T H E LYCIANS

A Study of Lycian History and Civilisation

to the Conquest of Alexander the Great
I-II
by
TREVOR R. BRYCE
AND
JAN ZAHLE

Dedicated to the memory of

Otto Merkholm

THE

LYCIANS

- VOLUME

TREVOR R. BRYCE

The Lycians in Literary and

Epigraphic Sources

MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS

COPENHAGEN 1986

T H E LYCIANS
I

 Museum Tusculanum Press 1986

Camera-ready manuscript: The University
of New England, Armidale.
Printed in Denmark
by Special-Trykkeriet Viborg a-s
Cover: Kjeld Kjeldsen
ISBN 87-7289-023-1

Contents

Introduction

VII

Proposed contents of vol. II

XI

General Abbreviations

XII

Abbreviations of Literary References

XIV

Map of Lycia

XVI

Chapter 1: The Anatolian Predecessors of the Lycians

Chapter 2: The Early Lycians and Greek Literary Tradition

11

Chapter 3: The Inscriptions and the Lycian Language

42

Chapter 4: The Historical Background

99

Chapter 5: Customs and Institutions

115

Chapter 6: Gods and Oracles

172

Chapter 7: Lycia - The Greco-Roman View

203

Registers of Literary References to Lycia

Register I: Authors

216

Register II: Place names

229

Register III: Personal names

243

Epigraphic Index

253

Bibliography

256

Introduction

This book is the first of a projected 2-volume account of the ancient

Lycians. The Lycian civilisation has proved, and is continuing to prove, a
rich field of investigation for historians, archaeologists, numismatists,
and philologists alike. It is a civilisation with many distinctive features,
as illustrated by its abundant archaeological remains, particularly the
impressive funerary architecture of many of its cities, by its social
customs

and institutions,

attested

in both literary

and

epigraphic

sources, by its numerous coin issues, amongst the most varied ever
produced in Asia Minor, and by its peculiar language, which today is only
partly understood.
Scholarly

interest

in

Lycla

is

reflected

in a wide

range

of

publications, which have appeared with increasing frequency in the last

two decades.

Historical, archaeological, numismatic, and philological

studies

all

have

contributed

important

new

information

to

our

understanding of the Lycian people and their place within the broad
context of the Near Eastern and Greco-Roman civilisations of the 1st
millennium B.C.

Indeed Lycia provided an important point of contact

between the cultural and social traditions of the Near Eastern world on
the one hand and those of the Greek and Roman world on the other.
Clearly Lycian studies have much to contribute to the fields of Near
Eastern and Classical scholarship alike.
In view of the advances that have been made in Lycian research and
fieldwork in recent years, the time is appropriate to gather together the
information now available to us in a comprehensive treatment of Lycian
history and civilisation. No such treatment has in fact been undertaken
since the publication of Treuber's Geschichte

der Lykier in 1887.

The present study is a joint undertaking by T.R. Bryce and J. Zahle.

However, while the authors have collaborated closely on all aspects of
the

study,

they

are

taking

individual responsibility

for the

final

preparation and presentation of specific sections of the study. Bryce is

primarily responsible for Part 1 (vol. I), which concentrates on literary
and epigraphic material.

Zahle will be primarily responsible for Part 2

VIII
(to appear in vol. II), which will deal with archaeological and numismatic
source material, and with the physical features of the country of Lycia.
Part 3 (also to appear in vol. II), which will deal with the Lycian ruling
class and aspects of Lycian culture, will be written jointly by both
authors.
It is our intention that vol. II will appear within one to two years of
the publication of vol. I.
Our study

of

Lycia will

extend

from the

Late

Bronze

Age

antecedents of the Lycian population to the late 4th century B.C. This
terminal point has been chosen advisedly. Our concern will be primarily
with the indigenous civilisation of Lycia and the sources of information
on which our knowledge of this civilisation is based. By the last decades
of the 4th century several of the most important of these sources,
including the local coinage, the epichoric inscriptions, and the rock-cut
tomb facades, have ceased, reflecting in large measure the increase in
foreign

influence

upon

the

country,

both

political

and

cultural,

throughout the 4th century.

Certainly foreign influence in Lycia, particularly Persian and Greek
influence, is already evident in the late 6th century; and from the late
5th century Greek Influence starts to become very marked indeed. Yet
elements of the indigenous civilisation still remain explicit in our sources
until the end of the period of the epichoric inscriptions, some time
between

Alexander's

conquest

and

the

end

of

the

4th

century.

Undoubtedly a number of indigenous elements persisted in later times,

and we shall have cause to refer to some of these in our study. But the
lack of source material relating to the indigenous population from the
late

4th century onwards,

and the

corresponding Increase, in the

centuries which followed, of source material which is Greek or Roman in

character, clearly reflect the progressive Hellenisation and subsequently
the Romanisatlon of Lycia as the country was drawn increasingly within
the sphere of the Greco-Roman world.
We shall on a number of occasions make reference to aspects of
Lycian civilisation in later times, particularly in the Roman imperial
period for which we have an abundance of source material.

But a

detailed treatment of this period falls outside the scope of the present
study.

IX
Our aim in writing these volumes is partly to provide a survey of the
information currently available on the Lycians in the period we have
specified.

We hope that this survey will provide a useful source of

reference both for scholars and students with a general interest in Lycia
as well as for those more deeply immersed in Lycian studies. Of course
much of the material with which we shall be dealing is open to different
interpretations

and conclusions.

In such cases we shall be putting

forward a number of proposals of our own, which we hope will, in some

instances

at

least,

provide

new

insights

into

Lycian history

civilisation.

T.R. Bryce - J. Zahle

and

Acknowledgments

for

vol.

I wish to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, the assistance of a number

of persons and institutions whose support has greatly facilitated the
research and preparation of material for vol. I. My particular thanks are
due to The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, for the excellent facilities
it provided during the preparation of the first draft.
The University of Queensland for the Special Project Grant it provided
to assist with research and travel costs.
The University of New England for providing the facilities for the
preparation of the camera-ready copy.
Mrs Noelene Kachel, Miss Elisabeth Macdonald, Mrs Jenny Post for
typing

the

camera-ready

copy.

Ms.

Helen

Murray

for

research

assistance.
Finally I give my warmest thanks to my friend and co-author Dr Jan
Zahle for his probing criticisms and many excellent suggestions. These
have been of inestimable value to me in the preparation of vol. I. I must
alone, however, bear the responsibility for any shortcomings this volume
may have.

T. R. Bryce

XI
Proposed Contents of Vol. II
(subject to alteration)
Volume H
Part

Chapter 1: A Survey of Discoveries: Travellers and Scholars

Chapter 2: The Land and its Cities
Chapter 3: The Tombs
Chapter 4: The Reliefs
Chapter 5: The Coinage
Part

2:

Chapter 6: The Ruling Class

Chapter 7: Lycian Culture
Bibliography
General Index

XII

General Abbreviations
Act. Arch. - Acta Archaeologica
Af0 - Archiv fr Orientforschung
A JA - American Journal of Archaeology
AJP - American Journal of Philology
AO - Archiv Orientalni
AS - Anatolian Studies
ATL - Meritt B.D., Wade-Gery H.T., McGregor M.F., The
Tribute

Lists,

Athenian

vol. I, Harvard, 1939, vol. II, Princeton, 1949, vol.

Ill, Princeton, 1950

BiOr - Blbliotheca Orientalis
BOR - The Babylonian and Oriental Record
BSL - Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris
BzN - Hamburger Beitrge zur Numismatik
CAH - Cambridge Ancient History
CIG - Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum
CR AI - Comptes rendus de l'Acadmie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres
CTH - Laroche E., Catalogue

des textes

EA - Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln,

hittites,

Paris, 1971

Leipzig, 1915

FGH - Mller C. & T., Fragmenta Historicorum

Graecorum,

Paris, 1841-70
FHG - Jacoby F., Die Fragmente

der Griechischen

Historiker,

Berlin/Leiden, 1923 et seq.

Ist. Mitt. - Istanbuler Mitteilungen
JCS - Journal of Cuneiform Studies
J DAI - Jahrbuch des deutschen archologischen Instituts
JESHO - Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JHS - Journal of Hellenic Studies
JNES - Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNG - Jahrbuch fr Numismatik und Geldgeschichte
JO AI - Jahresheften des sterreichischen archologischen Institutes
KBo - Keilscrifttexte aus Boghazki
K1F - Kleinasiatische Forschungen, Weimar, 1927-30
KUB - Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazki

XIII
M - Mrirkhlm O. and Neumann G., Die lyklsche

Mnzlegenden-,

Gttingen, 1978
MSL - Mmoires de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris
MVA G - Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen
Gesellschaft
NC - Numismatic Chronicle
OGIS - Dittenberger W., Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
RA - Revue archologique
RE - Pauly-Wissowa- Kroll, Realencyclopadie
RHA - Revue hittite et asianique
RIL - Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo, Scienze e Lettere
RS - Mission de Ras Shamra
SE G - Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SMEA - Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
TAD - Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi
TAM II - Tituli Asiae Minoris: Tituli Lyciae Unguis Graeca et
Latina conscripti
TL - Tituli Asiae Minoris: Tituli Lyciae lingua Lycia
conscripti
ZDMG - Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft

XIV
Abbreviations of Literary References
Aelian, nat. an. - de natura animalium
var. - varia historia
Antoninus Liberalis, m e t . - metamorphoses
Apollodoros, bib. - bibliotheca
epit. - epitome
Appian, bell. civ. - bella civilia
Mith. - Mithridates
Syr. - Syriac a
Aristotle, hist. an. - historia animalium
oecon. - oeconomica
Arrian, anab. - anabasis Alexandri
Athenaeus, deip. - deipnosophistae
Augustine, civ. D. - de civitate Dei
Cicero, Att. - e pis tula e ad Atticum
fam. - epistulae ad familires
div. - de divinatione
leg. agr. - de lege agraria
Verr. - in Verrem actio
Clement, protr. - protrepticus
Constantine Porphyrogenltus, t h e m . - de thematibus
Dioscorides Pedanius, m a t . med. - de m a t e r i a medica
Diog. Laert. - Diogenes Laertios
Euripides, Alk. - Alkestis
Rhes. - Rhesus
Sthen. - Stheneboea
Eustathius, Dion. Perieg. - Dionysius Periegetes
Hesiod, theog. - theogonla
Hierokles, syne cd. - synecdemos
Homer, I I . - Iliad
Od. - Odyssey
Horace, carm. - carmina (odes)
Hyginus, fab. - fabula e
Isocrates, paneg. - panegyricus
Justin, hist. phil. - historiae Philippicae
Kallimachos, hym. - hymnl
Luc an, bell. civ. - bellum civile
Lucian, bis accus. - bis accusatus
dial. mer. - dialog! meretricum
dial. mort. - dialogi mortuorum
Macrobius, sat. - saturnalia
Maximus Tyrius, diss. - dissertationes
Mela (Pomponius), chor. - de chorographla
Menander, Asp. - Aspis

XV
Ovid, met. - metamorphoses
Parthenius, erot. - erotica pathemata
Photius, bib. - bibliotheca
Pindar, Isthm. - Isthmian (odes)
01. - Olympian Codes)
Pliny, nat. - naturalis historia
Plutarch, Alex, - Alexander
Brut. - Brutus
consol. Apoll. - consolatio ad Apollonium
def. orac. - de defectu oraculorum
Kim. - Kimon
mul. virt. - de mulierum virtute
sol. an. - de sollertia animalium
Polyaenus, strat. - strategemata
Probus, Verg. Georg. - comm. on Vergil's Georgics
Seneca, nat. quaest. - naturales quaestiones
Servius, Verg. Aen. - comm. on Vergil's Aeneid
Sophokles, El, - Elektra
Oed. - Oedipus Tyrannus
Statius, Theb. - Thebaid
Stobaeus, flor. - florilegium
Suetonius, Claud. - Claudius
Ves. - Vespasian
Theodoretus, Graec. aff.-cur. - Graecarum affectionum curatio
Theophrastus, hist, plant. - historia plant arum
Timachidas, Lind, chron. - Lindian Temple Chronicle, ed.
C. Blinkenberg, 1915/1941
Vergil, Aen. - Aeneid
Zenobius, cent. - centuria

1 THE ANATOLIAN PREDECESSORS OF THE LYCIANS

The foreign
countries
made a conspiracy
In
their
islands.
All
at once the lands
were removed and
scattered
in the fray.
No land could stand
before
their arms, from Hatti,
Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and
Alashiya on, being cut off at [one time].
A camp [was
set up] in one place
in Amor.
They desolated
its
people,
and its
land was like
that which has
never
come into
being.
In these words the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses III refers to the
devastation inflicted on the Near Eastern world by the so-called Sea
Peoples in the first decades of the 12th century B.C. Whoever these Sea
2
Peoples may have been, and however much or however little they may
have been responsible for the destructions to which Ramesses refers,
there can be no doubt that the end of the Late Bronze Age in the Near
East

was

marked

by

cataclysmic

upheavals,

the

collapse

and

disappearance of many of the old centres of power, and the break-up of

many long-established patterns of settlement.

What happened to the

Late Bronze Age populations? If they were in fact displaced from their
homelands, where did they resettle? What relationships did they have to
the peoples who emerged in the Near East during the 1st millennium.
B.C.?
These are some of the questions with which we must concern
ourselves in considering the origins and ethnic relationships of the Lycian
people, who had settled in the south-west corner of Anatolia, between
Caria to the north west and Pamphylia to the north east, by the early 1st
millennium B.C. And there are further questions we have to consider
about the Lycians themselves. Why were they so called? When did they
first arrive in the region which came to bear their name? Why did they
choose to settle in this region?
If we turn first to the material remains of Lycia, we find that at
present there is no conclusive evidence for settlement in the country

1. Translated
by J.A. Wilson in Prltchard,
1969,
2. For a recent
discussion
of the Sea Peoples,
1978.

262.
see

Sandars,

The

prior to the early 1st millennium.

Lycians
3

Indeed the earliest settlement so far

discovered in Lycia, the city of Xanthos, appears not to date back before
the end of the 8th century (to be discussed in vol. II). Can we conclude
from this that Lycia was uninhabited before the 1st millennium?
We might argue that if there had been Bronze Age settlement in the
country, at least some evidence of it would have come to light by now.
Yet archaeological exploration of Lycia has been far from exhaustive;
and even if no further material evidence is forthcoming, we cannot
exclude the possibility that there were population groups inhabiting the
region during the Bronze Age whose material civilisation was too fragile
to leave any detectable trace in the archaeological record.
well

have

been

semi-nomadic

so

if

the

in character.

groups

in question were

This may

nomadic

or

For the moment, we should leave our

options open, and reconsider the matter, in an archaeological context, in

vol. II.
Certainly our Greek literary sources suggest that settlement in the
country dates back well before the period in which archaeological
evidence first comes to light. And if we can attach any credence to the
traditions recorded in these sources, the early settlers in Lycia may have
had close links with Crete, and perhaps also with mainland Greece
(discussed

below

in

Chapter

2).

Yet

the

language

which

their

descendants used in the rock-cut inscriptions of the late 5th and the 4th
centuries B.C. puts the Lycians decidedly within an Anatolian context.
From recent linguistic studies it is clear that the Lycian language is
4
closely connected with Luwian, an Indo-European language related to

3. I am excluding
from consideration
here the Early Bronze Age
site
of Karatas-Semayuk
in the Elmall plain,
excavated
by
Professor
Mel link.
(Detailed
reports
of the
excavations
appear in AJA from 1964 (vol. 68) onwards.)
A small amount
of Middle Bronze Age material
was uncovered on the
site,
but nothing at all dating
to the Late Bronze Age.
In any
case the Elmali plain was almost certainly
not regarded
as
part of Lycia in historical
times, although a small number
of rock-cut
tombs of Lycian type were constructed
on the
fringes
of the
plain.
4. This was first
effectively
demonstrated
by Tritsch,
19SO,
494-518.
A detailed
study
of the relationship
between
Luwian and Lycian was subsequently
made by Laroche in a
series
of articles
appearing in BSL: 1957-58, 259-97; 1960,
155-85; 1967,
46-64.

The Anatolian

Predecessors

of the Lycians

Hittite and widely spoken in western and south-eastern Anatolia during

the Late Bronze Age. On linguistic grounds, then, we have a strong case
for placing at least some of the antecedents of the Lycians amongst the
Late Bronze Age peoples of western Anatolia.
In particular, scholars have long assumed that the Lycians were
closely related to the Lukka people, who figure in a number of Late
Bronze Age Hittite and Egyptian texts, and were almost certainly part of
the

Luwian

speaking

population

groups

of

western

Anatolia.

Consequently in any discussion of the Anatolian predecessors of the

Lycians, it is a matter of some importance to consider who precisely the
Lukka people were, and where they belonged within the political and
geographical context of the 2nd millennium B.C. .
From various references to Lukka in the Hittite texts (a full list of
references appears at the end of this chapter), it clear that the people
designated by this name played a small, but nonetheless significant role
in the political affairs of the period. Unfortunately we do not have any
documents which deal primarily or specifically with the Lukka people;
our knowledge of them depends entirely on a number of incidental
references in Hittite treaties, letters, historical records, and religious
texts, together with several references to Lukka in Egyptian documents.
But in spite of such meagre evidence, we do have enough to indicate
something of the nature of the Lukka communities and the people who
belonged to them.
During the Late Bronze Age, western Anatolia was dominated by a
series of kingdoms known collectively as the Arzawa lands.

These

kingdoms were mder the control of local rulers who were bound by
treaties of vassalhood to the Hittite king in Hattusa.

