference to the deed in c 57 (p. 129).

46 Deecke, W., “Zur Deutung der Stele Xanthica”, BPW, 8 [26] (1888), col. 828Google Scholar; Imbert, , BOR, 4 (1889–1890), p. 160Google Scholar; Bugge, , Festschrift Benndorf, pp. 231–6Google Scholar.

47 Thompson, W. E., “Two Athenian Strategoi”, Hesperia, 36 (1967), pp. 105–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bugge, , Festschrift Benndorf pp. 231–6Google Scholar.

48 IG I 2297Google Scholar, line 3 was restored by Meritt, B. D., Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century, Ann Arbor, 1932, pp. 88, 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, to read as a payment στρατεγοῖς ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θράικες Εὐετίονι Μελ]εσ[ά]νδρ[ο..] in 414/13. Thompson has proposed instead to read στρατεγõι Μελ]εσ[ά]νδρ[οι and connects this with IG I 2302Google Scholar, line 69 (Meritt line 79), which Meritt has read as a payment in 415/14 to strategoi ἐν Έϕ[--: AJA, 34 (1930), pp. 151–2Google Scholar; Athenian Financial Documents, p. 163 (in the IG the reading is simply ἐν Έ[--). Meiggs, and Lewis, , Selection, p. 283Google Scholar, and Borchhardt, , AA, (1968), p. 198Google Scholar; AA, (1970), p. 378Google Scholar, accept tentatively Thompson's view. Cf. Demargne, , FdX, V, p. 113Google Scholar.

49 Imbert, , BOR, 5 (1891), p. 113Google Scholar, No. 94; König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 63, 126–7Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 7Google Scholar. See generally for this part of the east side Meriggi, , Acta Jutlandica, 9 (1937), pp. 506–8Google Scholar.

50 Laroche, , BSL, 62 (1967), p.57Google Scholar; FdX, V, p. 147Google Scholar; FdX, VI, pp. 109–10Google Scholar.

51 Laroche, , FdX, VI, p. 114Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., p. 114; Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 120–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an early interpretation see Meriggi, , Acta Jutlandica, 9 (1937), pp. 507–13Google Scholar.

53 Deecke, , BPW, 8 [26] (1888), col. 828Google Scholar; Imbert, , BOR, 4 (1889–1890), pp. 153–63Google Scholar; Bugge, , Festschrift Benndorf, pp. 233–4Google Scholar. Meriggi, , Acta Jutlandica, 9 (1937), p. 511Google Scholar note 4, denies the identification of Kizzaprñna and Zisaprñna. See also Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 25Google Scholar, and further below, note 72.

54 Laroche, , CRAI, 1974, pp. 121–2Google Scholar; FdX, VI, p. 114Google Scholar; Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 120–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Borchhardt, , Festschrift Dörner, pp. 190–1Google Scholar.

55 The arguments of Six, I. P., “Monnaies lyciennes”, RN, 5 (1887), p. 7Google Scholar, for a low date of the pillar ca. 380 must be rejected because he arrives at the date by assigning every name on the pillar to the dynast issuing coins under the same name. This seems also the basis of Mørkholm's and Zahle's suggestion of a low date for the pillar, ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 111Google Scholar; ActaA, 42 (1976), pp. 87–8Google Scholar, and now also Borchhardt, , Festschrift Dörner, note 20 on pp. 190–1Google Scholar. Cf. Demargne, , FdX, V, p. 113Google Scholar. See also König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), p. 57Google Scholar, note 4, who simply dates Erbbina's coins ca. 430 to suit his chronology of the events in the inscription. See further, ibid., pp. 56–78, generally for similar difficulties. König's suggestion (pp. 64–5), that Xenophon's Mitrobates (Hell. 1. 3. 12) may have been given command in Lycia at some later time and be related to the Lycian dynast Mithrapata should, however, not be rejected out of hand. See Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 18Google Scholar.

56 Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 74Google Scholar; Olçay, N. and Mørkholm, O., “The Coin Hoard from Podalia”, NC, 11 (1971), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 6, 12, 17Google Scholar.

57 Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 7–13Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; TAM I, 128, 135Google Scholar (Limyra); Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), pp. 315, 343 No. 59Google Scholar; Borchhardt, , Bauskulptur, p. 107Google Scholar; IstMitt, 17 (1967), pp. 162–5Google Scholar, pl. 16, 3.

58 Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 4–7, 28Google Scholar; Mildenberg, L., “Mithrapata und Perikles”, Congresso internazionale di numismatica, 1961, Atti, Rome, 1965, p. 48Google Scholar. Imbert, , BOR, 5 (1891), p. 111 No. 42Google Scholar, connected Mithrapata with a Mitrobates mentioned by Xenophon, (Hell. 1. 3. 12)Google Scholar who was a representative of Pharnabazus in 408 with Alcibiades. Cf. König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 64–5Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 18Google Scholar.

59 Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 72Google Scholar; Olçay, and Møholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 3–4, 27 note 2Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 17, 29Google Scholar.

60 Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 69Google Scholar. On the context of the passage see Laroche, , FdX, VI, p. 114Google Scholar.