However in

addition to the Arzawa lands, a number of smaller countries were also

5. On the possible
connection
between
the words Lukka and
Luwiya, see Laroche, 1976, 18.
6. For a more detailed
discussion
of the Lukka people,
see
Bryce,
1979b.
7. A recent
comprehensive
treatment
of the Arzawa lands
is
given by Heinhold-Krahmer,
1977.
For a general
discussion
of the nature
and scope of Hittite
treaties
with
vassal
states,
see Pirenne,
1950.
On the status
of the
various
Hittite
subject
states,
see Goetze, 1957,
95-109.

The

Lycians

located in western Anatolia. For the most part they too were subject to
Hittite authority, although they ranked well below the major vassal
kingdoms in terms of their military and political importance. In many
cases

they

were

communities

probably not

kingdoms

which had no significant

as

degree

such,

but

groups

of

overall

of

political

coherence.
Lukka was a case in point. In no sense was it a coherent political
entity; we know of no kings of Lukka, no treaties of vassalhood between
Lukka and the Hittite king, and no one person or city could speak or act
on behalf of Lukka as a whole. In other words, the term Lukka, or Lukka
o

lands,

was used not in reference to a state with a defined political

organisation, but rather to a conglomerate of independent communities,

presumably with close ethnic affinities but with no real sense of a
common political identity.
The relationship between these communities and the Hittites was a
tenuous one, at best. While from time to time they paid tribute to the
Hittite kings during the period of the New Kingdom (c. 1460-1180 B.C),
the Hittite texts clearly indicate that the Lukka people were often
fractious,

rebellious,

insurrectionists.

and susceptible

to

Indeed the first likely

the

influence

of

foreign

reference to Lukka in the

Hittite texts places it in an anti-Hittite alliance of 22 countries - the

so-called

Assuwan

Confederacy,

which

did

battle

with

and

was

ultimately defeated by the Hittite king Tudhaliya I early in the New

9
Kingdom (mid 15th century B.C.)
8. As Houwink ten Cate points
out,
the plural
term
'Lukka
lands' appears to occur only once in the texts
(namely KUB
XXI 6a. 4 , a text
attributable
either
to Urhi-Tesub
or
Hat tus Hi III).
On this basis,
Houwink ten Cate
suggests
that 'before and around 1250 B.C. the term Lukka lands had
a wider
and more threatening
connotation
than
before'
(1970, 73, n. 105).
9. The rebellion
is recorded in the parallel
texts KUB XXIH 11
and 12, translated
in Garstang and Gurney, 1959,
121-23.
The text was originally
assigned
to Tudhaliya
IV, one of
the last kings of the Hittite
New Kingdom.
However, it
is
now virtually
certain
that the text belongs
to an
earlier
Tudhaliya - Tudhaliya I who reigned during the 15th
century
B.C.
For the redatlng
of a number of the Hittite
texts
from late
to early
in the New Kingdom, see (for
example)
Houwink ten Cate,
1970.

The Anatolian

Predecessors

of the Lyclans

In addition to what we find in the Hittite texts, information about

the

Lukka people

instance,

is provided by several non-Hittite sources.

For

Lukka figures amongst the Hittite allies in the Egyptian

records of the battle of Kadesh, fought between the Hittite

King

Muwatalli and the pharaoh Ramesses II in the fifth year of Ramesses'

reign (1286 or 1274 B.C.).

Presumably Lukka men took part in the

conflict as subject-allies of the Hittite king. But we cannot be entirely

certain of this.

The list of Hittite allies includes contingents from

countries which were not subject to Hittite rule - e.g. Masa, Karkisa,
Kaska - and there can be little doubt that a number of these contingents
were fighting on the Hittite side purely in a mercenary capacity.

It

may be that the Lukka contingent also fell into this category.
In other Late Bronze Age texts we learn that the Lukka people had a
sea-going capacity of some significance.

Of particular importance in

this connection is one of the letters from the Amarna archives. The
12
letter, written by the king of Alasiya (= Cyprus, or part thereof)
to the
pharaoh Akhenaton, makes reference to yearly attacks which 'people of
the Land of Lukki' had been making on Alasiyan territory:
Why does my brother speak this word to me? 'Should my
brother
not know that?'
I have not been able to do
such a thing as that while the people of the Land of
Lukki take a small (?) city
In my land year
after
year.
My brother,
you say to me: 'The people of your
land are with them. ' But I, my brother,
do not know
10. For a selection
of the extensive
secondary
literature
on
the battle
of Kadesh,
see CAH II.
23,
1975, 952.
The
battle
took place in the 5th year of Ramesses II's
reign.
Three dates
have been proposed
for
Ramesses'
year
of
accession
- 1304, 1291, and 1279 B.C.
Although the middle
one of these
is now the most widely
quoted,
several
scholars
have recently
argued for the lowest dating;
see,
e.g.
f/ente E.F. and Van Siden III C.C.,
'A Chronology of
the New Kingdom' In Studies
In Honor of George R. Hughes,
Chicago (Oriental
Institute),
1976,
217-61.
11. This Is supported
by the statement
in the Egyptian
records
that
the Hittite
king 'left
no silver
in his land,
he
stripped
it of all its possessions
and gave them to all the
foreign
countries
in order to bring them with him to
fight'
(Gardiner,
1975, 8, P50>>.
12. For a discussion
of the identification
of Alasiya
with
Cyprus, see Catling,
1975, 201-05; see also the
references
in Knapp, 1980, 44, n. 1.

The

Lyclans

that (they)
are with them.
If the people of my land
are (with
them),
then write
to me and I will
act
according
to my will.
You do not know the people
of
I have not done such a thing.
(But) if the
my land.
people of my land have done (such a thing),
then act
according
to your
will.
Now, my brother,
since
you have not sent (back) my
messenger,
a brother
of the king should
send
this
tablet.
What your messenger does will be told to me.
Further,
when in former times have your fathers
done
such a thing to my fathers?
But now, my brother,
do
13
not take this to h e a r t .
It is clear from this letter that the 'people of the Land of Lukki'
were engaged in seasonal plundering raids on Alasiyan territory, and had
now apparently extended their freebooting activities to Egypt.

In so

doing they had caused some tension in the relations between Alasiya and
Egypt; the letter was evidently written in response to accusations by
Akhenaton that Alasiyans were acting in collaboration with the Lukki
people. But for our purposes the significant point is that if these 'Lukki
people' came from Anatolian Lukka, as seems most likely, then they
were obviously seafarers sufficiently well acquainted with the eastern
Mediterranean

coastlands, and sufficiently

well equipped, to harass

coastal cities in the area with regular and successful piratical raids.
This may have an important bearing on the (likely) resettlement of some
of the Lukka people in Lycia in the late 2nd or early 1st millennium.
Lukka men also figure in the account of the Sea Peoples' onslaught
14
on Egypt during the reign of the pharaoh Merneptah (c. 1208 B.C.).
From their inclusion in Merneptah's account of the invasion, we can
again conclude that the

Lukka people had a substantial

sea-going

capacity, although this particular episode was little more than a prelude
to the main movements of Sea People which took place the following
century, as recorded by Ramesses III.
At all events, the seafaring activities of the Lukka people clearly
indicate

that

Lukka territory

conclusion confirmed by the

extended
Ugaritic

to the Anatolian coast, a

tablet RS 20.

238.

In this

document Ammurapi, the king of Ugarit, informs the Alasiyan king that
13. For the text
see Knudtzon,
19IS,
Mercer, 1939,
200-02.
14. For the text see Breasted,
1962, 243,

292-94,
sec.

579.

no.

38,

and

The Anatolian

Predecessors

of the

Lycians

he has sent his entire fleet to the waters off the coast of Lukka, at a
time when the Sea Peoples were beginning to advance south.

The

document obviously has an important bearing on the actual location of

Lukka, although it does not make clear whether the coast in question is
the Mediterranean or the

Aegean

coast.

Strategic

considerations,

however, point to the latter possibility, and Astour, (1965, 255) may well
be right in his claim that the intention in sending the Ugaritic fleet to
the Lukka coast was 'to defend the passage from the Aegean to the
Mediterranean 1 .
A further pointer to Lukka's location is the likely identification of
Millawanda/Milawata of the Hittite texts with the site of Classical
Miletos.

From several of the texts we can conclude that the region in

which a number of the Lukka communities were situated lay close and
probably adjacent to the territory of Millawanda.

In fact Millawanda

itself may have been a Lukka settlement in origin. I have suggested

elsewhere that through a process of association of place-names in
various Hittite texts, we can construct a list of the settlements which
lay within or near the territory designated as Lukka territory in these
texts (Bryce, 1974, 399-401). The settlements in question are:
Arinna
Attarimma
Dalawa

Hinduwa
Huwarsanassa
Iyalanda

Kuwalapassa
Mutamutassa
Suruta

Wallarimma
Zumanti
Zumarri

As we shall see, several of these names (notably Arinna and Dalawa)

appear to have counterparts amongst the place names of 1st millennium
Lycia.
Now if we use the Millawanda/Milawata-Miletos identification as a
starting point, and bear in mind that Millawanda and Lukka territory lay
close together, we can conclude that the main area of Lukka settlement
lay in western Caria and extended to the Aegean Sea somewhere in the

15. Ugaritica
5, 1968, no. 24,
87-88.
16. Macqueen's proposal
to locate
Millawanda and Lukka in the
north west of Anatolia
(1968, 175-76,
1975, 38 (map)),
is
in
my
view
quite
untenable.
Apart
from
other
considerations,
it would be very difficult
to explain
the
reference
to the Lukka lands in the Ugaritic
text
referred
to above if in fact Lukka was situated
in this
region.

The

Lyclans

vicinity of Miletos. At the same time, we cannot rule out the possibility
that there were enclaves of Lukka settlers in other parts of Late Bronze
Age Anatolia.

I have in fact suggested that a second group of Lukka

settlements may have been situated further east in the vicinity of what
became known as Lykaonia in the 1st millennium (Bryce, 1974, 404). But
even if this suggestion is correct, the 'western 1 Lukka communities seem
to have played the more important role in Anatolian affairs.
Very likely the western communities had some contact with the
Late Bronze Age Aegean civilisations, perhaps by way of Millawanda. As
we shall see, Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece both figure in the
literary traditions which are concerned with the origins of the 1st
millennium Lycians. There can be little doubt that these traditions are,
in part at least, authentic survivals of the Late Bronze Age, and that
Millawanda/Miletos

was

main

point

of

contact

between

the

predecessors of the Lycians and the civilisations of the Aegean world.

We shall be considering the literary traditions, and their possible
historical implications, in Chapter 2.
References to Lukka in the Late Bronze Age texts
The texts cited below refer either to Lukka as a whole, or to the
individual communities which lay within, or near, the Lukka complex.
1.

CTH 142: the Annals of Tudhaliya (I) (mid 15th cent.), translated in
Garstang and Gurney, 1959, 121-23. Ljugga (= Lukka) is the likely
restoration of the first name in the list of countries constituting the
anti-Hittite

'Assuwan Confederacy'

(see, most recently,

Bryce,

1979b, 3, n. 9).
2.

CTH 47: the Indictment of Madduwatta (late 15th cent.), translated

in Goetze, 1968, Bryce, 1982b, 33-38.
references

to

Dalawa

and

Hinduwa

The document
(sees.

17. A recent
discussion
of Aegean Influence
region appears in Mee, 1978,
121-56.

13-15),

In

contains
Zumanti,

Che Maeander

The Anatolian
Wallarimma,

Predecessors

lyalanti

(=

of the Lycians

Iyalanda),

Zumarri,

9
Mutamutassa,

Attarimma (sees. 24 and 29).

3.

EA 38: letter from the king of Alasiya to the pharaoh Akhenaton

(mid 14th cent.), translated in Knudtzon, 1915, 292-94, Mercer,
1939,

200-02,

Bryce,

1982b,

43-44.

The document refers

to

piratical raids on Alasiya and the Egyptian coast by the people of

the land of Lukki.
4.

CTH 378:

the Plague Prayers of Mursili (ID (last quarter of 14th

cent.), translated in Gurney, 1940, 25-33, and Qoetze, in Pritchard,

1969, 396. The document refers to Lukka as one of the countries
which have renounced their Hittite allegiance.
5.

CTH 61: the Annals of Mursili (II) (last quarter of 14th cent.),
translated in Goetze, 1967, and Bryce (in part only), 1982b, 44-48.
The document refers to the refusal by Uhhaziti, king of Arzawa, to
surrender to Mursili refugees from Huwarsanassa, Attarimma, and
Suruta, and the ensuing Hittite military campaign against Arzawa
undertaken by Mursili in the third and fourth years of his reign (sees.
12ff.).

6.

CTH 76: the treaty between Muwatalli and Alaksandu, vassal ruler of
Wllusa, (1st quarter of 13th cent.), translated in Friedrich, 1930,
50-82, and Garstang and Gurney (in part only), 1959, 102-03. The
document refers to Lukka as a possible trouble spot in the west (sec.
14).

7.

The Kadesh inscriptions (1st quarter of 13th cent.), translated in

Gardiner, 1975.

Lukka figures amongst the Hittite allies listed in

the Egyptian records of the battle, fought between Muwatalli and

Ramesses (II)
8.

(P40-P53).

CTH 82: the Lukka lands appear within the context of a series of
military campaigns conducted by the Hittites during the reign of
Urhi-Tesub (c. 1282-75) or that of his successor Hattusili (III) (c.
1275-50).

9.

CTH 181: the

Tawagalawa

letter

(2nd quarter of

13th cent.),

translated in Sommer, 1932, 3-19, Garstang and Gurney (in part

only), 1959, 111-14, Bryce, 1982b, 56-60. The document, probably
written by Hattusili (III), refers to insurrectionist activity in western
Anatolia, involving Attarimma and Iyalanda (sees. 1, 2, and 4).

The Lye1 ans

10

10. CTH 255: a document dating to the reign of Tudhaliya (IV) (c.
1250-20) in which Hittite frontier-commanders are instructed not to
let anyone cross the borders of the Hittite homeland from Azzi,
Kaska, or Lukka (sec. 10), translated in von Schler, 1957, 24.
11. CTH 182: the Milawata letter, dating (probably) to the reign of
Tudhaliya (ITV). The translation appearing in Garstang and Gurney,
1959, 114-15, can now be revised and supplemented on the basis of a
new join-piece discovered by Hoffner, as discussed by Hoffner,
1983.

See

also Singer,

1984,

214-16,

and Bryce,

1985.

The

document refers to Arinna, apparently the community of that name

lying in or near Lukka, in a context which is not altogether clear.
12. Egyptian record of the Sea Peoples' incursions in Egypt during the
reign of Merneptah (c. 1213-04), translated in Breasted, 1962, 243,
sec. 579.

Lukka figures in the list of raiders recorded in the

Egyptian account.
13. RS 20.

238: letter from Ammurapi, king of Ugarit, to the king of

Alasiya (end of 13th cent.), text and translation in Nbugayrol, 1968

(Ugaritica 5), 87-89, no. 24. Ammurapi informs the Alasiyan king
that he has sent his entire fleet to the waters off the coast of Lukka
(presumably in an attempt to stem the southward movement of the
Sea Peoples).
14. KBo XVI 83,

II,

7 (included in CTH 242),

from a votive list

referring to six calumets of silver from the people of Lukka.

15. KUB XL.II 11,

II,

24-27y from an inventory of coffers referring to

two minas (and) two shekels of gold from Lukka.

16. The Ilgin monument, recently discovered in the area to the north
west of Konya (see Mellink, AJA 76, 1972, 171), names Lukka in a
religious context relating to the foundation of sanctuaries (see
Laroche, 1976, 17-18).

2. THE EARLY LYCIANS AND GREEK LITERARY TRADITION

Part A

The Traditions

In our Greek literary sources, Lycia provides the setting for a

number

of

well known mythological

and legendary

traditions;

for

example, it is the land ruled by Sarpedon and Glaukos, leaders of the

Lycian contingent at Troy, it is the homeland of the

fire-breathing

monster Chimaera and the setting for the conflicts of Bellerophon, it

serves as a place of refuge for the goddess Leto in her flight from the
wrath of Hera, and it is the country occupied by the Termilae, refugee
emigrants from Crete.
Of prime interest to the historian is the extent to which these
traditions can be used for historical purposes. What degree of historical
reality can be attributed to them? What use can be made of them when
one is attempting to reconstruct early Lycian history? These questions
are of obvious importance to our present investigation since we have so
few sources of information relating to Lycia before the Persian conquest
of the country c. 540 B.C. (Herodotos

1.176).

What happened in Lycia

prior to this time is very much a matter for speculation; and for this we
inevitably turn our attention to the traditions which the literary sources
make known to us. One need hardly point out the extreme caution that
is necessary in attempting to use these sources for the purpose of
historical reconstruction - the more so as they are foreign, non-Lycian
sources.

But we certainly cannot overlook the possibility that they

sometimes do reflect, even if in a very indirect, obscure, or distorted

way, a number of events which actually took place and which became
embedded in local Lycian tradition.
But can we be any more precise than this? Is it at all possible to
distinguish in these sources what may have an authentic historical base,
what may contain a few grains of truth, and what is probably no more
than mere Invention?
In attempting to answer these questions we will find it useful to
begin with a brief outline of three 'mainstream' traditions relating to
early Lycia: (1) the tradition of Lycian participation in the Trojan War,

12

The

Lyclans

(2) the Bellerophon tradition, (3) the Termilae tradition.