61 It would be interesting to know whether the repetition of names indicates true dynasties or just common names. The evidence culled by Bryce, T. R., “Lycian Tomb Families and Their Social Implications”, JESHO, 22 3 (1979), pp. 296–313Google Scholar, does not give any evidence for names but does clearly underscore the importance of the vertical family ties.

62 NC, 19 (1959), p. 33Google Scholar; Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 69 note 13Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 6, 16, 23, 28Google Scholar.

63 Bousquet, J., “Arbinas, fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos”, CRAI, (1975), pp. 138–50Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 52–4, 59Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 28–9Google Scholar. Metzger, H., “La base d'Arbinas au Letoon de Xanthos”, VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 1. Cilt, Ankara (1979), p. 474Google Scholar; FdX, VI, p. 25Google Scholar, does, however, consider the two men to be only one.

64 The reference could, conceivably, be to Darius I and Artaxerxes I or even to Artaxerxes I (†424) and Darius II (†405). Deecke, , BPW, 8 (1888), col. 828Google Scholar, believes the latter. If this were so, perhaps Teththiweibi is chronologically correct here? But see further below.

65 Xen., Hell. 1. 4. 3–7Google Scholar; An. 1. 1. 1–9Google Scholar; Diodorus 13. 70. 3; Plutarch, Lysander 4. 1–2Google Scholar (here Pharnabazus is confused with Tissaphernes throughout); Meyer, , GdA, IV. 25, p. 330Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, pp. 368–9Google Scholar. Tissaphernes was, however, not completely out of favour since he was taken with Cyrus when Darius called him home on his death-bed, and he found enough favour with Artaxerxes II to be able to inform on Cyrus; Xen., An. 1. 1. 1–3Google Scholar; Plutarch, Artaxerxes 3. 3Google Scholar.

66 Xen., Hell. 1. 2. 4–5Google Scholar, 3. 1. 3; Plutarch, Artaxerxes 6. 4Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, pp. 374–6Google Scholar.

67 Xen., Hell. 3. 2. 13, 4. 25Google Scholar; Judeich, W., Kleinasiatische Studien, Untersuchungen zur griechisch-persischen Geschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Marburg, 1892, pp. 40–68Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, pp. 376–7, 382–4Google Scholar.

68 Thuc. 8. 35 ff.; Diodorus 13. 38. 5.

69 Thuc. 8.35. 2. Cf. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, II, Oxford, 1956, pp. 202–3Google Scholar, on Thuc. 2. 69.

70 Xen., Hell. 1. 5.Google Scholar 1, 2. 1. 15, 2. 1. 29. Cf. Diodorus 13. 70. 2, 106. 6. As already noted above (note 22), all the towns mentioned in the text of the Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos are in western Lycia (including χãkbi, see note 20). This might indicate that the Decelean War effected only western Lycia but it is more likely that Kherẽi controlled only western Lycia. Kheriga must have ruled in eastern Lycia for much of Kherẽi's reign in the Xanthos valley but who succeeded Kheriga is unclear to me.

71 See above note 58.

72 See above note 65 on Tissaphernes and note 2 on the satrapies. A very important coin has been published by Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 25Google Scholar, M 221, pl. 3, fig. 4, with the legends (reverse) ziἈa[prñ]na and (obverse) [ñna[ (=ar]ñna[he?). The obverse has a horse and rider to the right, the reverse an Athena head right. The authors do not explicitly suggest a date for the coin but since it comes early in the second (late) group of light coins together with the coins of Kheriga and Kherẽi, it may belong to Tissaphernes' tenure of the satrapy of Caria from 407 to 401 and be directly coupled with the frequent mention of his name on the Inscribed Pillar; see above note 53. It should be noted also that at line b 26 (TAM I, 44Google Scholar) occurs the title χssadrapahi tr mili (satrap of the Lycians) which might refer to a real Persian satrap (therefore Tissaphernes) or possibly only a Lycian such as Kherẽi who must have served as the local representative of Persian power. In the Letoon trilingual, line 1, Pixodaros is designated Tr misñ χssaθrapawate: Laroche, , FdX, VI, pp. 53, 58, 60, 76Google Scholar, which allows both interpretations of the text of the Inscribed Pillar. Also of possible significance to delineating Tissaphernes' activity in Lycia is the mention in TAM I, 44Google Scholar, lines c 8/9 of the Lord of Kaunos. This cult could have been started in Lycia under Tissaphernes just as it is reconsecrated under Pixodarus in the Letoon trilingual. See Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), p. 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Of course the preexistence of the cult is perfectly possible; it could date from one of the earlier periods when Caria and Lycia must have been joined in a single satrapy (above notes 2 and 31). Borchhardt's suggestion that the Inscribed Pillar may be late (post 380) because of the mention of the cult of the Lord of Kaunos is untenable: Festschrift Dörner, note 20 on pp. 190–1.

73 He is mentioned only twice in the sources: Thuc. 8. 58, Xen., Hell. 2. 1. 9Google Scholar. Cf. Meyer, , GdA, IV. 25, p. 277Google Scholar, note 1; Thompson, , Hesperia, 36 (1967), p. 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Xen., Hell. 3. 2. 12Google Scholar, 4. 12; cf. Judeich, , Kleinasiatische Studien, pp. 40–68Google Scholar.