These will

provide us with a convenient frame of reference for the discussion and

the historical conclusions which follow in Part B of this chapter. I should
however stress that my purpose in this chapter is not to undertake a
detailed investigation of the traditions themselves.
consider

the

circumstances

which

may have

Rather it is to

given

rise

to

early

settlement in Lycia, and the extent to which the literary traditions may
reflect these circumstances as well as the historical events in which the
early

Lycians or their ancestors were involved.

In discussing

the

traditions, I will generally refer only to the most important of the

sources in which they are recorded.

A full list of references can be

found by consulting Register I (pp. 216-18).

(1)

The tradition
This

tradition

of Lycian
provides

participation
us with

in the Trojan

an obvious

starting

Har
point

in

considering the treatment of early Lycia in the literary sources. In the

Iliad,

the Lycians under the leadership of Sarpedon and Glaukos figure

as the most prominent of Troy's allies in the war against the Greeks.
2
From the long list of references to Lycian participation in the conflict,
it is clear how extensive a role Homer assigned to the Lycians. Indeed
they completely overshadow all the other allies of Troy in the treatment
which they are accorded in the Iliad.

This is a matter of particular

note, given the remoteness of their homeland from the scene of the
action.
Lycia appears last in the list of allies detailed in the so-called
Trojan

Catalogue

(II.

2.816-77),

catalogue

which was

almost

certainly intended to indicate a rough geographical progression extending

from the Troad in the north to Lycia in the far south. And quite clearly
Homer accepted as a matter of course the location of Sarpedon's and
Glaukos* kingdom in the country known as Lycia in the 1st millennium

1. I have not Included here the tradition

of Le to's arrival
in
Lycia.
This is probably
a late tradition;
at least
it
is
not attested
before
the 4th century
B.C.
For
further
discussion,
see below in Chapter 6, pp.
175-77.
2. See the entry under Homer in Register
I.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

13

B.C.

Yet Homer was also conscious of the large distance separating

3
Lycia from the rest of Troy's allies,
and the apparent lack of
motivation for Lycia's participation in the conflict. This is clearly
implied when Sarpedon rebukes Hektor for the lack of spirit shown by the
Trojans in battle, in contrast to the Lycians whose own country is in no
4
danger (JJ. 5.471-92).
The Iliad in fact offers no clear explanation
for the involvement of Sarpedon's contingent at Troy although much is
made of the Lycians' aggressiveness and fighting qualities. Such Is their
reputation among the Greeks at Troy (il.

12.346-47),

and it is the

Lycian leaders who take the initiative on several occasions - for instance
when the Trojans break through the walls built by the Achaeans for the
defence of their ships (II.

12.310-471).

The overall picture, then, is of

a fiercely warlike people who have come from a far-off country to fight
on the Trojan side, but with no apparent motive, no apparent Incentive.
Lycia itself is depicted in the Iliad

as a flourishing and prosperous

land - fertile, deep-soiled, and rich in crops and orchards (e.g.

12.313-14).

II.

But we should note that its inhabitants seem to have been

confined to only one part of what we generally regard as Lycia - namely

the Xanthos valley.

This is indicated by the frequency with which the

names Lycia and the Xanthos river are closely linked in the Iliad,

to the

point where they are virtually inseparable from each other (e.g.
2.877,

5.479,

6.172,

12.313).

II.

There can be little doubt that for

Homer Lycia and the Xanthos valley were one and the same.
In addition to Sarpedon and Glaukos, the Iliad

contains references

to another leader in the Trojan War with Lycian connections - namely

Pandaros, son of Lykaon. In Book 5 of the Iliad

Pandaros is on two

occasions associated with Lycia; in line 105 he claims that he came from
Lycia in order to take part in the war against the Greeks, and in line 173
his association with Lycia is implicit in Aeneas' claim that his skill as an
archer exceeds that of any other man, whether Trojan or Lycian.

3. This is indicated
by expressions
such asTT)Ao$EV ex AuxuriS
'from far-off
Lycia'
(11. 2.877)
and xrAoE yap Auxun 'for
Lycia is far away' (II.
5.479).
4. Cf. Glaukos' speech to Hektor (II. 17. 139-68),
especially
the threat of the withdrawal
of the Lycian contingent
(II.
17.
154-55).

14

The Lyei ans

But these references present a problem, since elsewhere in the

Iliad

Homer states that Pandaros came from Zeleia on the Aesepos

river in the Troad (e.g. II.

is no attempt in the Iliad

2.824-27,

4.103

and 121). Moreover, there

to reconcile Pandaros' role as a "Lycian" with

that of Sarpedon and Glaukos.

Certainly there is no point of contact

between Pandaros on the one hand and Sarpedon and Glaukos on the
other, nor is there any attempt to explain the presence of two sets of
Lycian leaders at Troy. And a further point is that in spite of Pandaros'
apparent Lycian origin referred to in Book 5 of the Iliady

the forces

under his command are never referred to as Lycians. On the contrary,

they are invariably called Tro)ans.

Yet we can hardly accept, as has

sometimes been suggested, that the Homeric references indicate that

there were originally two Lycias - a northern one in the Troad as well as
a southern one

for this would still not explain why the

forces

commanded by Pandaros are called Trojans and not Lycians.

I believe that there is another more feasible explanation to account
for the inconsistency in Homer.

But I shall leave that for discussion in

Part B of this chapter. For the moment it will be sufficient to note that
the references to Pandaros in Book 5 of the Iliad

suggest some form of

link between Lycia and a folk or cult hero called Pandaros at least by the
end of the 8th century B.C.

Later references to Pandaros in Lycia

suggest that he may have been associated most closely with the western
Lycian city Pinara.
(2)

The Bellerophon

In Book 6 of the Iliad,

tradition

the well known and much discussed

5. In the Trojan Catalogue

it is specifically
stated
that he
led
a Trojan
contingent
(II.
2.
826),
and
elsewhere
Pandaros refers
to himself
as a leader of Trojans
(II.
5.
200 and 211).
6. See Strabo,
12. 4. 6, 12. 8. 4, 13. 1. 7, and
Eustathius,
353. 25, 448. 42.
The view that there were two Lycias was
supported
by Treuber
(1887,
18) who suggested
that
the
northern
Lycians
were
eventually
displaced
by
the
Cimmerians and moved south, perhaps into Cil Ida,
where all
trace of them had disappeared
by the end of the 7th
century
B.C.
7. See Strabo 14. 3. 5, and cf. CIG add. 4269b.

The Early

Lyeians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

15

confrontation between Glaukos and the Greek Diomedes takes place,

during the course of which Glaukos gives a detailed account of the
exploits of his grandfather Bellerophon (il.

6.L44-211).

According to
o

this account, Bellerophon came originally from Ephyre in Argos, the

9
kingdom ruled by Proitos. Proitos' wife Anteia (or Stheneboea) became
enamoured of Bellerophon, but when he rejected her advances, she
10
falsely accused him before her husband of attempting to seduce her.
In response to her accusation, Proitos sent Bellerophon to Lycia with a
l e t t e r to be delivered to the Lycian king (Iobates/Amphianax), Proitos'
father-in-law.

Unknown

to

Bellerophon,

the

letter

contained

instructions for his execution.

The Lycian king entertained Bellerophon for nine days before asking
to see the l e t t e r from his son-in-law. When he had read its contents, he
apparently could not bring himself to kill his guest on the spot, and so
ordered him to engage in combat with three formidable enemies of the
kingdom - the Chimaera, the Solymians and the Amazons - assuming
that he would be killed in one of these encounters.
misfired.

Yet the plan

With the assistance of his winged horse Pegasos, Bellerophon

triumphed over all his adversaries, capping his performance by slaying

the select band of Lycian warriors sent by the king to ambush and kill
him.

Finally, in recognition of his achievements, the king gave him his

daughter's hand in marriage, along with half his kingdom.

We should note that the ostensible reason for this lengthy digression
in the Iliad

is to establish t h a t the Lycian kings were partly of Greek

descent; and the travels and exploits of Bellerophon allegedly explain

8. Malten identified
Ephyre with Corinth
(1944, 7-9),
whereas
Dunbabln claimed
that it was the 'lost
city which
Corinth
annexed'
(1953, 1177).
But see Astour,
1967, 251.
For the
suggestion
that it is to be identified
with the town of
this
name attested
in Thesprotia
on the west coast
of
Greece, see Frei, 1978,
822-24.
9. Proitos'
wife,
called
Anteia
in
Homer's
account,
is
elsewhere
known as Stheneboea
(cf. Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 2.
1 and Pindar Ol. 13. 85).
Euripides
wrote a tragedy
based
on the legend with the title
Stheneboea. For t h e
surviving
fragments
of this tragedy,
see Nauck2, 1889, 567-72,
frags.
661-72.
10. There are several
well known parallels
to this story,
e.g.
the Biblical
account
of Joseph and Potiphar's
wife
(Gen.
39).

The

16
how this came about.

Lycians

In the course of the narrative, we are provided

with details of Bellerophon's family line; and these, supplemented by

several references in later sources, enable us to construct for Sarpedon
and Glaukos a genealogical table in which both Argive and Lycian
elements are represented:
Lycian line

Argive line
Aeolos
Sisyphus
i

Glaukos

lobates/Amphianax

Bellerophon

Philonoe
1
Laodameia

Is ander

Hippolochos

Zeus

Glaukos

Sarpedon

If we accept that the Glaukos-Diomedes episode is an authentic part

12
of the Iliad,
(in the past some doubts have been expressed about
13
this),
then the Argive-Lycian link which it indicates is clearly a
matter that deserves further consideration. It is in fact one of several
traditions which raise the question of possible family or ethnic links
between the Lycians (or their Bronze Age ancestors) and Greeks. We
shall be returning to this question later in the chapter.
Of

Bellerophon's

exploits,

the

one

which is

most

frequently

highlighted in Greek art and literature is his conflict with the Chimaera,
the fire-breathing monster, part lion, part serpent, part goat.

The

Chimaera episode is typical of a very common Greek mythological motif

- the motif of a mortal or divine hero pitted in combat with a monster,

11. The details

In this table which are not supplied
by Homer
come from other
literary
sources;
e.g.
Apollodoros,
who
gives
the
alternative
names
of
the
Lycian
king
(lobates/Amphianax)
and the names of Bellerophon's
father
and grandfather
(bib. 2. 2.
1,2.3.1).
12. As Schadewalt
has pointed
out, abrupt digressions
of
this
kind are a typical
feature
of the Iliad (1938, 77); see
also
Peppermller,
1962, 7.
13. E.g. by Forsdyke,
who considered
it an invention
by Ionian
genealogists
in an attempt
to give an Aiolid
ancestry
to
the Lycian kings (1956,
89).

The Erly

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

17

as illustrated also in Perseus' conflict with Medusa, in Zeus' triumph

14
over Typhoeus, and in Herakles' struggle with the Lernaean Hydra.
Very likely the Greek concept of a monster-slayer and almost certainly
15
whence

the motif of the winged horse originated in the Near East,

they were transmitted to Greece and eventually given expression in a

number of different versions in Greek art and literature.
But why and how did the Chimaera tradition first come to be
associated with Lycia?

Was it imported into the country?

association purely a literary one?

Was the

Did it arise out of some phenomenon

or event which was local in origin?

From our literary sources we know of several a t t e m p t s made in
antiquity

to

provide

rational

explanation

for

the

tradition

by

associating it with a local phenomenon or a particular episode belonging

to the country's legendary past. The following suggestions are recorded
by Plutarch (mul.

virt.

247-48): (a) the Chimaera was in origin a wild

boar which devastated the territory of the city of Xanthos; (b) it was a
mountain which scorched and dried up the Lycian crops by reflecting the
intense rays of the summer sun upon them; in this case Bellerophon
'slew' the Chimaera by cutting away the smoothest part of the mountain
which was causing most of the damage; (c) the tradition originated with
Chimarrhos, commander of a pirate fleet from a 'Lycian colony' in the
vicinity of Zeleia in the Troad; Chimarrhos' flagship had a lion as its
figurehead and a serpent at its stern, and his fleet travelled south to
Lycia where it terrorised the populations of the coastal cities and made
the sea unsafe to travel.

14. The close

relationship
that exists
between
a number of
these episodes
is indicated
in Hesiod's
Theogony, in which
Cerberus,
Hydra,
and Chimaera
are represented
as
the
offspring
of Echidna and Typhaon (theog.
306-25).
15. See (for a brief
discussion)
Yalourls,
1975, xv and
plates
1-5 depicting
the winged horse
in Assyrian
and
Hittite
art.
Tritsch
argued that the Lycian Chimaera was a local
variety
of the monster appearing in Neo-Hittite
art
(1951).
16. Note also the explanation
given by Servius,
who refers
to
the Chimaera as a mountain in Cilicia
whose peak is
ablaze;
near its summit lions are to be found, around its
middle
goats graze,
and around its base are serpents.
Bellerophon
made the area habitable;
hence the origin of his
conflict
with and triumph over the Chimaera (ad Verg. Aen. 6. 288).

The

18

Lyclans

The tradition of the fire-breathing monster also calls to mind the

fire phenomenon of eastern Lycia now known as the yanar, located on a
mountain, called Chimaera in the literary sources, a few kilometres
north west of Olympos.

One can see the phenomenon to its best effect

by approaching Lycia on a dark night by boat across the gulf of Antalya.

The yanar will be observed glimmering through the dark of the Lycian
mountains.

On closer inspection, however, it is rather less impressive,

no more than an aperture in the ground from which issues a pure,

smokeless flame.
One of the first Europeans to visit the site of the yanar was Captain
Francis Beaufort, commander of the British ship Frederikssteen during a
survey of the southern coast of Turkey under the orders of the Lords
Commissioners
Beaufort's

of the

Turkish

Admiralty in 1811 and 1812.

guide,

the

yanar

'was

never

According

to

accompanied

by

earthquakes or noises; and it ejected no stones, smoke, nor any noxious

vapours, nothing but a brilliant and perpetual flame which no quantity of
water could quench. The shepherds, he added, frequently cooked their
victuals therej and he affirmed, with equal composure, that it was
notorious that the yanar would not roast meat which had been stolen'
(Beaufort, 1818, 46).
yanar's

Pliny (nat.

2.

110.

236)

also

alludes to the

perpetual quality, observing that Mt. Chimaera burns with a

flame that does not die by day or night; he refers to the claim made by
Ktesias of Knidos that water only makes it burn all the more intensely.
Is it possible that the yanar was the origin of the myth of the
fire-breathing monster encountered by Bellerophon?

Attractive as this

possibility may seem at first sight, it is highly unlikely.

In the first

place, the area in which the yanar is located lay well outside Lycian
territory until many centuries after the Bellerophon episode appeared in
the Iliad.

In the second place, none of the attempts made by ancient

writers to find rational explanations for the tradition ever suggest that it
was connected with the yanar.

And in the third place, the ancient

sources generally locate the monster in a quite different area, the

17. See Pliny

nat.
2. 110. 236-37,
and cf.
Haxlmus
Tyrlus,
diss.
8. 8, who refers
to the mountain as Mt. Olympos.
18. See the account given by Bean, 1979b,
136-38.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

19

Kragos range in western Lycia, which was almost certainly part of the
area settled by the first Lycians. it was a notoriously dangerous area in
early

times, not only because

it was supposedly haunted by

Chimaera, but also because of its infestation by bandits

2
S then. frag. 669 (Nauck ) ; Strabo
14.3.5).
We should conclude, then, that the name

the

(Euripides,

Chimaera was only

secondarily associated with the yanar, and was probably a fairly late
association at that.

And since we cannot be sure that the Chimaera

tradition did in fact arise in a Lycian setting, we must leave open the
possibility that it originated elsewhere and was only later transplanted to
Lycia.
Apart from the Chimaera, Bellerophon's opponents in Lycia included
the Amazons and the Solymians. There is little that can usefully be said
about the Amazons in our present discussion, beyond noting that it is
only in the Bellerophon tradition that they are associated with Lycia. In
other traditions they are assigned a more northerly location - along the
northern and western coasts of Asia Minor, and in the latter case
19
especially in the region later known as Aeolis and Ionia.
The Solymians, however, are quite securely located in the south
west of Asia Minor, where they are associated in particular with Lycia
and Pisidia.

According to Herodotos (1.173),

they were an aboriginal

population of Lycia who were later known as Milyans, and Lycia was in
fact called Milyas at the time of the arrival of the Termilae, migrants
from Crete. The association between the Solymians and Pisidia is first
attested by Strabo (13.4.16),

who claims that the inhabitants of the

Pisidian city Termessos were called Solymians, and notes that the
20
mountain at whose foot the town lay was known as Mt. Solymos.
In
factStephanus Byzantinus (s.v.

JltoLua ) equated the

Pisidians as a

19. Ephesos,
for example,
was said to have been ruled by an
Amazon queen named Smyrna (cf, Dlodoros 3. 54, Strabo
12.
3. 21, 14. 1. 4, Servius
Verg. Aen. 4.345) and the
ancient
shrine
of Artemis
at Ephesos was supposedly
founded
by
Amazons (cf. Pausanias 7. 2. 7, Tacitus,
ann.
3.61).
20. Kretschmer points
out that Strabo's
statement
Is
confirmed
by epigrams of the town (1940, 111).
See also Heberdey in
39ff.
RE V A 737.

20

The

Lyeians

whole with the early Solymians, making them (i.e. the Pisidians) the
21
descendants of Solymos, son of Zeus and Chaldene.
But Strabo seems
to regard the Solymians as a separate ethnic group, speaking a language
different from that of the Pisidians. It is conceivable that one branch of
this group became the basic stock of the population of Termessos, and
that in the region of Termessos certain elements of the old Solymian
culture may have survived in later times.