75 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 59Google Scholar. See further above note 40 on the chronology of Kherẽi.

76 Buildings of the Lycian acropolis: Metzger, , FdX, II, pls. 33, 35, 38–41, 47–8Google Scholar; RArch, 1969, pp. 223–8Google Scholar; Bernard, , Syria, 42 (1965), pp. 261–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reliefs of the Inscribed Pillar; Demargne, , FdX, I, pls. 25, 30–5Google Scholar; FdX, V, pls. XXXVIII–XXXIX, 62Google Scholar.

77 Demargne, , FdX, V, pls. 46–53, 21–6Google Scholar; Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), pp. 314, 320, 326 No. 12 (Merehi)Google Scholar, 316, 320, 328 No. 15 (Lions). Zahle's dates for the two sarcophagi are too late (400–385) on which see next note.

78 TAM I, 43Google Scholar: Laroche, , FdX, V, pp. 134–5Google Scholar; Childs, , AS, 29 (1979), pp. 100–1Google Scholar. The date of Kheriga is given by Mørkholm, and Zahls, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 59Google Scholar, as 450–410. Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), p. 314Google Scholar, because of his late date for the Inscribed Pillar and following the recent suggestion that its author was Kheriga, dates Kheriga artificially far too late (390/85) which causes him in turn to lower the date of the two sarcophagi (above note 77) too far. On the chronological formula, originally recognized as such by Heberdey, R. and Kalinka, E., Denkschr-Wien, 45 (1897), I, p. 32Google Scholar, No. 39, see Gusmani, R., IF, 68 (1963), pp. 284–9Google Scholar, and most recently Laroche, , FdX, VI, pp. 104–5Google Scholar.

79 Carpenter, R., The Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet, Cambridge (Mass.), 1929Google Scholar; Hofkes-Brukker, C., Der Bassae-Fries, Munich, 1975Google Scholar. The date of these monuments is still not agreed upon. My preliminary views are expressed in ORom, 9 (1973), pp. 108–11Google Scholar.

80 Demargne, , FdX, III, passimGoogle Scholar; Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), p. 326 No. 14Google Scholar, with references.

81 Demargne, , FdX, I, pp. 89–90, pl. 30Google Scholar; FdX, V, p. 114, pl. 62Google Scholar.

82 Demargne, , FdX, I, pl. 25Google Scholar; FdX, V, pp. 114–16Google Scholar; pl. 62.

83 Demargne, , FdX, I, pl. 32Google Scholar; FdX, V, pl. 62.

84 Demargne, , FdX, I, pl. 30Google Scholar; Childs, , The City-Reliefs of Lycia, Princeton (1978), pp. 5–7Google Scholar, with references.

85 Demargne, , FdX, I, p. 102Google Scholar.

86 TAM I, 44, pp. 41, 43Google Scholar. The principal early articles on the epigram remain important; Leake, W. M., TRLS, 2nd series, 1 (1843), pp. 256–72Google Scholar; TRLS, 2nd series, 2 (1847), pp. 27–49Google Scholar; Franz, J., “Die Friedenssäule zu Xanthos”, AZ, 2 (1844), cols. 279–88Google Scholar; Urlichs, , Verhandlungen, pp. 64–5Google Scholar; Imbert, J., “L'Épigramme grecque de la stèle de Xanthos”, REG, 7 (1894), pp. 267–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recently see Olmstead, , History, pp. 360–1Google Scholar; Meiggs, and Lewis, , Selection, No. 93, pp. 282–3Google Scholar; and particularly Bousquet, , CRAI (1975), pp. 138–41Google Scholar.

87 The name of Kherẽi in Greek is missing (line c 24) but probably had six letters and ended in -is. Various suggestions for it have been made but without foundation. See AS, 29 (1979), p. 100Google Scholar. Cf. Bousquet, , CRAI (1975), pp. 138–41Google Scholar; Demargne, P., CRAI (1975), p. 149Google Scholar.

88 Demargne, P., “Le décor des sarcophages de Xanthos: réalités, mythes, symboles”, CRAI (1973), pp. 268–9Google Scholar; CRAI (1975), p. 150Google Scholar; “L'iconographie dynastique au monument des Néréïdes de Xanthos”, Recueil Plassart, Etudes sur l'antiquité grecque offerts à André Plassart, Paris (1976), pp. 86, 90Google Scholar; Florilegium Anatolicum, pp. 99–101. Cf. Metzger, , FdX, VI, p. 25Google Scholar; VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, p. 474.

89 See above note 45.

90 It has been assumed from Imbert, , BOR, 5 (1891), p. 112 No. 70Google Scholar, to Meiggs, and Lewis, , Selection, p. 283Google Scholar, that Karikas is Greek for Kheriga. Yet we now know that Kheriga in Greek is Gergis which leaves Karikas an unknown originator of the family of unknown date. See Bousquet, , CRAI (1975), p. 140Google Scholar note 9; Demargne, , CRAI (1975), p. 151Google Scholar; Childs, , AS, 29 (1979), p. 99 note 12Google Scholar.

91 Neumann, , Die Sprache, 13 (1967), pp. 34–8Google Scholar; Strong, D. E., “A Greek Silver Head-Vase”, BMQ, 28 (1964), pp. 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; TAM I, 44Google Scholar, a 43, c 5, c 7–8. See most recently Demargne, , Florilegium Anatolicum, pp. 97–101Google Scholar; Laroche, E., “Les dieux de la Lycie classique d'après les textes lyciens”, Colloque, pp. 4, 6Google Scholar. Babelon, , Traité, II. 2, cols. 273–4Google Scholar, and Benndorf, , JOAI, 3 (1900), p. 115Google Scholar, correctly laid no emphasis on the prominence of the goddess Athena but Kalinka, , TAM I, p. 48Google Scholar, v. 7, wishes to see political reasons for her appearance in the epigram and on the coinage of the late fifth century.

92 Simonides fr. 171 (Edmonds); Anth. Pal. 7. 296Google Scholar; Peek, W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Berlin, 1955, No. 16, pp. 6–7Google Scholar. On the integrity of the poem see especially Jacoby, F., Hesperia. 14 (1945), pp. 189–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar note 117; Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, pp. 75–6Google Scholar.

93 IG I 2942Google Scholar; Meiggs, and Lewis, , Selection, No. 48, p. 127Google Scholar.

94 IG II 21141Google Scholar; TAM I, p. 46Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K., Hesperia, 10 (1941), No. 67, pp. 263–5Google Scholar. See Harrison, E. B., The Athenian Agora, XI: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton (1965), p. 117Google Scholar, for a discussion of the meaning of the poetic form.

95 Boston 2086: Brett, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 265, pl. 95; Schwabacher, Essays, pl. 11. 2; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 50Google Scholar, No. 42, p. 80, No. 2, p. 81, fig. 9.

96 Bousquet, , CARI (1975), pp. 146Google Scholar note 20, 147–8.

97 Jenkins, , NC, 19 (1959), pp. 35, 39Google Scholar; Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 3–4, 27Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 79Google Scholar. For the Syracusan model and imitations by Amphipolis see Francke, P. R. and Hirmer, M., Die griechische Münze, Munich, 1964, pls. IV, 134–5Google Scholar. Robinson, E. S. G., NC, 8 (1948), p. 54Google Scholar, suggests that the presence of Syracusan ships in the east (Thuc. 8. 26. 1; Diodorus 13. 34. 4, 63. 1) may be an explanation of the Syracusan coins in Asia Minor more generally at this time. Cf. Healey, J. F., Congresso internazionale di numismatica, Roma, 1961, Atti, Rome (1965), II, pp. 42–3Google Scholar, who suggests that the Syracusan die-cutters actually fled in the early fourth century upon the accession of Dionysius I. This has been rejected by Mørkholm, ibid., p. 44, and NC, 11 (1971), pp. 27–8Google Scholar, although more recently Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 78–9Google Scholar have accepted the western influences mediated by an East Greek artist.

98 Compare SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4200 (Attic type) and Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC 11 (1971), Nos. 1–2, p. 2, pl. 1 (Syracusan type)Google Scholar.

99 Also the view of Demargne, , Florilegium Anatolicum, note 16 on pp. 99–100Google Scholar, with earlier references. The date of Erbbina is determined primarily from the fact that he is the son of Kheriga and the successor of Kherẽi. See Metzger, , FdX, VI, p. 25Google Scholar; VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, pp. 473, 474. It is interesting to note that in the poem of Symmachos in the Letoon Erbbina is said to have consulted Apollo at Delphi: Bousquet, , CRAI (1975), p. 143Google Scholar, lines 8/9.

100 Martin, R., “Le monument des Néréides et l'architecture funéraire”, RArch (1971), pp. 327–37Google Scholar.

101 Demargne, , FdX, I, p. 86Google Scholar.

102 Wekhssere: Babelon, , Traité, II. 2Google Scholar, Nos. 422–8 (light); Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), p. 2Google Scholar, Nos. 1–2 (heavy). Aruwãtijesi: Babelon, Nos. 434–5 (light); SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4202 (heavy). Neither dynast minted coins with a city name. Erbbina: Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 52–4Google Scholar, Nos. 69–75. On the die-links of Erbbina and Aruwãtijesi see ibid., pp. 57, 59; Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 73Google Scholar. Generally on the three dynasts see Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 28–9Google Scholar. Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar probably goes too far in suggesting that Erbbina shifted his seat of power to Telmessos. Metzger, , VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, pp. 471–5Google Scholar, correctly lays emphasis on Erbbina's actvity at the Letoon and corrects the view of Bousquet, , CRAI (1975), p. 173Google Scholar, that the monument of Erbbina in the Letoon was a pillar tomb – it is only a commemorative monument.

103 Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 73Google Scholar: Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 56, 59Google Scholar. For the coinage of Ddenewele see Babelon, , Traité, II. 2Google Scholar, Nos. 404–12; SNG: v. Aulock, 10, Nos. 4180–1; CatCoinsBM, Lycia, No. 131, p. 39. Ddenewele uses the symbol or device ↓. on almost all of his preserved coins. This links him closely to Kherẽi: Babelon, , Traité, II. 2, Nos. 344–61Google Scholar, etc. None of his coins actually bear a city name; his association with Telmessos is only through a die-link with Erbbina. Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 27Google Scholar, question whether this name in fact represents a person.