Perhaps some of these

elements were reflected in the cult of Zeus Solymeus, attested at

22
Termessos in the Roman imperial period.
The Solymians also figure in a curious tradition related by Plutarch
(def.

orac.

21

= 421D-E).

According to this tradition, they were

neighbours of the Lycians and paid special honour to the god Kronos.
However Kronos killed their three archons Arsalos, Dryos, and Trosobios,
23
fled the land, and his cult was abandoned by the Solymians.
His
victims were deified under the names of theaxAriPou or ancppoL deou and
invoked by the Lycians in public and private imprecations. We shall be
discussing some of the possible implications of this tradition in Chapter
6. For the moment we shall simply note that it provides us with another
reference to the Solymians as early inhabitants of south-western Asia
Minor.
While we obviously cannot draw any detailed conclusions about the
Solymians from the information available to us, our literary sources
provide us with reasonable grounds for assuming that they represent a
distinct population group who at one time occupied parts of Lycia and
Pisidia and may well have been amongst the earliest inhabitants in this
region.

21. See also Treuber, 1887, 22-23, n. 1.

22. See CIG 4366 k and q. See also the reference
to the temple
of Zeus Solymeus at Termessos in Vermeule, 1968, 226.
23. See the discussion
of Robert,
1949, 50-54.
Robert
suggests
that the three officials
killed
by Kronos belonged
to the
Lycians,
and that their deaths took place in the course of
some conflict
between
Lycians
and Solymians.
This,
he
claims,
would
make better
sense
of
the
passage
in
Plutarch.
Note that in Eusebius
the three officials
are
designated
as apxnyeTes.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

(3) The

Tradition

21

Termilae

In addition to his role in Homeric tradition as one of the Lycian

leaders at Troy, Sarpedon also figures in another body of Greek literary
tradition in association with a group of Cretan immigrants to Anatolia
called Termilae. According to Herodotos (2.273), the Termilae resettled
in Lycia under the leadership of Sarpedon, a Cretan prince who was
forced to flee his country after dynastic disputes with his brother
24
In a tradition recorded by Apollodoros (bib.
3 . 2 . 2 ) , Minos

Minos.

and Sarpedon quarrelled over a boy Miletos, who favoured Sarpedon.

Minos declared war and emerged triumphant. The others fled, Miletos to
Caria where he founded the city of Miletos, Sarpedon to Cilicia where he
was received by his uncle Cilix and subsequently established as king of
Lycia. In a slightly different tradition, Miletos was founded by Sarpedon
himself, and was named after the Cretan city of his origin
12.8.5,

14.1.6

- quoting

(Strabo

Ephoros).

Several ancient writers and commentators were aware of

the

apparent discrepancy in the traditions which on the one hand represented

Sarpedon as a participant in the Tro)an War and on the other as a refugee
from Crete. And various attempts were made to reconcile the traditions
- for example by making Sarpedon live for three generations after
attaining the kingship of Lycia (Apollodoros,

bib.

3.1.2),

or by making

the Lycian leader at Troy the grandson of the migrant from Crete
(Diodoros

5.79.3).

But clearly the 'discrepancy' is simply an instance

of the practice of associating various events in a country's legendary

and/or historical past with a local hero, regardless of any chronological
inconsistencies that may arise.

We might compare, for example, the

exploits of Theseus who in Greek legendary tradition is a contemporary

of the Greek warriors who participated in the Trojan War, but also
appears in Thucydides (2.15) as the author of synoikismos
What is of

greater

interest

and significance

in Attica.
for our

present

discussion is the claim that Lycia was settled by emigrants from Crete
called the Termilae. We might also mention here a further, though less

24. Cf.

Strabo

12. 8. 5, 14. 3.

10.

22

The

Lycians

direct, reference to the Termilae in a tradition recorded by the 5th

century poet Panyasis,
"EvSa 6' Evaue yeyas TpeyuAns Mat, eynye SuyaTpa,
vupcpriv 'Oyuyciiv,

nv npauLMnv KaXeouat,

Etpcj) ETC' pyupij) Tiap LvfievTu-'

Tris 6* Aooc itaCE Too SavSo ITuvapos TE
Mat Kpyos, os xpaxwv Ttaaos ncE-r' p o p a s .
( P a n y a s i s , a p . S t e p h . Byz. s . v . TpeuAn).
Clearly we are to see in the name Tremiles, father of the eponymous
city-founders

Tloos,

Xanthos,

Pinaros,

and

Kragos

by the

nymph

Praxidike, an implicit reference to the Termilae and their alleged

association with the origins of

several of

Lycia's most

important

settlements.
The historical authenticity of the name Termilae is made quite clear
by the fact that in their own language the Lycians invariably called
themselves Trmmili and their country Trmmisa. Termilae is simply a
Hellenised

form

of

Trmmili,

name

which

also

occurs

in

neo-Babylonian cuneiform inscription from Nippur (dating to c. 420 B.C.)

25.

'uyuyLTW In line 2 should probably

be Interpreted
as
'the
97),
daughter
of Ogygos' (see Kallnka,
1920 (TAM. II/l),
and according
to Steph. Byz., Ogygos was the son of Termera
(s.v. 'QyvyCa ) , a name again suggestive
of the
Termilae.
26. Cf. TAM II 174A. 16-B.2: yeVECt [XoyLav xfV> TpEyoA]ou Mac Ipalbxns, H S[v] TA0[o]s Mac [KJpyos Mac IltvaXos vfiHov.
27. The town of Kragos,
attested
by Strabo
in the
Kragos
mountain district
(14. 3. 5), has not yet been
identified.
This led to the improbable
view held by Spratt
and Forbes
(1847, 300) and Benndorf and Niemann (1884, 60) that Kragos
may have been the same place as Sidy ma.
Kallnka
argued
strongly
against
the Identification,
preferring
to
leave
the town Kragos as an as yet unidentified
city
In the
Kragos range
(TAM II/l,
p. 62).
Troxell
has
recently
argued that Strabo's
reference
to a .town called Kragos must
be an error,
since we know from numismatic evidence
that
Kragos,
like
Mas s iky tos,
was the name of a
monetary
district
(1982,
112).
But this
does not exclude
the
possibility
that the name Kragos was used both of a town
and of the district
in which it was situated,
precisely
as
Strabo says.
I prefer to leave this possibility
open.

The Erly
in the form

Lijclans

and Greek Literary

ta~ar-mi-la~a~a.

Tradition

23

We might further note that the

workmen referred to in the Persepolis fortification tablets as

29
Turmir/liya
are probably also to be identified as Lyclans.

Turmir/lay

But in spite of the wide range of references to Trmmili/Termilae,

the Greeks invariably referred to the Lycians as Lykioi,

obviously on the

assumption that the word Lycia is itself Greek in origin. This is made
clear by the various attempts in the Greek sources to- explain how the
designation Lycian

arose.

According to Herodotos (1.173,

7.92), the
30
name was due to the Athenian refugee Lykos, son of Pandion;
but
according to a tradition recorded by Antoninus Liberalis (met.

35.3) the

country's name was changed to Lycia by Leto, in honour of the

31
wolves ( AUHOL ) who had guided her to the river Xanthos.
another version appearing in Alexander Polyhistor, (ap.
s.v.

steph.

In yet
Byz.

Tpz\iL\r\) it was the Greek Bellerophon who changed the name of

the people - from Tremili to Lykioi.

In each case the explanation of the name-change is clearly based on
the assumption that the name Lycia is Greek in origin; and coupled with
this is the more general assumption that the name-change reflects the
presence or the arrival of Greek elements in Lycia in the early stages of
its development. Both these assumptions will be discussed in some detail
in Part B of this chapter.
Part B Some Historical Observations and Conclusions
We began this chapter by noting the role which the Lycians play in
the Iliad

as the most important of Troy's allies in the war against the

Greeks. The very presence of Lycians at Troy is in itself a matter for

comment, in view of Lycia's remoteness from the field of action; and for
this reason the prominence of their role is all the more noteworthy,

28. See F i l e r s , 1940,

208-10,
Houwlnk ten Cate,
1965,
4,
Laroche, 1976, 19.
29. See Hallock,
1969, 29, and Schmitt,
1982b, 373.
30. Cf. Diodoros
5. 56. 1, Pomponius Mela, chor.
1. 14. 79,
Strabo 12. 8.5,
14. 3. 10, Pausanias 1. 19. 3.
31. For a discussion
of Le to's
arrival
in Lycia,
see
Bryce,
1983b.

24

The Lye1 ans

especially

when we

take

into

consideration

the

extent

to

which

civilisation had developed in Lycia up to and including the period of the

Iliad's

composition.

As we noted in Chapter 1, there is as yet no firm evidence for

settlement in the country prior to the end of the 8th century, the
earliest attested date for the city of Xanthos which is so far the oldest
known site in Lycia.

Even so, we can hardly doubt that the Lycian

civilisation had been established in the country some time before this.
There is certainly nothing in the Iliad

to suggest that the Lycians were

recent arrivals in their country; and the Homeric assumption that the
kingdom of Sarpedon and Glaukos already existed at the time of the
Trojan

War

must

in

itself

indicate

settlement

in

Lycia

several

generations at the very least, before the end of the 8th century - i.e.
before living memory at the time of the Iliad's
As

we

have

observed,

Homer

clearly

composition.
regarded

the

Lycian

participants in the Trojan War as inhabitants of the Xanthos valley.

Consequently, if there is any material evidence that can be adduced in
support of the Homeric tradition, it is in this region in particular that we
might expect to find it. There is of course the city of Xanthos, which
may have existed at the time the Iliad

was composed.

However, at

present we have no evidence that its foundation dates back to a more

remote period, and clearly in its earliest known archaeological phase it
32
a small community with at best limited outside contacts.

was

Notwithstanding this, it probably represents the most advanced stage in

the material development of the Lycian civilisation up to the end of the
8th century. And the fact that it is the only site in Lycia which has so
far provided evidence of its existence in the late 8th century very likely
indicates that in this period the region as a whole was sparsely inhabited
by a people or by peoples whose civilisation was much more rudimentary

32. See Metzger and Coupe1,

1963, 11, Demargne and
Metzger,
1961, 1381-82,
Metzger,
1912, 21-26.
It seems likely
that
this settlement
was surrounded by a wall, but all trace of
it has now disappeared
and the only buildings
that can be
dated to this period
are found in the south-east
part of
the acropolis
in a projection
of
the Classical
wall
(Demargne and Metzger, 1961, 1382,
21-28).

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

25

than is indicated in the Homeric references to Lycia. It may be that

much of the population of Lycia up to this time lived a semi-nomadic
existence, or were settled in small villages of which no traces have yet
been found. If in fact Lycia was inhabited during the Bronze Age, this
was probably the nature of Bronze Age settlement in the country as well
(as suggested in Chapter 1).
It is extremely difficult, then, to reconcile our current picture of
Lycia during, or at any time up to, the 8th century, with the Homeric
picture of a flourishing kingdom whose forces play so prominent a role in
a Bronze Age conflict far to the north. And this must in turn raise grave
doubts as to whether the tradition of Lycian participation in the Trojan
War originated in, or was directly associated with, Lycia itself.
How, then, do we account for the tradition?
The line recently adopted by Frei is that Sarpedon's role in the
conflict (and consequently the role of the Lycian contingent) is purely a
Homeric invention; the Lycian hero was introduced into the conflict in
order to provide a worthy opponent for Patroklos, and his death at
Patroklos' hands marks the climax of the Greek's career before he
himself

is

killed

by

Hektor.

Frei

further

suggests

that

Homer's

knowledge of the Lycians may have been based on an epic on Lycia

composed by a Greek poet for a. Lycian prince, perhaps the ruler of
Xanthos, some time before the end of the 8th century; perhaps this epic
highlighted conflicts between Lycians and Rhodians, as reflected in the
duel between

Sarpedon and the

Rhodian Tlepolemos which Homer

transferred to the context of the Trojan War (Frei, 1978).

Frei's hypothesis rests on the basic assumption that the tradition of
Lycian participation in the war originated in a 1st millennium setting,
and would therefore have to be explained as a literary invention. But an
alternative possibility is that the tradition did not begin with the 1st
millennium Lycians, but was inherited by them from their Bronze Age
ancestors.

In this possibility we

can find a much more

plausible

explanation, I believe, for alleged Lycian involvement in the Trojan War.

I suggest that the Homeric tradition arose out of events originally
associated with a different area of Anatolia, and was subsequently
brought to Lycia some time after the end of the Bronze Age.
As we noted in Chapter 1, the Lycians were a Luwian-speaking

26

The Lye1 ans

people whose origins are, in part at least, to be sought among the Late
Bronze Age population groups of Anatolia.

And in particular we have

noted the likelihood that the Lycians were most closely linked with the
Bronze Age Lukka people of western Caria, from communities around
the territory of Millawanda/Miletos.

Could the Homeric tradition of

Lycian participation in the Trojan War have originated with the Lukka
people?
It is interesting to note that the names of several 1st millennium
Lycian cities have close counterparts among the Late Bronze Age placenames of western Anatolia. The most notable of these are Lycian Arnna
(= Xanthos) and Tlawa (= Tlos), corresponding to the Bronze Age names
Arinna and Dalawa. Settlements bearing these names were situated in or
near the Carian group of Lukka communities (see Bryce, 1974, 399-401).
Do these equivalents provide us with a direct link between Lukka and
Lycia?

Here some caution is necessary.

We can hardly entertain the

possibility, as Goetze (1968, 153-54) and Garstang and Gurney (1959, 80

and 82) once did, that Bronze Age Arinna and Lycian Arnna/Xanthos (for
example) were one and the same, in the absence of any evidence to
indicate that the Lycian city was a Bronze Age foundation. On the other
hand, it is not inconceivable that Arnna/Xanthos was founded some time
after

the

end of the

Bronze Age by Lukka immigrants, or their

descendants, who retained the name of the Bronze age community from
which they or their forerunners came. In like manner Tlawa/Tlos may
have been founded by Lukka immigrants. As we noted above, one of the
settlements which bore this name in the Late Bronze Age was situated in
the general area of the western Lukka communities.
Further to our observation that the Lycian kingdom of Sarpedon and
Glaukos seems to have been confined to the Xanthos valley, it is
noteworthy that two of the most prominent names in Homer's account of
the Lycians - Bellerophon and Sarpedon - were closely associated, in
later times at least, with the Xanthos valley cities Xanthos and Tlos.
Their names figure amongst the five deme-names known from Tlos,33
33. Bellerophontelos-TAM
II 548. 11 and
- TAM II 597a. 2.
The deme-names
due to literary
tradition.
But
Itself
may reflect
a longstanding
and Sarpedon had a special
attachment

36, 590. 4;
Sarpedonlos
may of course have been
the literary
tradition
belief
that
Bellerophon
to these
cities.

The Early

Lyclans

and Greek Lrterary

Tradition

27

and Bellerophon seems to have enjoyed special prominence in the city

34
Sarpedon was

both as a cult figure and in sculptural representations.

held in high esteem at Xanthos, with which he appears to have had

special links.

His heroon at Xanthos is mentioned by several ancient

authors,

a city deme was named after him, as at Tlos,

and he figures
37
in the Xanthos stele inscription (TL 44 b 46).
We might also note, in
an admittedly late source, the tradition that Skylakeus, companion of
Glaukos, was a native of Tlos.
158-63),

According to Quintus of Smyrna (10.

when Skylakeus returned from the Trojan War and reported on

the death of all his fellow citizens, the women of the city stoned him to
death near Bellerophon's tomb - presumably because he had not died
alongside his comrades.
These associations may of course have arisen directly out of the
literary traditions.

But even if they did originate in this way, they

clearly support the view that the early legends which deal with Lycia
were most closely connected with the Xanthos valley.
If we put all the above considerations together - (a) the likely ethnic
links between Lukka and Lycia, (b) the likely place-name links between
Arinna and Dalawa on the one hand and the Xanthos valley cities
Xanthos and Tlos on the other, (c) the archaeological evidence which
indicates the earliest known Lycian settlement in the Xanthos valley, (d)
the

close

association between the Xanthos valley and the

earliest

literary traditions relating to Lycia, (e) the specific associations between

the Homeric heroes of Lycia and the cities of Xanthos and Tlos - we
have reasonable grounds for suggesting that the Lycian tradition in the
Iliad

was due initially to Lukka settlers who some time after the end of

the Bronze Age brought with them to Lycia, to the Xanthos valley in
particular, the traditions and folk heroes of their original homeland in

34. To be discussed
by Zahle in vol.
II.
civ. 4.78-79.
For other references,
see
35. E.g. Appian, bell.
Zwicker, 1923, 41. 1-18.
36. Referred
to in TAM II 264.2
and 265.1.
Sarpedon
also
appears as a personal
name, both at Xanthos (e.g.
TAM II
359.2) and at Tlos (e.g. TAM II
639.5).
37. The Lycian form of the name is Zrppudelne.
Trltsch
has
also suggested
to me that the seated
male figure
on the
north side of the Harpy tomb at Xanthos Is intended
to
represent
Sarpedon.

28

The

western Caria.

Lyeians

Yet Homer located the kingdom of Sarpedon not in

Bronze Age Lukka, but in the area with which the traditions concerning
Sarpedon were most closely associated in the 8th century. By this time,
presumably, the original homeland of the Lukka immigrants into Lycia
had been largely, if not entirely, forgotten.
If this proposal is correct, what route or routes did the Lukka people
take in their migration into the Xanthos valley? Some of them may have
travelled overland, although the mountain barriers which largely isolate
Lycia

from

land-travel

the

interior

into the

no doubt

country.

exercised

some

limitations

On the other hand, Lukka

on

seafaring

activities in the eastern Mediterranean may well have paved the way for
Lukka immigrants to enter Lycia via a seaward route, making a landfall
at the mouth of the Xanthos river near the site of Patara, and then
moving up the Xanthos valley.