104 Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 3Google Scholar (Nos. 28–30), 27–9.

105 Ibid., pp. 2–4, Nos. 11–27.

106 Ibid., pp. 4–7, Nos. 31–122, p. 26; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 18Google Scholar. He is mentioned in the restored inscription TAM I, 64Google Scholar from Isinda in the chronological formula ẽnẽ χñtawa]t[a] m[i]zrppat[a]he. There is a new inscription with the same formula from Seyret: Neumann, G., Neufunde lykischer Inschriften Seit 1901, TAM, Ergänzungsbände, Nr. 7, DenkschrWien, 135 (1979), N315.2, p. 39Google Scholar. Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is surely wrong to say that Lycia at this time was quite free of any form of foreign control.

107 Mildenberg, , Congresso internazionale di numismatica, Roma, 1961, Atti, II, p. 48Google Scholar.

108 Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 7–16Google Scholar; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, pp. 18–21Google Scholar.

109 Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), pp. 11–12, 26–7Google Scholar.

110 Ibid., pp. 26–7. The light thirds of Trbbẽnimi as well as a single light third of Pericles may indicate that they were making coins for use in the Xanthos valley, possibly even minting there very briefly. See generally ibid., pp. 23–5.

111 Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 102–4Google Scholar; Six, , RN, 4 (1886), pp. 429–31Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Akṣit, O., Likya Tarihi, Istanbul, 1967, pp. 119–21Google Scholar; Borchhardt, , IstMitt, 17 (1967), pp. 165–6Google Scholar; AA, 1970, pp. 386–9Google Scholar; Bauskulptur, pp. 99–108. Pericles restruck a coin of Evagoras I of Cyprus (411–374) which simply confirms the obvious: Kraay, C. M., Schweizer Münzblätter, 13–14, (55) (1964), p. 136Google Scholar.

112 TAM I, 29Google Scholar. 7. He appears also to be mentioned in TAM I, 11Google Scholar. See Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 10–11Google Scholar. Jenkins, , NC, 19 (1959), p. 35Google Scholar, note 1, wished to put Artumpara earlier in the century but Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), pp. 73–4Google Scholar, has shown that he must be dated ca. 380 and later.

113 Babelon, , Traité, II. 2, Nos. 388–9 bisGoogle Scholar; SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4183; Forrer, , The Weber Collection, II. 2, p. 551, No. 72331Google Scholar; H. Hill, CatCoinsBM, Lycia, No. 111; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 27Google Scholar.

114 Atlan, S., “Eine in Side geprägte lykische Münze”, Anatolia, 3 (1958), pp. 89–95Google Scholar. Her interpretation of the evidence has met with wide acceptance: Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 10Google Scholar and note 1; Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), pp. 73–4Google Scholar; Borchhardt, , IstMitt, 17 (1967), p. 165Google Scholar; Bauskulptur, pp. 100–2, 104–5.

115 SNG: v. Aulock, No. 4184, pl. 137; Mørkholm, and Neumann, , Nachrichten, p. 31Google Scholar.

116 TAM I, 104Google Scholar. For the reading see Neumann, , HbOr, I. 2, 1–2, 2, p. 391Google Scholar.

117 Jacoby, , FGrHist, No. 115, F 103, 17Google Scholar. Cf. Borchhardt, , IstMitt, 17 (1967), p. 166Google Scholar; AA, 1970, pp. 386–8Google Scholar. Furtwängler, A., AZ, 40 (1882), col. 359Google Scholar, doubted whether this incident could be dated to the fourth century and preferred the late fifth, a position no longer tenable. A date in the mid to late 370's has been favoured by many scholars: Urlichs, , Verhandlungen, p. 65Google Scholar; Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 102–4Google Scholar, especially note 1, p. 103; and most recently Jameson, S., RE, Supplementband 13Google Scholar, s.v. Lykia, col. 274, who gives the date as 372! Meyer, , GdA, V 5, p. 310Google Scholar, appears to date the sack of Telmessos and the defeat of Artumpara together but also quite early, although he gives no specific date. Jenkins, , NC, 19 (1959), pp. 39–40Google Scholar, questions whether Pericles was not from the beginning ruler of all Lycia and captured only Telmessos. However, Mørkholm, , JNG, 14 (1964), p. 75Google Scholar, rejects the attribution of the Lion Scalp/Triskeles coins to Xanthos which is the basis of Jenkin's thesis. Cf. the interesting chronology worked out by Thompson, M., SNG: The Burton Y. Berry Collection, New York, 1961Google Scholar, text to Nos. 1187–9 (pl. 44). Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 (1971), p. 13Google Scholar, note 2, do not accept her dielink which is the basis of her sequence.

118 Smith, A. H., A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, London, 1900, II, No. 950, pp. 46–52Google Scholar; Demargne, , FdX, V, pp. 61–87, pls. XXV–XXX, 27–45Google Scholar; TAM I, 40dGoogle Scholar, restored by Imbert, J., “Some Results of Prof. Benndorf's Last Visit to Lycia”, BOR, 1 (1894), p. 163Google Scholar; Laroche, , FdX, V, p. 139Google Scholar. G. Neumann's translation has been published by Borchhardt, , Colloque, p. 11Google Scholar. Porto Sevedo is now called Bayındır Liman. See Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), pp. 281, 283Google Scholar. The inscription there is TAM I, 61Google Scholar.

119 RE, s.v. Lydia, col. 2177 (Keil, 1927); Supplementband 3, s.v. Autophradates, col. 190 (Stähelin, 1918). Judeich, , Kleinasiatische Studien, pp. 85–100Google Scholar, using only Xen., Hell. 4. 8. 17Google Scholar and Diodorus 14. 99. 1, believed Struthas to have been not only satrap of Lydia but also Karaunos. This was refuted by an inscription from Miletos: Knackfuss, H., Milet, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, I, 2: Das Rathaus von Milet, Berlin, 1908, No. 9, pp. 112–14Google Scholar, lines 29–30; SIG, I3, No. 134. This names Struthas as satrap of Ionia only. Cf. Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2 (Berlin—Leipzig, 1923 [1967]), pp. 137–8Google Scholar.

120 Theopompos: Jacoby, , FGrHist, No. 115, F 103, 4Google Scholar; Diodorus 14. 98. 3–4 omits Autophradates, naming only Hecatomnus. See Meyer, , GdA, V 5 (Darmstadt, 1969), pp. 247Google Scholar and note 2, 255; Olmstead, , History, pp. 390–1Google Scholar. Olmstead's addition of Lycia to Autophradates' direct control at this time must be based on his high date for the Payava Sarcophagus on which see note 118. See further Beloch, , GrGe2, pp. 135, 137–8Google Scholar.

121 Haussoullier, B., RevPhil, 23 (1899), p. 155Google Scholar note 1; Robert, L., Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l'Asie Mineure, Paris, 1937, pp. 571–2Google Scholar; Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa, I: Les inscriptions grecques, Paris, 1945, p. 100Google Scholar; Bockisch, G., “Die Karer und ihre Dynasten”, Klio, 51 (1969), p. 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crampa, J., Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches, III. 2: The Greek Inscriptions, Part II: 13–133, Stockholm, 1972, p. 7Google Scholar.

122 There has been some question about the meaning of the title satrap for the Hecatomnids. No Greek source uses it; in place of satrap the Hecatomnids are called tyrant, dynast, etc.: Bockisch, , Klio, 51 (1969), p. 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Robert, , Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri, p. 101Google Scholar and Crampa, , Labraunda, III, 2. 2, p. 6Google Scholar note 4, argue that the title satrap is used in inscriptions in Caria only for chronological purposes and its frequent omission does not relate to the apparent ignorance of the Greek sources of the title in the Hecatomnid family. See also Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2, pp. 137–8, 141–5Google Scholar. The title “satrap of Lycia” occurs in TAM I, 44 b 26Google Scholar and the Letoon trilingual: see above note 72. On the basis of these it seems possible to consider the title of satrap as a general governorship dependent on the superior Persian administration. In the case of Maussollus the evidence shows that he had great personal freedom to conduct both internal and foreign affairs: Bockisch, , Klio, 51 (1969), pp. 143–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Yet this does not mean that he held a position comparable to that of his Persian colleagues with the title satrap. Rather, it is more likely that he served as a sub-satrap in the Persian administration with certain freedoms as a local ruler apart from the administration of the Empire. Cf. Mayhofer, C., “Kleinasien zwischen Agonie des Perserreiches und hellenistischem Frühling”, AAWW, 112 (1975), pp. 279–80Google Scholar; Meyer, , GdA, V 5, p. 247Google Scholar; and particularly Dandamayev in Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte, pp. 21:33; and Lloyd, W. W., Xanthian Marbles: The Nereid Monument, London, 1845, pp. 30–2Google Scholar. It must be noted that when Pixodarus died in 334 (Arrian Anab. 1. 23. 7–8) or possibly before (Strabo 14. 2. 17), Orontobates took over Caria for the king. Strabo specifically calls him a satrap. Given the approach of Alexander, it is understandable that Caria should be under a high Persian official rather than a local dynast. Strabo's use of the word satrap suggests that there was a real, legal distinction between satrap-dynast and satrap-envoy of the king.

123 Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2, pp. 135–6Google Scholar; RE, s.v. Lydia, col. 2177 (Keil); Olmstead, , History, pp. 394, 400–1Google Scholar. Meyer, , GdA, V 5, p. 305Google Scholar and note 1, places the stratagem recorded by Polyaenus 7. 27. 2 in the 380's, and Sherman, C. L. in the Loeb edition of Diodorus (1962), VII, p. 205Google Scholar, note 3, states that his power was only curtailed. Diodorus 14. 110. 1–5; 15. 2. 203, 8. 2–9. 1, records only Orontes and Tiribazos as commanders in the latter part of the war against Evagoras. He, however, so frequently omits Autophradates from his account (see note 120) and confuses him with Artabazos (15. 91. 2 ff; see RE, Supplementband 3, s.v. Autophradates, col. 190 [Stähelin]; Meyer, , GdA, V 5, p. 474, note 3Google Scholar). Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2, note 1 on pp. 255–6Google Scholar, does not agree that Diodorus has misidentified Artabazos here. Whether simply removed from his command against Evagoras or from his satrapy altogether, all commentators agree that he was active in Sardis again ca. 380 to which time in his career the action recorded by Nepos Datames 2. 1 is to be dated.