I shall have more to say about this

towards the end of the chapter.

Now if I am right in maintaining that Lukka immigrants formed one
of the basic elements of the population of 1st millennium Lycia and that
the immigrants brought with them and preserved some of the traditions
of their Late Bronze Age homeland, can we go further and maintain that
it was one of these traditions that provided the basis for the Homeric
account of Lycian participation in the Trojan War?

Do we have any

independent evidence to suggest a Bronze Age Lukka setting for Homer's

Lycians?
We do know from the Hittite texts that the Lukka people were
involved in a series of conflicts in western Anatolia during the Late
Bronze Age, and it may be that one of these conflicts formed the kernel
of the Lycian tradition in the Iliad.

Scholars have sometimes drawn

attention to the Hittite text dealing with the Assuwan Confederacy, the
league of 22 countries in conflict with the Hittites around the middle of
the 15th century B.C. (referred to above in Chapter 1). The list of states

38. Seafarers
travelling
from the north and seeking
to make a
landfall
on the Lycian
coast
might have chosen
either
Telmessos
or Patara,
but probably
no point in between,
in
view of the completely
forbidding
nature
of the
Lycian
coast between Telmessos and Patara.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

belonging to the Confederacy begins (probably) with Lukka

29
39

and ends

with Taruisa which some scholars suggest may be the Hittite form of the
Greek name
105-06).

Tpota (Troy)

(see,

If the Taruisa-Troia

e.g.,

Garstang

and

Gurney,

equation is valid, then the

1959,

Assuwan

Confederacy indicates that on at least one occasion Lukka and Troy were
co-members

of

a western

Anatolian

military

alliance.

But it

is

dangerous to go beyond this point. Although Albright claimed that there

is a striking correspondence in m a k e - u p and geographical extension
between the Trojan Catalogue and the Assuwan Confederacy (1950, 169),
the degree of correspondence between the actual place names, in the
two lists Homeric and Hittite, is in fact very slight; and in any case the
league of Assuwan states was involved in a conflict with Hittites, not
with Greeks, and dates to a period 250 years or more before the period
40
when according to Greek tradition the Trojan War took place.
What is significant

for

our present discussion is that

alliances of the type represented in the Iliad,

military

alliances which may have

included both Lukka and Troy, did take place amongst the western
Anatolian states during the Late Bronze Age. And it may well be that
Lukka participation in such an alliance provided the origin, or one of the
origins, of the Lycian tradition in the

Iliad.

I have suggested that population groups from the Lukka communities

near Millawanda/Miletos may have resettled in Lycia, especially in the
Xanthos valley, some time after the end of the Late Bronze Age. But we
then have to account for the fact t h a t in their own language the Lycians
invariably referred to themselves not as Lukka people, but as Trmmili the name which the Greeks represented as Termilae, or occasionally
Tremili. Is it possible to connect this name with the Late Bronze Age
Lukka people?

39. On the reading of the name L]ugga in this text,

see (most
recently)
Bryce, 1979b, 3, n. 9.
40. On the basis of the revised
dating of the text in
question,
referred
to above in Chapter 1, n. 9.

30

The

Lycians

The French scholar Laroche has argued that Trmmili/Termilae

derived from the Luwian word tarmlpointed object ('clou,

is

which is used to designate a

From tarmi-,

Laroche

suggests, one can construct

cheville') (1976,

a Luwian adjective *tarmassi~,

which

presumably leads to Trmmis-

(ethnic Trmmili),

Lycia. In Laroche's view, tarml-

19).

the Lycian name for

can perhaps be applied to a mountain

peak, so that it would be an appropriate designation for a people

occupying

the

mountainous

regions

of

south-west

Asia

Minor,

in

particular

mountain-top cities such as the Lycian and Pisidian

41
Termessos-,
the name may well have been adopted by newcomers to
Lycia after their separation from a parent group of Luwian-speaking

peoples - perhaps the Lukka people of the Hittite texts.

Laroche's theory has recently been disputed, on linguistic grounds,
by Eichner, who argues that Luwian *tarmassiTrmmis-

would lead not to

but to something like *Trmmehi in Lycian (1983, 66).

As an

alternative proposal, Eichner suggests that Trmmis- may be connected

with the Late Bronze Age place-name Attarimma,

which as we have

noted in Chapter 1 belongs to the Lukka group of communities of

western Anatolia.

This suggestion, already made some years ago by

Carruba (1964/65, 286-89) (as Eichner acknowledges), seems feasible

from a linguistic point of view, and would of course provide further
support for the proposition of close ethnic links between Bronze Age
Lukka and 1st millennium Lycia.

Yet the evidence for the linguistic

equation is far from conclusive, and we must of course bear in mind that
our Greek literary sources maintain, with a high degree of consistency,
that the Termilae were not a local Anatolian group but migrants from
Crete.
As we have noted, this migration tradition is also associated in
several of our literary sources with the foundation of Miletos. And if the
traditions which associate Crete with the western and south-western
coastal areas of Asia Minor do in fact have some historical basis, they
can conceivably be seen as a reflection of Minoan trading or colonising
activities in the area extending back as early as the Middle Minoan

41.

The Lycian Termessos,

however, a Hellenistic

commonly called
Termessos Minor, was,
foundation;
see Coulton, 1982, 129.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

31

period (MM Illb, c. 1600 B.C.), the period when, it has been claimed,
Miletos was settled by Minoan immigrants (see Weickert, 1959, 192-93
and 1959/60, 2).

And it is quite conceivable that the traditions of a

Minoan immigrant to Miletos passed into local Anatolian folk lore and
subsequently came to Lycia via the Lukka people.
Yet we should not altogether overlook the possibility that the
Termilae tradition may reflect an early population-component in Lycia
with more direct Cretan affiliations.

The sheer persistence of the

Cretan-Lycian association in a variety of literary sources which are

spread over many centuries and are obviously not dependent on a single
source must in itself furnish a reasonably strong presumption that the
association is not without some historical foundation. It may be that the
Termilae do in fact represent a group of Cretan immigrants who in the
first

instance

settled

in the

south-west

corner

of

Caria in the

Halikarnassos peninsula. In this area we have evidence of a number of

settlements whose names suggest an association with the Termilae namely

Carian

Termilae.

Telmessos,

Termera,

Termerion,

According to Strabo, {7.7.1,

13.1.59)

Termeros,

and

these settlements

were associated with the Leleges who were driven from their homeland
in north-west Asia Minor following the destruction of Troy.

Some of

them apparently resettled on the Aegean coast, south of the Carian

settlements in Ephesos, Miletos etc., until they were again displaced by
the Ionian migrations and finally occupied the peninsula between Myndos
and Halikarnassos (Strabo

14.1.3,

14.2.18).

It is obviously dangerous to place too much weight on such specific

details in a purportedly early tradition, especially in the case of the
Leleges, who from the historian's viewpoint are little more than a semilegendary people whose origins and ethnic relationships are for the most
part obscure.

Nevertheless the pattern of displacement, resettlement,

and further displacement seems to have been a marked characteristic of

many Anatolian peoples following the collapse of the Hittite

New

Kingdom, and the Ionian occupation of the central Aegean coast at the
end of the 2nd millennium no doubt resulted in further population

42. See the Individual

entries

in RE VA.

The

32
movements

and resettlements,

Lycians
as

Strabo's

account

suggests.

The

Termilae may have come under pressure from new population groups
displaced by the Ionians, and this may have led to an eastward drift by
the Termilae, terminating in their eventual resettlement in Lycia, while
their original link with the south-west corner of Caria was perpetuated
by the retention of a number of the original place names in this area.
At some presumably early stage in the development of the Lycian
civilisation, the name Termilae was adopted, within Lycia itself, as a
general

designation

reflected

in the

for the

epichoric

invariably called Trmmili.

country's

inhabitants.

This is

inscriptions, in which the

clearly

Lycians

are

Unfortunately, we are unable to determine

how or why this name first came to be used. We can simply note that if
it did represent one of the early population groups which occupied Lycia,
the group must have exercised a strong cultural or political influence in
the country, which led to the eventual adoption of its name as a general
designation for the country's inhabitants as a whole.
Yet the Greeks called the Trmmili Lykiol;

hence the name

Lycian

which we use today. The name is almost certainly a relic of the Late
Bronze Age name Lukka, which by some unknown means found its way
into Greek tradition and was unwittingly preserved by the Greeks on the
assumption that it was Greek in origin. Hence the various attempts to
explain the name in Hellenocentric terms, as we noted in Part A of this
chapter. If this explanation is correct, then the Greek term Lykloi

very

likely reflects an important early component of the Lycian population,

perhaps originally distinct from but eventually amalgamating with the
Termilae (cf Tritsch, 1950, 501).
persisted
assumption

in the
of

Greek
direct

language
ethnic

And the designation may well have

and in Greek literature
or

familial

links

on the
between

Lycians and Greeks.43

43. There are a number of parallel
instances
of
foreigners
calling
a country and its inhabitants
by a name
different
to that
used by the inhabitants
themselves.
In such
instances,
the
different
names were
often
originally
associated
with particular
groups within
the country,
or
within
the civilisation
as a whole,
fie might, for
example,
compare the Latin term Graeci to designate
the
Hellenes,
the former designation
probably
arising
from Roman contact
with the Graii in southern
Italy,
and subsequently
being
applied by the Romans to the Greeks as a whole.

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

33

We have seen this assumption expressed in the Bellerophon tradition,

in which Sarpedon and Glaukos are given an Argive ancestry, and the
Lycian and Argive kings are related by marriage. How feasible is the
Lycian-Argive connection?

Is it possible that the tradition does reflect

actual contacts, whether political, commercial, or familial, between

Lycia and the Argolid district of Greece in Homeric or pre-Homeric
times? The proposition is an extremely doubtful one, even if we believe
that in this period Lycia had a more advanced material civilization than
the evidence at present indicates. We certainly have no evidence that it
had any form of contact with the Greek mainland up to this time.
But if we shift Homer's 'Lycians' back to their likely 2nd millennium
location in the region around Mile tos, we are dealing with an area which
may well have had contacts, both commercial and cultural, with Late
Helladic settlements in Greece from c. 1400 B.C. onwards (see, e.g.,
Kleiner, 1969).

It may be that the very beginning of the tradition of

Bellerophon's journey from Argos to Asia Minor arose out of such

contacts, and it is not inconceivable that an Argive immigrant to Asia
Minor achieved the status of a legendary hero for exploits he had
performed on behalf of the local people. It is certainly much more likely
that the Bellerophon tradition originated in a Mycenaean setting rather
than in a late 2nd or early 1st millennium setting, as Peppermller has
convincingly argued (1962). And if the tradition does in fact belong to
the Late Bronze Age and reflects Mycenaean contacts with Asia Minor,
then its association with the 1st millennium Lycians can only have been a
secondary one. Its initial association must have been with Late Bronze
Age 'Lycians' - people of the Lukka communities situated in the region
of Mile tos, where there is clear evidence of contact with the Late
Helladic civilisation of Greece. Indeed, one of Bellerophon's exploits, his
conflict with the Amazons, would seem far more appropriate in a
western Carian than in a Lycian setting.

The Lukka people were

frequently involved in conflicts in western Anatolia, and their suggested

location in Caria would at least put them in close proximity to the area
where the Amazons are most commonly located in the Greco-Roman
literary sources (whatever the origin of the Amazon tradition may have
been).
When the Lukka people moved into Lycia, it is reasonable to suppose

34

The Lye1 ans

t h a t they took with them a number of the traditions of their original

homeland, including memories of the military exploits of their ancestors,
and perhaps also of the exploits of an adopted hero from Greece.
Lycia

these

traditions

acquired

a local

setting

and were

In

perhaps

developed and expanded in a way that reflected the obstacles and

conflicts which the newcomers encountered on their arrival.
The tradition of Bellerophon's conflict with the Solymians seems
clearly to belong to a Lycian setting, and may well reflect conflicts,
perhaps territorial disputes, in which later immigrants to the area
became involved with a population group already settled there.

As we

have seen, the Solymians are a t t e s t e d in several of our sources as early

inhabitants of Lycia, and it may be t h a t as a result of new population
pressures they were eventually forced to r e t r e a t into Pisidia or the
mountains of eastern Lycia where they allegedly dwelt in l a t e r times.
At all events, the apparent successes of the newcomers to Lycia in
overcoming

the

obstacles

they

encountered

in

settling

their

new

homeland may well have been added to the achievements of a traditional

folk hero from their original homeland; we have already noted the
practice

of

associating

significant

achievements

or

victories

in a

country's legendary or semi-legendary past with such a person, as in the

case of the various exploits associated with Sarpedon in Lycia and
Theseus in Attica.

The literary sources represent Bellerophon as a

newcomer to Lycia, originally in conflict with the people already settled

there, but eventually making his peace with them and being allocated
half their territory as his kingdom. It is conceivable t h a t this reflects, in
some respects at least, the sequence of events resulting in Lukka
settlement in Lycia.
In Greek hands the traditions of the early Lycians were given
sequence, structure, and coherence, from which emerged the Bellerophon
myth, a myth which cast its hero (who was allegedly Greek in origin) in
the role of a monster-slayer riding a winged horse. The concept of both
monster-slayer and winged horse was almost certainly adopted by the
Greeks

from

the

Near

East,

and was represented with

particular

appropriateness in the myth of a hero whose exploits took place in a

Near Eastern setting. But the myth in its developed form was probably
based on traditions from the original Bronze Age homeland of the Lukka

The Erly

Lycians

and Greek L i t e r a r y Tradition

35

people as well as on later traditions associated with Lukka settlement in

Lycia. The Argive origin of the hero of the myth is an element which
very likely belongs to the earlier period, so that we should think of the
hero's 'migration' to Lycia essentially as a secondary migration after his
earlier domicile in western Caria.

However Greek tradition brought

Bellerophon directly to Lycia from Greece, through ignorance of any

intermediate phase.
The suggestion that the Bellerophon tradition, or at least elements
of it, originated in a Late Bronze Age Lukka setting may tie in to some
extent with the tradition which credits the building of the walls of
Tiryns to giants from Lycia (See
Strabo
another

8.6.11).

Apollodoros,

bib.

2.2.1;

cf.

As Dunbabin has pointed out, this tradition provides

argument

for

setting

Bellerophon

among

the

Mycenaean

survivals in Greek mythology, for Tiryns was 'a place of no importance in

the history of the Argolid after Mycenaean times* (1953, 1177). And if
we think again of our Carian location for the forerunners of the 1st
millennium Lycians, then the tradition appears even more credible. If
we accept that there were close contacts between the central Aegean
coast of Asia Minor and Mycenaean settlements in mainland Greece, it is
not impossible that Anatolian craftsmen, perhaps even Lukka men, were
employed on building projects on the Greek mainland. It has in fact been
proposed that the models for the fortress towns and citadels of the
Argolid are to be found in Asia Minor.
development

and renewal of

fortification

Tritsch refers to the rapid

techniques a t Tiryns and

Mycenae during the 14th and 13th centuries.

All the innovations, he

claims, can be traced to Anatolia, and the link in the 13th century was
Miletos (1968, 131).

It remains for us to consider whether the Homeric Pandaros has a

legitimate place in the traditions relating to early Lycia.

Unless we

assume that his original association with Lycia was simply a Homeric
invention, or a Homeric misconception, the references to him in Book 5
of the Iliad

seem to indicate that he was already regarded as one of the

legendary heroes or cult figures of Lycia at the time of the

Iliad's

36

The

composition.

Lye1ans

Presumably Homer attempted to take account of this as

well as of his traditional connection with the Troad.

Now if there was an association between Pandaros and Troy in
pre-Homeric tradition, and an association between Pandaros and Lycia in
the 8th century, this may well have led to a type of literary synthesis in
the Iliad

which resulted in the portrayal of Pandaros as a participant

from Lycia in the Trojan War, Yet if such a synthesis has taken place it
is obviously incomplete, since Homer has apparently failed to recognise
the inconsistency between Pandaros' Lycian associations and his role as a
commander of a Trojan contingent.
The inconsistency may, however, be instructive.

I have suggested

above that the traditions associated with other Lycian legendary heroes
did not originate in Lycia but were brought into the

country by

immigrants some time after the end of the Bronze Age. It may well be
that the same process occurred with Pandaros.

His role in the J i i a d ,

which associates him directly with the Troad as well as with Lycia, may
reflect population links between the two areas. And it is conceivable
that such links resulted from the southward movement of a group of
northerners from the Troad who eventually resettled in Lycia in the late
44
2nd or early 1st millennium.
I have also referred to the tradition of the pirate

commander

Chimarrhos, whose fleet allegedly came from a 'Lycian colony* in the

vicinity of Zeleia in the Troad and terrorised the coastal areas of Lycia.
This tradition provides us with another link, apparently quite independent
of the Pandaros tradition, between the Troad and Lycia, and perhaps also
with an indication of the means used by a group, or by groups, of
marauding northerners in entering and settling in Lycia.