124 Judeich, , Kleinasiatische Studien, pp. 193–209Google Scholar; Meyer, , GdA, V 5, pp. 441–6, 473–7Google Scholar; Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2, pp. 254–7Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, pp. 412–16Google Scholar.

125 Diodorus 15.90.3.

126 Beloch, , GrGe2, III. 2, p. 136Google Scholar; RE, s.v. Lydia, cols. 2177 (Keil); Supplementband 3, s.v. Autophradates, col. 190 (Stähelin).

127 See above note 122. This question is particularly important for determining the position of Lycia in the Persian administration of this period.

128 See above note 119, and Meyer, , GdA, V 5, p. 247Google Scholar.

129 Xen., Hell. 1. 4. 3Google Scholar; 3. 2. 13. Tissaphernes had controlled the seaboard in his first period as satrap of Lydia: Thuc. 8.5.4; Diodorus 13. 36. 5 (confusing him with Pharnabazos).

130 Cf. Borchhardt's suggestion that the two archontes of the Letoon trilingual represent governors of western (Xanthos) and eastern (Limyra) Lycia, : Festschrift Dörner, pp. 184, 191Google Scholar. This would represent, if my interpretation of the roles of Artumpar a and Mithrapata is correct, a return to a state of affairs existing before the Satraps' Revolt.

131 This description of events is also subscribed to generally by Metzger, , CRAI (1974), pp. 87–8Google Scholar, and FdX, VI, pp. 34–5Google Scholar. The sequence here proposed is recommended by the fact that Diodorus 15. 90. 3 records the revolt of the Lycians at a time very near the end of the rebellion. It is also suggested by the fact that although Pericles ruled all Lycia, he does not appear to have minted coins on the light standard of western Lycia and therefore may have ruled the area only briefly. Perhaps the reduced weight coinage of Trbbẽnimi does belong to this period (Olçay, and Mørkholm, , NC, 11 [1971], p. 10Google Scholar) and the lone light coin of Pericles himself (ibid., p. 16). Mørkholm points out, however, pp. 23–5, that other reasons may be found for these light coins, especially because their weight is not regular. It should also be noted here that Jenkins, , NC, 19 (1959), pp. 39–40Google Scholar, saw the possibility of attributing some of Mithrapata's coins to Xanthos. Although the weight standard is wrong for these coins to have been struck in the west, the obverse type of lion forepart does agree with Babelon, , Traité, II. 2, Nos. 501–3, pl. 104, 21–3Google Scholar, and the weight of these (stater No. 501 — 8·10 g.) and one legend arn, show them to be from Xanthos. The three coins might, then, be Mithrapata's western issue, although it need not follow that his heavy coins of similar type were also struck in the west as Jenkins suggested.

132 Cf. Borchhardt, , AA, 1968, pp. 198–9Google Scholar. The reconstruction here presented relies almost totally on circumstantial evidence as Jenkins, , NC, 19 (1959), p. 38Google Scholar, and Mildenberg, , Congresso internazionale di numismatica, Roma, 1961, Atti, II, p. 48Google Scholar, note. The amount of this is nevertheless great. See Neumann, , Die Sprache, 13 (1967), p. 32Google Scholar, on the relationship of the construction of the name Payava to Pamphylian-Greek names. Under the circumstances of the Satraps' Revolt the fluidity of generals passing from province to province for and against the King was typical as never before. The fact that Pericles was at war with Phaselis (Polyaenus 5. 42) and its ally, Maussollus, need not exclude the role here given to Payava. Nothing is heard of Maussollus' victory and he may have been given the already conquered province after the revolt. Cf. Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 102–6Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 13–14Google Scholar. The trilingual inscription from the Letoon causes certain problems in the understanding of the sequence of events after the Satraps' Revolt. On this, see below.

133 Borchhardt, , IstMitt, 17 (1967), p. 166Google Scholar; Austin, R. P., “Athens and the Satraps' Revolt”, JHS 64 (1944), pp. 98–100Google Scholar; Todd, M. N.,,A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford, 1962, II, No. 139, pp. 116–19Google Scholar. Moysey, R. A., “The Date of the Strata of Sidon Decree (IG II2 141)”, AJAH, 1 (1976), pp. 182–6Google Scholar, dates the inscription earlier (364) than Austin (360) but this does not change the image of the political relations at this time. On the period generally see Meyer, , GdA, V 5, pp. 441–6, 473–8Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, pp. 411–22Google Scholar. In about 380 Isocrates Panegyricus 161 mentions in one breath Egypt, Cyprus, Phoenicia, Syria and Lycia. The situation in 370–60 was even better described by this account of revolt than that to which Isocrates was referring.

134 Borchhardt, Bauskulptur, passim; Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), p. 342 No. 56Google Scholar.

135 Cf. Demargne, P., RArch (1979), pp. 295–6Google Scholar; Childs, , RArch (1976), p. 314Google Scholar.

136 Demargne, , FdX, V, pp. 61–87, 97–103, pls. 27–45, 54–7Google Scholar; Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), p. 328Google Scholar Nos. 18, 19.