Admittedly

there is only one late attestation of the tradition, since Plutarch is the
only writer who records it. Nevertheless the fact that both this and the
Pandaros tradition indirectly link Lycia with Zeleia may be a matter of
some significance.
Is there a possibility that these Lycian traditions are in some way

44. For a more detailed

Iliad and the possible
Bruce,
1977.

discussion
conclusions

of Pandaros'
role
to be drawn from

in
it,

the
see

The Early

Lyeians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

37

related to the movements of the so-called Sea Peoples (referred to in

Chapter 1) who figure in the records of the Egyptian kings Merneptah (c.
1213-1204 B.C.) and Ramesses in (c. 1185-1154 B.C.)? While this is not
the place to discuss in detail the composition or origins of the Sea
Peoples, it is not unlikely that they were made up largely of population
groups from Anatolia and other parts of the Near Eastern world who
were displaced from their original homelands in the upheavals which
occurred at the end of the Bronze Age and sought new homes elsewhere.
They were not, I believe, the primary cause of these upheavals.

Rather

they followed in the wake of the gradual disintegration of the Late

Bronze Age Near Eastern kingdoms.

They were in part the victims of

this disintegration, and in the widespread unsettled conditions which

followed they may well have taken on a marauding aspect in their search
for new lands.
I have referred in Chapter 1 to the piratical activities of Lukka
people in the eastern Mediterranean in the 14th century B.C., and we
know that Lukka people were involved in at least the early activities of
the 5ea Peoples during the reign of Merneptah.

We may not be able to

go as far as placing early settlement in Lycia specifically within a Sea

Peoples context.

But it would not be unreasonable to suggest that this

settlement was generated by the same sets of circumstances which gave

rise to the Sea Peoples' movements in their attempts to find new lands
to settle.

The Chimarrhos tradition fits very appropriately into the

general scene of marauding northerners who moved southwards by sea (as

well

as

by

land)

and

attacked

the

coastlands

of

Mediterranean as a prelude to settlement in these areas.

connection we

the

eastern

And in this

should note the literary tradition that Xanthos and

Patara, perhaps two of the oldest established settlements in Lycia, were

founded by pirates (Eustathius,

Dion.

Perieg.

129).

45. For a recent discussion

of the participants
in the
attack
on Egypt
during
Merneptah's
reign,
see Sandars,
1978,
10S-15; on the Lukka people in particular,
see
105-07.

The Lycians

38

The first Greek state to have any significant contact with Lycia in
the 1st millennium was undoubtedly Rhodes. And it is just conceivable
that Sarpedon's contest with the Rhodian Tlepolemos in the

Iliad

reflects conflicts which actually took place between

and

Lycians

Rhodians in an early 1st millennium context, as several scholars have

46
already suggested.
Whether or not this is so, w e do know that the
Rhodians had established one or more settlements in what later became
eastern Lycia (i.e. from the Arykandos river eastwards) dating back, in
47
one case at least, to the early 7th century.
And they m a y well have

46. See Homer, II. 628-98.

The suggestion was first
made by
Treuber, 1881, 89-90. Cf. Demargne and Metzger, 1967, 1381.
26-30 and Frei, 1918, 823-24. Note also the claim made
by the scholiast

ad 11.5.639 tpaat 6e CIEL AUKUOUS 'POLOU

xpeueuv. Nilsson, however, argued that the episode could

just as easily be referred to Mycenaean times, on the (very
dubious) grounds that in this period the Greeks made
repeated attacks on the south coast of Asia Minor (1933,
262); cf. Page, 1959, 147-49.
Childs points out (in an
unpublished manuscript)
that proof of at least
later
hostilities
between Rhodes and Lycia is to be found in the
so-called Lindlan Chronicle or Anagraphe where 'is listed a
dedication
resulting
from a campaign of Kleoboulos of
Lindos against the Lycians'
(see Blinkenberg,
1915/1941,
169-70, C XXIII, Jac. FGH F 532). Kleoboulos' career is
probably to be assigned to the first
half of the 6 th
century B.C.
47. I.e. Phaselis (founded 691 B.C), almost certainly a Rhodian
foundation.
The literary
sources are in agreement in
attributing
to the city a Greek origin (e.g. Cicero, Verr.
4. 10. 21, Plutarch, Kim. 12.3), more precisely a Dorian
origin, according to Herodotos (2.178).
But the traditions
differ
as to whether the founder of the city came from
Argos or Rhodes.
According to the one tradition,
its
founder Lakios came from Argos at the Instigation
of
Mopsos, and bought the territory
on which the city was
founded from a shepherd Kylabras for some salt
fish
(Phllostephanos ap. Athenaeus, deip. VII 297F). In another
account, Mopsos himself was the founder of Phaselis (Pomp.
Mela, chor. 1.14.79).
(For a discussion of the association
of Mopsos with southern Asia Minor, see Houwlnk ten Cate,
1965, 44-50).
Phllostephanos also refers to the tradition
that Lakios came originally
from Lindos in Rhodes and was
the brother of Antiphemos who founded Gela in Sicily;
see
also Steph. Byz. s.v.YkXo. and Etym. Magn. 225 s.v. VXa.
There can be little
doubt that the Rhodian tradition is the
more authentic one, in view of the mention of Lakios in the

The Early

Lycians

and Greek Literary

Tradition

39

founded other settlements elsewhere on the Lycian coast.

This is perhaps indicated by the tradition of the Telchines recorded
in

Diodoros

Sikulos

(5.

55-56).

According

to this tradition,

the

Telchines were inhabitants of Rhodes who dispersed when they received

news that a great flood was coming to overwhelm their land. A number
of them under the leadership of

Lykos went to Lycia where they

dedicated beside the Xanthos river a temple to Apollo. It is possible that

we have in this tradition a reference to the Letoon, the sanctuary of
Leto which lies on the west bank of the Xanthos river several kilometres
south of the city of Xanthos; but it is far more likely t h a t the allusion is
to Apollo's sanctuary at Patara, which lies on the sea near the mouth of
the river (see Metzger, 1966, 101).

From Herodotos (1.182)

we know

that an oracle was functioning there at least by the 5th century B.C. It
may in fact have been established a good deal earlier than this, but at
present we have no evidence to indicate when it first

came

into

operation, or whether or not its foundation was due to Greek influence.

This will be further discussed in Chapter 6.
At all events, the Xanthos valley was almost certainly the area
where the most important developments in the formative stages of the
Lycian civilisation took place. Xanthos and perhaps also Tlos were focal
points of the early civilisation, and Xanthos itself was probably the
origin of a number of other settlements in or near the Xanthos valley.
According to the 4th century B.C. writer Menekrates of Xanthos
Steph.

Byz.

Antikragos

(ap.

s . v.'ApTUyvricJos) Pinara, situated on the east slope of the

range,

and

Artymnesos, whose

precise

location is

still

Lindlan
Chronicle
(Blinkenberg,
1915/1941,
169-171,
C
XXIV).
Furthermore,
as Bean points
out,
'the
early
inscriptions
(of Phaselis),
down to 300 B.C., are
written
in the special
Rhodlan variety
of the Doric
dialect'
(1979b, 152): see also Blinkenberg,
1915/1941,
170.
Other
Rhodlan settlements
in what became eastern
Lycia
Include
Korydalla
(Hekatalos
ap.
Steph.
Byz.
s.v.
KopuaXXa^,
Gagae (Etym. Magn. s.v. rayt and Eusebius,
Mart.
Palaestr.
4;
these
authors
give
two different
versions
of
the
founding
of
Gagae by
the
Rhodlans),
and
Rhodiapolis
(Theopompos ap. Photlus,
bib. 176, p.120 a 14.15 - Jac. FGH
IIB, 115, no. 103; and cf. Treuber,
1887, 90, n. 3).

40

The Lyei ans

unknown, were founded by colonists from Xanthos.

And the tradition

recorded by Panyasis (see p. 22) may indicate that Xanthos, Tlos, Pinara,
(and

Kragos?

see

above, n.27) whose

eponymous founders

were

allegedly brothers, were regarded as forming an interrelated group of

48
Lycian settlements, perhaps with close ethnic and kinship ties.
These settlements may well have been early centres of the Lycian
population, and the territory which they incorporated, or which lay
between them, may have constituted the region politically identifiable as
Lycia at least up to the time of the Persian conquest c. 540 B.C. I have
suggested that in Homer's time Lycia and the Xanthos valley were
essentially one and the same, and in a strict political sense Lycia may
not have been much larger than this when the Persian commander
Harpagos invaded the country and defeated a small Lycian army on the
plain of Xanthos (to be discussed in Chapter 4).
This does not of course mean that other areas which later became
part of the Lycian political organisation were uninhabited at this time.
But for the most part their population was probably sparse, living in
small communities, and perhaps largely semi-nomadic in character.
They may have had a number of cultural and ethnic affinities with the
Xanthos valley population, without being politically integrated with them.
It might be better, then, to think of a politically identifiable unit
called Lycia as originally just one part of a broader region which we
might think of as Lycia in a cultural sense - a region whose population
had a common basic culture but no overall political coherence. Perhaps
by the late 6th or early 5th century B.C. this situation was beginning to
change, and eventually the whole of 'cultural' Lycia became absorbed
within a single political framework. The process whereby this happened
is something we shall consider in Chapter 4.

48. We might note in passing

the statement
made by
Pausanias
that Lyeians
were amongst the settlers
who colonised
the
Greek
state
of
Erythrae;
the main body
of
settlers
apparently
came from Crete,
but in addition
to these
there
were Lycians,
Carians,
and Pamphylians,
and Erythrae
was
inhabited
by all these people
(Pausanlas
7. 3. 7).
There
seems to be no historical
basis for Pausanias'
claim;
see
Sakellariou,
1958, 209 and 220.

The E a r l y Lyclans

and Greek Literary

Tradition

41

Summary of conclusions
From the discussion above, it is clear how large a role speculation
must play in any attempts to determine the origins, the population
components, and the early settlement patterns of the 1st millennium
Lycians. I have suggested that the tradition of Lycian participation in
the Trojan War may have arisen out of a Late Bronze Age tradition
associated with the Lukka people of western Caria, a tradition which was
perhaps brought to Lycia by Lukka immigrants some time after the end
of the Bronze Age.

But in addition to the Lukka element, there may

have been several other population groups present in the country by the
early 1st millennium - notably a group represented in Greek literary
tradition as the Termilae, who were possibly of Cretan origin and whose
name came to be used within Lycia as the designation of the Lycian
people as a whole.
Termilae,

unless

Perhaps the Lukka settlers amalgamated with the

of

course

the

Termilae

were

themselves under a newly assumed Luwian name.

the

Lukka people

Perhaps also the

newcomers to Lycia came into conflict with an earlier population group,

the Solymians of the Greek texts, who may have been displaced to the
mountains of Pisidia or (what became) eastern Lycia. There are also
indications in our literary sources of Rhodian settlement on the Lycian
coast from the early 7th century onwards. And the Pandaros tradition in
Homer and the Chimarrhos tradition in Plutarch may indirectly indicate
the presence of other early 1st millennium groups in Lycia, perhaps from
the Troad, who were displaced from their original homelands at the end
of the Bronze Age.
We have no clear picture of early settlement distribution in Lycia. I
have suggested, however, that the earliest population centres developed
in and around the Xanthos valley, and that the region which these
centres encompassed probably constituted a unit politically identifiable
as Lycia until at least the time of the Persian conquest. If so, we should
probably regard this area as merely one part of a region through which
the Lycian culture was spread.

It is perhaps not until the late 6th

century that we see the beginning of the process whereby the whole
region was gradually incorporated into a single political organisation.

3. THE INSCRIPTIONS AND THE LYCIAN LANGUAGE

The Lycian language, which is still only partly deciphered, survives
today in three main forms: (1) inscriptions on stone; (2) coin legends; (3)
a small number of graffiti
artifacts.

and inscriptions on ceramic and metal

Of these, the first category is by far the most productive

source of information on the Lycian language.

known

Lycian inscriptions

on stone,

To date there are 172

of which

150

are

sepulchral

inscriptions carved on the rock tombs and concerned primarily with

instructions for burial.

A selection of these inscriptions appear on pp.

73-88.
Most of the 22 non-sepulchral inscriptions are votive in character,
but the group also includes one, or possibly two, decrees (TL 45, N 326),
a 255-line inscription on a stele at Xanthos, which is concerned (amongst
other things) with the genealogy and exploits of a prominent Lycian
dynasty (TL 44), and a trilingual inscription, in Lycian, Greek, and
Aramaic

versions, which records the procedures to be followed in

establishing and maintaining a new cult at the Letoon (N 320). A full list
of the non-sepulchral inscriptions appears on pp. 90-98.
The inscriptions on stone were

first discovered and copied by

2
These early discoveries

travellers to Lycia in the early 19th century.

were small in number and scattered, but they gave the first indication
that the ancient Lycians spoke a language which was peculiar to their
own country.

In the 1840's there was a substantial increase in the

number of known Lycian inscriptions, the result of discoveries by a

succession of

explorers and scholars, including Fellows, SpTatt and

Forbes, Hoskyn, Daniell, and Schnborn. These discoveries provided the

basis for the first major collection of Lycian inscriptions, published by
Schmidt in 1868.
During the last decades of the 19th century, new investigations were
1.

2.

A further
source of information
is provided
by
occasional
glosses
in Greek and Roman sources;
e.g.
Menekrates
of
Xanthos
equates
the Lycian
place
name Pinara with
the
Greek ojpoyyv\n[round'.
Steph. Byz. similarly
glosses nuvapa
as 'round', and narapa as equivalent
to Greek XLGTTI ('box,
chest');
cf. Neumann, 1961,
47,1983,137.
See J. von Hammer, Topographische
Ansichten,
gesammelt auf
einer
Reise
in die Levante,
Vienna,
1811, R.
Nalpole,
Travels in various countries
of the East, London, 1820.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

43

conducted throughout Lycia by scholars of the 'Austrian school', namely

3
Benndorf and Niemann, and Petersen and von Luschan.
Their
explorations brought to light a number of new inscriptions, of which
copies and squeezes were subsequently made by Kalinka and Heberdey.
The l a t t e r two scholars also undertook a revision of the texts already
published by Schmidt, and finally in 1901 produced a comprehensive
edition of all the known Lycian t e x t s (a total of 150) under the title
Tituli

Asiae

Minoris

: Tituli

(Vienna) (hereafter cited as TL).

revised

and

re-edited

in

1932

Sprachdenkmler

(Berlin, 52-88).

Since

edition,

Kalinka's

discovered,

including

metal-ware.

Lyciae

lingua

Lycia

conscript!

The texts published by Kalinka were

some

inscriptions

by

Friedrich

30 new
and

in

Kleinasiatische

Lycian texts have

graffiti

on

been

ceramic-

and

The most notable is the Letoon trilingual, whose Lycian

version is by far the most important and informative of all the known
readable texts in the epichoric language.

The majority

of the new

inscriptions have recently been collected and edited by Neumann in

Neufunde

lykischer

Inschriften

seit

1901

(Vienna,

1979);

for

convenience' sake these inscriptions are prefixed with the l e t t e r N (=

Nova

inscriptio).
However> there are also a number of other epichoric inscriptions

which do not appear in either Kalinka's or Neumann's collections. These

inscriptions, to which we tentatively assign the designation N
(i.e. supplement to Neumann's
N Suppl.

1 (= Letoon

inv.

collection)
no.

Suppl.

are as follows:

6121): two epichoric inscriptions

appearing on a statue base unearthed by the French at the Letoon in

1973. There are four inscriptions on the base, one on each of its four
faces. The inscriptions on faces A and B (so called) are in Greek, those
on faces C and D in Lycian. To d a t e only the Greek inscription on face

3.
4.

See Benndorf
and Niemann,
1884,
and Petersen
and von
Luschan,
1889.
The system
adopted
by Neumann in numbering
the
new
inscriptions
is explained
in the preface
to his edition
of
the inscriptions,
1919b,
7.
This
system
is purely
a
provisional
one, and will
obviously
be superseded
if and
when a revised
and enlarged
edition
of TL is
eventually
produced.

44

The

Lucians

A has been published, and is dealt with below (pp.

designation

Erbbina

II.

The

inscriptions

were

95-96) under the

carved

under

the

direction of the early 4th century dynast Erbbina/Arbinas (discussed

below), and are concerned primarily with dedications to the goddess
Leto.

For further information on the inscriptions, see Metzger, 1979,

24-25.
tf Suppl .2:

a fragmentary epichoric inscription appearing on a stele

unearthed by the French at Xanthos in 1979. The inscription has been

published by Laroche, with transcription, translation, and commentary
(1979b, 115-18, with Plate xv).

The nature of the inscription is not

altogether clear. Laroche suggests t h a t it may be a decree honouring an

individual (1979, 118), Mellink t h a t it may be a legal t e x t (1980, 509-10).
Mellink further notes t h a t a fragmentary

Greek t e x t appears on the

reverse of the stele, indicating t h a t the inscription is a Lycian-Greek

bilingual.
N Suppl.

3 (= Letoon

inv.

no.

4615): a fragmentary inscription

appearing on a votive base, referred to by Laroche, 1979b, 64.

N Suppl.

4:

an inscription on a quadrangular base discovered at the

Letoon in 1975. On the long side of the base there is a dedication to

Gaius Caesar (in Greek), which has been inscribed over an earlier votive
inscription in the epichoric language. The inscription is referred to by
Metzger, AS 26, 1976, 67, and Neumann, 1979b, 53.
N Suppl.

5: an unpublished 5-line sepulchral inscription from Pinara,

seen by Zahle.
N Suppl.

6:

a very poorly preserved inscription noted at Sazak by

Spratt and Forbes (1847, 40), and seen also by Zahle.

N Suppl.

7: a very fragmentary sepulchral inscription from Kandyba,

seen by Zahle.
Admittedly

the

finds

this

century

are disappointingly small in

number. Yet in the years to come one can hope for further additions to
the Lycian corpus, particularly in view of the modest but continual flow
of new material from the Letoon.

5.

In addition
to the Letoon trilingual
(N 320J, note also N
311 and N 312, and see also Neumann's remarks (and the
references
cited therein),
1979b, 43 and 53.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

45

The inscriptions contain numerous personal and place-names, and

our knowledge of the most important of these is supplemented by the
legends appearing on the Lycian coins of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.
As a general rule, the names appear on the coins only in an abbreviated
form.

The

personal

names

are

those

of

dynasts

or

regional

administrators who issued their own coinage, while the place-names

presumably indicate the centres where the various coin-issues were
minted. An authoritative, comprehensive edition of all the known Lycian
coin-legends has recently been published by Mrkholm and Neumann
under

the

title

Die

lyklschen

Mnz legenden

(Gttingen,

1978)

(hereafter cited as M). A full discussion of the Lycian coinage will be

given in vol. II.
Lycian graffiti and inscriptions on ceramic- and metal-ware make a
small but nonetheless interesting contribution to the Lycian corpus.
Most examples have come to light this century and have been included by
Neumann in his edition of the post-TL inscriptions (N 300a-b,
313a-m,

307,

323), Two of the graffiti predate all other evidence for writing

in Lycia; namely N 300a, which is dated by Neumann to the period

580-550 B.C., and N 300b, which is dated to the second half of the 7th
century. However, the provenance of these graffiti is Rhodian, and their
identification as Lycian is open to question (see Neumann, 1979b, 11).
The earliest clearly

attested evidence for the Lycian script dates to

c.500 B.C., the date assigned to the fragment of an Olpe bearing the
name Plnlke

in Lycian characters (N 313a).

A number of Lycian coins

bearing the legend KVB are probably to be dated before this - perhaps as
early as 520 B.C. - but the script used on these coins is Greek, and it is
probably not until c. 485 B.C. that the first coin legends in the Lycian
script make their appearance (to be discussed in vol. II).
But what of the most substantial body of written material in the
Lycian language - the inscriptions on stone?
belong?

To what period do these

Several of the inscriptions provide a partial answer to this

question since they can be roughly dated on the basis of politically

prominent persons who are named in them. In particular, we might note
the following:

6.

See Metzger,

1972,

164, no. 375, and Neumann, 1979b,

30.

46

The

Lycians

( 1) TL 11 and N 310 refer to Harpagos,

almost certainly the father of

Kheriga and Kherei who were members of the ruling dynasty at

Xanthos (to be discussed in vol.11). Since Kheriga appears to have
o

succeeded his

grandfather

Kuprlli at

Xanthos c. 440 B.C.,

the

inscriptions mentioning his father might have been carved as early

as the middle of the 5th century.

But as we shall see, this would

make them very much earlier than any of the inscriptions which can
be more precisely dated.

In view of this, they should probably be

assigned a rather later date in the 5th century.

( 2) TL 43 refers to Kheriga, whose career seems to have extended from
c. 440 B.C. until the late 5th century. This provides very broad time
limits for TL 43, but the sculptural features of the tomb on which
the inscription was carved indicate a date towards the end of the
5th century, i.e. late in Kheriga's career (see Zahle, 1979, 287-88,
314).
( 3) TL 44, the Xanthos stele inscription, deals with historical events of
the last three decades of the

5th century.

On this basis, its

composition can be dated to the very end of the 5th or the early 4th
9
century.
( 4) tf Suppl,l> the two (unpublished) Lycian inscriptions appearing on
the base of the statue set up by Erbbina in the Letoon.

The

inscriptions thus belong to the period of Erbbina's prominence in

Lycian affairs

- i.e. the first two or three decades of the 4th

century (see below, pp. 110-11 ).

( 5) Six sepulchral inscriptions - TL 61,83,103,132,133,

and N 314 -

record the fact that they were carved in the time of the Lycian

1.
8.

9.

The name Harpagos in its Lycian form Arppa.khu appears

in
the ene...khntawata formula,
on which see below, pp.
133-34.
On the dating
of Kuprlli's
career
to the period
485-40
B.C.,
see Mrkholm,
1912,
14-11,
and on the
possible
overlap
between Kuprlli
and Kheriga.,
see Mtirkholm,
1916,
59.
On the genealogy
of the Kuprllid
dynasty
in
general,
see Bryce, 1982a,
329-31.
On the dating of the stele,
see Houwink ten Gate, 1965, 5,
n.
9 (with
the
references
cited
therein),
and
most
recently
Childs,
1981, 63, n. 40 (with
the
references
cited
therein).
On the stele
inscription
in general
see
Hansen, 1983, 96-91,
no.111.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

47

Perikle, whose career is roughly datable to the period 380-60.

( 6) TL 125 contains the name Khntabura. If this is the same Khntabura
who is mentioned in TL 103 (referred to in (5) above), then TL 12S
belongs to the same period as the Perikle inscriptions,
( 7) Two sepulchral inscriptions, TL 128 and 135, make reference to a
Trbbenimi, who is almost certainly to be identified with the person
who issued coins at Limyra during the first half of the 4th century,
perhaps in partnership with or as the subordinate of Perikle. The
fact that one of the tombs on which the name appears can be dated
on stylistic grounds to the same period as the coin-issues seems to
place the identification beyond doubt (see Childs, 1981, 65 with n.
57).

On this understanding, the person in question here should be

distinguished from his earlier namesake Trbbenimi (very likely a

family

connection)

who

figures

twice

in

the

Xanthos

stele

inscription (TL 44 a 44 and b 11).

( 8) TL 64, a very fragmentary sepulchral inscription from Isinda, and N
315, a more recently discovered sepulchral inscription from Seyret,
make reference to Mizrppata, who is probably to be identified with
Mithrapata, another coin-issuer of central Lycia during the first
half of the 4th century (to be discussed in .vol II). On the basis of
both historical

and numismatic

considerations,

both the

above

inscriptions belong somewhere within the period 390-60.

( 9) TL 61, a sepulchral inscription from Bayindir Liman carved in the
time of Autophradates (Lycian form Wataprddate), whose career as
satrap of Lydia falls within the period 391-50.
(10) TL 40, the inscription from the so-called Payawa sarcophagus, is
also to be assigned to the same period as (9).

The inscription

records a presentation made by Autophradates (here identified as

the Persian satrap) to Payawa, the builder of the tomb. In view of
both artistic and historical considerations, the tomb was probably
built, and the inscriptions carved, some time between 370 and 350
B.C. (to be discussed further in vol. II).

10. On the dating

of Perikle's
1965, 12, n. 1, and most
(with the references
cited

career,
see Houwlnk
recently
Childs,
1981,
by both
authors).

ten
73,

Gate,
n.lll

48

The

Lycians

(11) TL 104 makes reference to Arttumpara and Perikle, and apparently

to a conflict between them which led to Perikle's conquest of
Telmessos.

Early in the satrap rebellion Arttumpara apparently

spent some time in Pamphylia, to judge from a coin issued by him at

Side and bearing his name in Lycian characters (see Atlan, 1958).
Quite possibly his departure from Lycia was caused by his defeat at
Perikle's hands; and if so TL 104 can be dated c. 370, or not much
later.

On the other hand, it has been argued that his conflict with

Perikle may have been subsequent to his sojourn in Pamphylia; and

in this event, the inscription should be dated closer to 360 B.C. (see
below, pp.112-13).
(12) N

320',

the

Le toon

trilingual,

was

originally

dated

by

Dupont-Sommer to 358 B.C. in view of the opening words of the

Aramaic version which assign the inscription to the first regnal year
of the king Artaxerxes.

Dupont-Sommer assumed that the king in

question was Artaxerxes in Ochus, who came to power in 358.

But this dating raises a problem, since the inscription indicates that
Pixodaros was satrap of Caria at the time of composition, and on
the basis of a passage in Diodoros (26.74.2) it seems clear that
Pixodaros did not hold, this position until 341/40.

In spite of

Dupont-Sommer's attempt to explain this difficulty, a date after

Pixodaros1 attested succession as satrap seems more feasible. This
in fact

was first proposed by Badian, who suggests that

the

Artaxerxes of the Aramaic text is Arses, son and successor of

Artaxerxes III, who may well, like his predecessors, have adopted
12
Badian's proposal would have

the regnal name on his accession.

the effect of lowering the date of the trilingual to 337/36, the year

11. See Dupont-Sonuner,

1974,
139-40,
and 1979,
165-67.
Cf.
Metzger, 1979,
33-34.
12. Badian,
1977, supported
by Wrrle,
1978, 234, n.
174,
Robert,
1977, 413, no. 472, and 1980, 458, no. 486, Hahn,
1981,
52,
Hornblower,
1982,
46-49,
Eichner,
1983,
52
(although
Elchner has inadvertently
(?) written
327 as the
year
of Arses'
accession).
In response,
Dupont-Sommer
still
argues for the earlier
dating (1979, espec.
166, n.
1).
Note Frei's
comment on this response
(1981,
368-69).
Frei still
prefers
to leave the question
open.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

49

when Arses came to power, and clearly within the period when
Pixodaros is attested as satrap of Caria.
(13) TL 29 makes reference to Arttumpara {line
and Alakhssa[n]tra

(line

9).

7), Edriyeuse {line

Very likely

Edriyeuse

5),

is to be

identified with Idrieus, second son of Hekatomnos and satrap of

13
Caria (and Lycia) in the period 351/50 - 344/43,
and Alakhssantra
is almost certainly Alexander the Great, who campaigned in Lycia in
334/33 (see Arrian

1.24.

3-6).

If these identifications are correct,

then the reference to Idrieus must be a retrospective one, and the

inscription should be dated to c. 330 B.C.
(14) TL 11 contains a further reference to Arttumpara, and is probably
to be dated within the period covered by (10) and (12).
(15) TL 35 begins with the words
sees in the word pttule

/III uhi khntawatl

pttule.

Laroche

the proper name Ptolefmy], taking up the

idea first proposed by Heberdey and Imbert (see Imbert, 1900,

249-50), and translates the Lycian phrase as follows:
"1 'An IV (du) roi Ptol[me]" (Laroche, 1979, 56, supported by Frei,
1981, 364). pttule

also occurs in TL 65 {line tf), though in a broken

and obscure context. If pttule

is in fact the Lycian equivalent of

Ptole[my], then we have to reckon with the possibility that TL 35

and 65 should be dated to the period of one of the first two
Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt - Ptolemy I Soter or his son and successor
Ptolemy Philadelphus - both of whom made conquests in Asia Minor
early in the third century; and the latter in particular seems to have
had close connections with Lycia, renaming Patara after his wife
Arsinoe

{strabo

14.3.6).

This would mean that TL 35, and

presumably TL 65, are by far the latest of the datable epichoric

inscriptions.

But in my view the pttule-Ptolefmy]

equation is a

highly conjectural one and cannot be maintained with any great

degree of confidence.
the

name

13,15,17).

Kheziga

Furthermore, we should note that in TL 65

also

appears

on

three

occasions

(lines

This name figures in the family line of the Xanthian

dynasty which held authority in Lycia during the 5th and early 4th

13. On the Hekatomnld

succession,

see Bocklsh,

1969,

117-75.

50

The
centuries.

Lyeians

If TL 65 belongs to this context, then it can hardly be

claimed that pttule

is the Lycianised version of the name of one of

the early Ptolemies.

On the basis of these observations, we can conclude that the period
covered by the datable epichoric inscriptions extended from the last
decades of the 5th century down to the last decades of the 4th century i.e., on a conservative estimate, for a period of about a century: Does
this mean that the recording of burial instructions, dedications, decrees
etc. was limited to this period?

We cannot of course be entirely sure

about this, since the great majority of inscriptions give no indication of

their date of composition. Nevertheless, if the datable inscriptions do
provide

a general

indication

of

the

period when the

carving

of

inscriptions on stone was practised in Lycia, it is noteworthy that the

practice did not come into vogue until many decades after the first
attestation of a Lycian script.

And even then it was the exception

rather than the rule, for the large majority of tombs of the epichoric
period are completely anepigraphic.

It would be reasonable to suppose that literacy in the Lycian

language was a skill largely confined to a small number of 'specialists 1 ,
and in any case the carving of inscriptions on the rock tombs must often
have been a difficult and hazardous occupation. Very likely there were
alternative

means

for recording

the

information

contained

in the

inscriptions; perhaps in the case of the sepulchral inscriptions, copies of

the tomb owner's instructions were also kept in municipal or temple
14
archives, as we know was the case in later times.
Since writing
materials are amongst the most perishable of all ancient artifacts, it is

14. A number of the later

Greek inscriptions
of Lycia
contain
references
to the practice
of registering
prospective
tomb
occupants
in the public
archives;
s e e , e.g. , TAM II 85. 5,
164. 8, 861. 8, 881. 5-6, 925. 7-8, 1028. 16-17, 1095. 6.

The Inscriptions
n ot

and The Lyclan

Language

51

particularly surprising that there is no longer any trace of such

records.

It may be, then, that the rock-cut inscriptions were for the

most part secondary records, duplicating in a more monumental way

information already contained in the community archives. At all events,
the carving of inscriptions on stone was a far from common practice in
Lycia during the epichoric period.

Whether it was essentially a status

symbol, a fashion which came about through outside influences, or

whether it was prompted by more practical considerations is at present
beyond our means to determine.
As we have noted, the coin legends in the epichoric script began
much earlier than the inscriptions on stone, and they cover a rather more
extensive period.

The earliest coins with legends in this script were

struck by the Xanthian dynast Kuprlli who held power from c. 485-40,
and the youngest coins bearing a person's name were those struck by
Perikle who, as indicated above, exercised authority in Lycia during the
period c. 380-60. The crushing of the satrap rebellion seems to have put
an end to the local mints in the country, though some coins bearing the
city name Arfna (= Xanthos) may date after the rebellion and were
presumably minted with the authority of the Carian satrap under the new
administrative

arrangements

made

for

Lycia

at

the

end of

the

rebellion.
While almost certainly political factors were responsible for the
disappearance of the local mints in Lycia and the ultimate disappearance
of the native Lycian coinage, the Lycian language itself may have
been in a state

of

continuing decline throughout the 4th century,

16

corresponding (very likely) to an increasing use of Greek in the country.

The gradual encroachment

of the

Greek language

in Lycia is

illustrated by a number of inscriptions, which we can categorise as

follows:
(1)

Full bilingual inscriptions - i.e. inscriptions in both Lycian and

Greek versions which wholly or largely correspond to each other:

15. The Athene coins listed

In M 240 (to
II) may fall into this
category.
16. Mote the comments of Frei, 1981, 359.

be discussed

In

vol.

The

52
TL 6, 23, 25, 32, 45,
(2)

Lycians

56, 117, N 312}

2(?).18

N Suppl.

Part bilingual inscriptions - i.e. inscriptions in both Lycian and

Greek,

but

with

one

version

shorter

than,

and

only

partly

translating, or summarising, the other:

(a) TL 44 - the 255-line Xanthos stele inscription, consisting of 243
19
lines of Lycian
and a 12-line Greek epigram (TL 44 c 20-31)
which summarises the

chief

exploits of the

author of

the

inscription.
(b) N 302 - a sepulchral inscription, containing a full burial list in
the

Lycian version but only the introductory

statement of

ownership in the Greek.

(c) N 311 - a dedicatory inscription, consisting of 8 lines of Greek
20
summarised by 2 lines of Lycian.
The Greek inscription with
translation appears below, pp. 94-95, where it is designated
Erbblna

as

I.

(d) TL 10 - a sepulchral inscription in which only the name of the

tomb owner appears in Greek.
(e) TL 134 - a sepulchral inscription in which only the names of the
tomb owner and his wife appear in Greek.
(f) TL 143 - a sepulchral inscription in which only the names of the
tomb owner and his father appear in Greek (the father, however,
is not named in the Lycian text).
(3) N 320 - the trilingual inscription in Lycian, Greek, and Aramaic
versions.

17. See Carruba's comments on the inscription,

1919, 19.
18. The Greek version of this text has not yet been
published,
and is
in any case
i^ery fragmentary.
We cannot
be
altogether
sure that
the inscription
is in fact
a full
bilingual.
19. The text on the west side (side d) of the stele
is
written
in the dialect
commonly known as 'Lycian B' or
'Hilyan';
see below p. 11.
20. For the literature
on this inscription,
see Metzger,
1966,
108, and 1914,
312,. Laroche,
1961, 56, Bousquet,
1915,
141-42, Robert,
1915, 328-30, and 1918, 3-6, Carruba,
1919,
16-18, Neumann, 1919b, 28.
21. For the degree
of correspondence
between
the Lycian and
Greek versions,
see Metzger,
1919,
42,
and
Blomqvist,
1982.
The Aramaic text is not a true version of the Lycian

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

53

(A) TL 65 - Lycian and Greek inscriptions which are largely independent

of each other and appear to correspond only on occasional details.
(5) tj suppl.

1, the votive inscriptions (in honour of Leto), appearing on

the base of a statue set up by Erbbina in the Letoon (referred to

above). There are four inscriptions in all, two in Greek and two in
Lycian.
We have seen that in addition to Greek another foreign language,
Aramaic, is also attested in Lycia during the epichoric period.

Apart

from the trilingual, there are three known Aramaic texts from Lycia:
(a) TL 152 - on which see Kalinka, 1901, 94.
(b) Letoon

inv.

inscriptions

no.

5627, the first of two fragmentary Aramaic

discovered

during

the

course

of

the

French

excavations in the Letoon. The 6-line inscription, found in 1967,

was originally noted by Metzger in RA (1970, 307) and has now
been

published

by

Dupont-Sommer,

with

translation

and

commentary (1979, 170-72, designated as Fragment aramen A).