137 Sommer, Dupont, FdX, VI, pp. 136, 137–8Google Scholar (lines 1/2); CRAI (1974), pp. 136–7, 138Google Scholar; Mayrhofer, , AAWW, 112 (1975), p. 276Google Scholar; Carruba, , SMEA, 18 (1977), pp. 276–7Google Scholar.

138 FdX, VI, pp. 32–3Google Scholar (Metzger), 53, 58, 60, 76 (Laroche), 136, 137, 141 (Dupont Sommer).

139 FdX, VI, pp. 34Google Scholar (Metzger), 55 (Laroche), 123, 165–6 (Dupont Sommer); Mayrhofer, , AAWW, 112 (1975), p. 281Google Scholar.

140 Bockisch, , Klio, 51 (1969), pp. 143–71, 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar (table).

141 Badian, E., “A Document of Artaxerxes IV?”, in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory, Studies Presented to Fritz Schachermeyer, ed. Kinzl, K. H., Berlin, 1977, pp. 40–50Google Scholar. Accepted by Robert, L., REG, 90 (1977), p. 413Google Scholar (BE No. 472), and Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), pp. 116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Borchhardt, , Festschrift Dörner, p. 183Google Scholar, has accepted the excavators' position which is strongly defended in FdX, VI, pp. 138, 166Google Scholar with note 1; cf. p. 55 and note 36 (Laroche).

142 The traditional view before the discovery of the trilingual from the Letoon and unaffected by it is given by Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 104–6Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, p. 425Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, pp. 13–14Google Scholar. See [Aristotle] Oeconomica 2. ii. 14 on Condalus' tax on the Lycians under Maussollus. It was quite a natural result of Maussollus' new power that Lycia should be joined to Caria since the two were almost certainly a single administrative unit when Caria was listed as a satrapy in the sixth and fifth centuries.

143 Strabo 14. 2. 17 states that Orontobates was made co-satrap with Pixodarus before his death. From Arrian, Anab. 1. 23. 7–8Google Scholar it seems that Orontobates succeeded Pixodarus after his death. See above note 122 and Crampa, , Labraunda, III, 2. 2, p. 8Google Scholar on No. 42, lines 8–9.

144 Arrian, Anab. 1. 24. 3–6Google Scholar; Plutarch, Alex. 17. 2–3Google Scholar. See generally Le Roy, C., “Alexandre a Xanthos”, Colloque, pp. 51–62Google Scholar.

145 Olmstead, , History, p. 426Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , Population, p. 8Google Scholar; Neumann, G., Die Sprache, 8 (1962), p. 203Google Scholar. Zahle, , JdI, 94 (1979), p. 320Google Scholar, dates only four sculptured monuments 350 or later: his catalogue numbers 4 (Telmessos, City Sarcophagus), 9 (Tlos, Izraza Monument), 19 (Xanthos, Dancing Women Sarcophagus), 49 (Myra, Lion/Bull Tomb). At least the first three show a distinct weakening of classical Greek models in favour of more symbolic funerary motifs which run counter to the otherwise clear official Hellenization of Lycia. See generally Childs, , The City-Reliefs of Lycia, p. 103Google Scholar.

146 Arrian, Anab. 1. 24. 3–6Google Scholar.

147 See discussion above.

148 Anab. 1. 24. 5Google Scholar.

149 Bean, G. E., “Journeys in Northern Lycia, 1965–67”, TAM, Ergänzungsbände, Nr. 4, DenkschrWien, 104 (1971), No. 38, pp. 22–3Google Scholar; Bryce, , JRH, 10 (1978–1979), note 57 on p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar, mentions another inscription of Pericles in Milyas from Kızılca now published by Neumann, , DenkschrWien, 135 (1979), N314, pp. 36–8Google Scholar.

150 14. 3. 9. Pericles is reported by Polyaenos 5.42 to have laid siege to Phaselis. It is not recorded whether he was successful. If Phaselis was Lycian when Alexander arrived, it is likely that Pericles was responsible for its acquisition although Maussollus may have incorporated it in the 350's.

151 Arrian, Anab. 3. 6. 6Google Scholar; cf. Treuber, , Geschichte, pp. 137–8Google Scholar; Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, Munich, 1926, I, p. 256Google Scholar (d). The evidence for including Pisidia is extremely slight.

152 Arrian, Anab. 1. 26. 1–2Google Scholar; Strabo 14. 3. 9; Plutarch, Alex. 17. 2–4Google Scholar.

153 See above note 6, for Xerxes. For the Lycians with Alexander before Tyre: Arrian, Anab. 2. 20. 2Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, p. 506Google Scholar.

154 Quintus Curtius 5. 4. 10–13, 7. 12; Diodorus 17. 68. 3–7; Plutarch, Alex. 37. 1Google Scholar; Olmstead, , History, p. 159Google Scholar. Cf. Arrian, Anab. 3. 18. 1–17Google Scholar who merely speaks of some of the prisoners without mentioning Lycians in particular.

155 TAM I, 67Google Scholar; 83, 103; 104; 132; 133.