The surviving portion of the text contains a reference to the
citizens of Pinara (line
of Pydna (line
(c) Letoon

inv.

3) and possibly also to the Lycian town

5) (Dupont-Sommer, 1979, 172).

no.

5743, designated by Neumann as N 319.

The

inscription, discovered in 1970, appears in Aramaic and Lycian

versions, both of which are very fragmentary.
portion of the
Dupont-Sommer,

6-line
with

Aramaic

The surviving

text has been published by

translation

and

commentary (1979,
22
Here too a

173-74, designated as Fragment aramen B).

reference occurs to the citizens of Pinara (line 5). The Lycian

inscription (on the right face of the monument) consists of 4
and Greek texts,
but rather
the official
rescript
for
the
cult
to be established
at the Letoon (cf. Garbini,
1977,
269, Gusmani, 1977, 52, Dupont-Sommer,
1979, 133, Hahn,
1981, 52).
Most scholars
are in agreement that the Lycian
text is the original
version and the Greek a translation
of
it (which varies
in its degree of precision
and
accuracy);
cf. Gusmani, 1975, 63, Metzger,
1979, 42, Frei, 1981, 359,
Blomqvist,
1982, espec.
13-14.
Hahn, however, argues
that
the Greek is the original
text (1981,
52).
22. Note that Dupont-Sommer erroneously
gives
the inv. no. as
2743 on p. 172.
It appears
correctly
as 5743 in
the
caption to Plate XXIla in Fouilles
de Xanthos VI.

54

The

Lycians

lines, in each of which there are now only 5 surviving letters.

23

If, as Dupont-Sommer suggests, there was a Greek text on the

left face of the monument, then we may have in this inscription
a second trilingual from the Letoon.
We might also note in passing an example of the CaTian script in
Lycia in the legend appearing on a coin issued by Erbbina.

On the

reverse of the coin, the Carian l e t t e r s ^ - ^appear, probably the initial

25
letters of Erbbina's name.
The Lycian Script
From all the evidence at our disposal, we can conclude that on a
conservative estimate the Lycian language existed in a written form for
at least 170 years - roughly from 500 to 330 - although the script may
have been developed earlier and perhaps continued to be used on
perishable materials somewhat later. Yet the very limited area in which
Lycian was spoken, and the likelihood that facility with the language was
confined largely to native speakers made it virtually inevitable that the
language would become largely defunct as Lycian society became more
cosmopolitan and more susceptible to outside influences.

The peculiar

features of the language and the fact that it had a relatively short
existence, at least in its written form, also help to explain why Lycian
today is still largely unintelligible.

23. Correct
the Information
given by Neumann, 1979b, 43, who
says that only 7 letters
In all survive
from the
Lycian
text.
24. This possibility
was already
suggested
by Laroche,
1974,
84.
See also Frei's
comments on the Aramaic
fragments,
1981,
369-70.
25. See Babelon, 1910, no. 385.
For more recent discussions
of
these
letters,
see SevoroSkln,
1964, 49, n. 29,
Shafer,
1965,
409,
and Masson,
1974,
127-30.
Masson
concludes
'Jusqu'
preuve
du contraire,
l'quation
entre
lyclen
er(bbina)
et carlen
'e-r'
me semble la plus simple et la
plus plausible'
(p. 130).
Note that in the appendix to the
collection
of Lycian Inscriptions
in TL, Kallnka Includes a
Carian Inscription
from Krya (TL 151).
Krya lies
in the
vicinity
of
Telmessos,
but
in Carian
not
In
Lycian
terri
tory.

The Inscriptions

and The LyeIan

Language

55

Nevertheless during the last two centuries, various scholars have

taken on the task of attempting to unravel the mysteries of the
language.

The first part of the task, assigning sound values to the

symbols used in the Lycian script, was facilitated by the fact that the
Lycians took over many of the symbols of the Rhodian version of the
26
Greek alphabet for writing their language;
this was one of the more
positive results of Rhodian-Lycian contact during the first half of the
1st millennium. Thus the Lycian script is predominantly alphabetic, and
the majority of Lycian symbols correspond closely to Greek prototypes.
But can we assume that the Lycian symbols represented the same
sounds as their prototypes? The general assumption is that for the most
part they did, an assumption based largely on a comparison of Greek and
Lycian versions of personal names occurring in the bilingual inscriptions,
as Illustrated by the following:

Greek

Lycian

Text

'AoXXwvuons

Pulenyda

TL 6

'ApxeynXts

Erttimeli

N 320

Koapas

Khudara

TL 143

Koaxa

Khuwata

TL 134

MeXnaavpos

Milas antra

TL 44 a 45

MOXXULS

Mulliyesi

TL 6

Ipuavo3as

Priyenuba

TL 25

nupupotTUS

Purihimeti

TL 6

Zuyuas

(E)seimiya

N 320

26. See Houwlnk

367, 371.

ten

Cate,

1965,

3,

n.

4,

and Neumann,

1969.

56

The

Lyeians

These equivalents provide one of the bases for assigning sound values to
the Lycian symbols, the table below indicating the sounds that the
27
symbols are generally believed to represent.

THE LYCIAN SCRIPT

Vowels

i
u

q
r
s
t
w

ac
P

Consonants

b
d

Bb
A

9
h
k

M
+

i
m
n

A
M
N

le*

y
z
kh 2 8

6
T
F
1
I

Vv'Y
X

27. For a detailed,

and still
largely
valid,
discussion
of the
sound values of the Lycian symbols on the basis of a study
of Greek and Lycian name equivalents,
see Arkwrlght,
1899.
28. In Kalinka's
and Friedrich's
editions
of the texts,
V is
transcribed
as k, and fc or K as c.
However,
scholars
generally
prefer
now to represent
y as kh or Greek ^ ,
andfc,Kas k.
In
accordance
with
this
practice,
V is
transcribed
in this book as kh.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

57

Nasals

=E
Uncertain
/W29

o30
29, For a discussion
of this symbol,
see Carruba,
1977,
294,
and Laroche,
1979b, 57. Laroche suggests
that the symbol
is a 'borrowing'
from Carian; but note the objections
of
Frei, 1981, 360.
30. This symbol appears in TL 54, 69, 106. 1, 128. 2, and 149.
2, and is most commonly used as the final
symbol in a
personal
name in the genitive
case.
When in this
position
it follows
a vowel, it is best represented
as he, with the
typical
genitive
ending (.e.g.
TL. 69: armpahe tideimi
'son of Armpa') (cf. Pedersen,
1945, 12, sec. 18,
Laroche,
1960,
159, Neumann, 1969,
372).
But when the
Lycian
aspirate
is separately
represented
before
it,
then it
is
apparently
to be pronounced purely as a vowel (e.g.
TL 54.
2: murazahe tidefimij
- 'son of Muraza'),
a point made by
Professor
Tritsch
in a paper
delivered
at
the
Early
Alphabets
Conference,
Manchester
University,
4/7/75.
Tritsch
also referred
to the fact that in two instances
0
appears
in an intervocalic
position;
namely : O ^ A I A
, a personal
name equated with Ebycca
in Greek (TL
106. 1),
and TFO'T,
more commonly written
as TkT
(tike),
an indefinite
pronoun (TL 128. 2).
In these
cases,
Tritsch
suggested
that
the value
gh or ghe should
be
assigned
to Q

The

58

Lyclans

From this table it is clear that the Lycians drew heavily on the
Greek alphabet for their script, modifying in the process a number of the
original Greek letter forms.

But it is also clear that a number of their

symbols represent sounds which had no close equivalents in Greek.

Perhaps the most noteworthy of the Lycian symbols are those
commonly regarded as nasals and transcribed as a,

e,

m, and n. In

several cases the symbols are obviously based on letters of the Greek
(more particularly the Rhodian Greek)

alphabet which are not used

elsewhere in the Lycian script - namely Greek X transcribed as m, a=

transcribed as n, and / transcribed as a; this last symbol was almost
certainly based on one of the variant forms of Greek epsilon - namely /
- but inverted and reversed, perhaps to avoid confusion with it. The
other 'a variants' (e.g. ^ , * > < M along with the 'e variants' (e.g.^P^.y ),
31
seem to have been non-Greek in origin.
We should note too that these symbols show some variation in their
actual sound values. While on some occasions they function purely as
alphabetic

symbols,

syllables.

For

on other

instance,

the

occasions

they

Greek

personal

appear

to

represent

name Aucavpos is

represented in Lycian in three slightly different ways: ( a ) A o $ j . T P P

(LusatraJ (TL 90. 2), (b) A O S ^ T P T CLusntre) (TL 104. 2-3), (c)

(Lusa/5tra)(TL 103. 2). Since ^ in alternative (a), ^

AO^=TP^

in alternative (b),

and f a= in alternative (c) are all equivalent to the Greek avi it is clear
that the first two alternatives ( .i- and & ) represent syllables

while

the two symbols of the third alternative ( </

single

letters
the

) represent

( o>* a= = av). This fluctuation is perhaps due to the fact that

Lycian language was a descendant of the Bronze Age Luwian

language, which was written in a syllabic script. Although the Lycians

themselves adopted an alphabetic script, at least by the beginning of the
5th century, a few last traces of a syllabic system of writing seem to
have persisted in their script for as long as the Lycian language itself
32
survived in written form.
31.
32.

Kalinka,
however,
believes
that
these
symbols
also
are
based on Greek letters
(1901, 5).
For other examples,
note the following
equivalents:
Lycian
enl - Luwian annls (e - an), Lycian Arnna Hittite/Luwlan
Arlnna (n = Inj, Lycian Tlkeukepre
- Greek Tueuoeupa
(e
= em). But see Laroche, 1979b, 82.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

59

In general, then, it is clear that the Lycian script had a somewhat

hybrid

character.

While

it

was predominantly

alphabetic,

it

also

contained a small syllabic component which persisted in the written

language until the end of the epichoric period, although in a largely
fossilised form; while the syllabic symbols sometimes retained their full
syllabic value, their function in the epichoric texts was more often a
33
In any case, it is probably quite misleading to

purely alphabetic one.

represent these symbols as nasal in quality in transcriptions of the

Lycian texts. But since the convention of doing so has become so firmly
established, it is best to retain it here to avoid confusion.
I have noted above the inscriptions to which it is possible to assign
approximate dates on the basis of references which they contain to
certain prominent persons living in or in some way associated with
Lycia. Can we go a step further than this and use the letter forms in the
inscriptions as dating criteria, or at least as a means of arranging the
inscriptions in some sort of chronological order? A recent attempt to do
this has been made by Laroche (1979b, 55-56) in his comprehensive
discussion of the Lycian text of the Letoon trilingual. Laroche begins by
listing some of the inscriptions which are roughly datable on historical
grounds, then tabulates a number of the symbols which appear in slightly
different forms in these inscriptions. Using this procedure, he believes
it is possible to trace the evolution of the Lycian letter forms, and thus
establish a sequence for a number of inscriptions which are not otherwise
datable.
In theory Laroche's proposal seems plausible. But an examination of
his tables clearly indicates how slight most of the differences in letter
forms are - too slight, in my opinion, to be regarded as any more than
minor variations on the part of the individual stone-carvers. We should
note too how crude and irregular many of the Lycian inscriptions are in
their execution, and this in itself should warn us against attaching too
much significance to the relatively small differences in the letter forms
appearing in the inscriptions.
There are only four cases where there do seem to be genuine
variant letter forms - namely the forms transcribed as i>, kh (or % ),

33. Cf the comments in n. 30 on 0

60

The

Lijcians

a, and e. (The variants are indicated on p. 54-55).

But even in these

cases it is difficult to find any significant pattern of distribution, either

chronological or regional, within each group of variants - with the
possible exception of the e variants.

I have discussed elsewhere the

possibility that we do see some form of evolution in the e variants,

that ^ w a s the earliest of these, and that while ^ p r o b a b l y remained in
use throughout the epichoric period, it was frequently replaced by y
or ' , and possibly by the other less common variants, in the later
inscriptions.

However no such pattern is detectable in any of the other

three groups of genuine variant forms (b, kh,

a).

I came to these conclusions by adopting the same type of procedure

which was subsequently used by Laroche.

But unlike Laroche, I believe

that there is no adequate justification for using the Lycian letter forms,
apart (perhaps) from the e variants, as a means of dating the Lycian
inscriptions in either relative or absolute terms.
The Lycian numerals
The Lycian texts contain a number of numerical symbols, generally
35
or to groups of persons

in contexts which refer to monetary amounts

eligible for burial in the tombs. The symbols are of the following basic
types: (a) circles ( O ) ; (b) half circles ( C ); (c) acute angles (

); (d)

verticals (I); (e) horizontals ( - ).

These

symbols

often

appear in combination,

in the

following

sequence:
circles - half circles/acutes - verticals - horizontals.
The sequence is made clear in the following list of examples:
O

TL 46.4,

124.13

O-

TL 11.3,

36.4,

50.2

'

TL 17.3

l\

TL 20.4,

42.4,

N 322.4

34. See Bryce,

1976b.
While b
may have been an early
form
of
as Neumann suggests
(1979b,
22; but note
Laroche's
contrary
view, 1979b, 56), it certainly
seems to have been
used in later
inscriptions
as well
(see Bryce,
1981b,
228-29) .
35. In many cases these are probably fees payable in
connection
with burial
arrangements
or supervision
of the tombs; see
Bryce,
1976a.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

OltiOL til"

TL

26.IS

/I-

TL 2.3,

TL

26.14

//-;

TL 47.3

oo/l-

TL

26.14

Ht

TL 4.5,

fil-

TL 3.4,

TL 44 a 49

CH

TL 6.3,

/.-

TL

107.1

145.S

131.4

Language
16.2,
36

////

TL 35.1

TL

114.3

->

TL

115.3

84.6

38.9,

31.6,

61

39.8,

41.5

36.5

To what extent are we able to assign numerical values to these

symbols?

There can be little doubt that the verticals / , /I , /// , ////

represent the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. But the values to be

37
assigned to the other symbols are more problematical.
We note that the most commonly recurring symbol (apart from the
vertical) is O , which appears both on its own and in combination with
one or more of the other symbols.

It seems to have been a basic

38

numerical unit, perhaps the number 10, as scholars generally assume.

And if the full circle does represent 10, then very likely the half circle
represents half this amount (cf. Frei, 1976, 9).
On this basis, we can interpret the combination of symbols C\\ in TL
44

49

(se

wakhssepddimi:eti:zehi:hbati:

C /j

:u[lej)

as

representing the number 7 (5 + 2). The context in which CM occurs is

obscure, but it is just possible that it refers to the slaughter of the seven
Arkadian hoplites mentioned in the Greek epigram on the east side of the
39
h 29).
And if so, it provides added support for the

stele (TL 44

interpretation of C as 5, and, by implication, O as 10.

The acute symbol Z never appears in combination with C , and may
40
In TL 107a. I it is used to

in fact be simply a variant form of it.

36. It is uncertain
whether til or )H[ is to be read in TL 4. 5.
37. On the Lycian numeral system in general,
see Shafer,
1950,
Neumann, 1969, 373, Frei,
1976, 5-16,
and 1977,
66-78,
Laroche, 1979b,
100-01.
38. See,
e.g.
Deecke,
1889,
198-99,
Shafer,
1950,
258-59,
Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 97, n. d on TL 124,
Neumann, 1969,
373, Frei, 1976, 9,
39. Cf. Heriggi,
1936, 279 with
n. 6, Neumann, 1969,
373,
Laroche, 1979b, 101.
40. For Z. = 5, see the references cited in n. 38, along with Deecke,
1889, 206, and Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 88, n. s on TL 6.

The

62

Lycians

indicate the number of sons belonging to the tomb owner Tele, who has
provided for the burial of himself, his wife, his sons, and his sons* wives:
[ejbeli:me

tl

siyeni:tele:se

lada.se

tldeimi-.ehbl:

:sladai:e-

bttehiiW
Here lies Tele and (his) wife and his ^. sons and their W wives.
. indicates the number of Tele's sons, W the number of the sons'
wives.

What value is to be assigned to iV ? On the assumption that

Lycian society was monogamous, the number of wives must be equal to,
or smaller than the number of sons (the latter if one or more sons were
unmarried). Thus if / .
and is perhaps

= 5, \V must represent a number smaller than 5,

to be interpreted as 4 (see Shafer, 1950, 258-59). We

would then have to assume that there were two ways of representing the
41
number 4 in Lycian - either IUI or /^
There are of course other
possibilities, and \v could conceivably be a larger number than L if one
or more of Tele's sons had married more than once.
The horizontal bar is generally interpreted as 1/2

reasonable interpretation if we work on the assumption that the symbol

representing the smallest numerical

amount appears last when various

symbols are used in combination. We note however that in some cases

is followed by 3 (or > ), The most convincing explanation for the latter
symbol is, I believe, that given by Shafer who suggests that it is used in
the texts purely as a type of punctuation mark (1950, 259-60; cf. Frei,
1976, 12).
Perhaps the most enigmatic of the numerical symbols in that which
occurs in the Le toon trilingual, where the monetary amount of

iMoo

adas in the Lycian text (line 19) is equated with 1 1/2 minas in the Greek
(lines
to

177) to

41.

17-18J.

The value that recent scholars have tentatively assigned

Woo varies from 18 (Laroche, 1979b, 69) to 22 1/2 (Bryce, 1976a,

120 (Frei

1977,

66-68).

Frei notes

that

the

symbol H

Cf. the Roman numeral system,

in which 4 is represented
by
either iV or ill I
42. This interpretation
was first
suggested
by Merlggi,
1930,
457,
and was subsequently
discussed
by Shafer,
1950,
259-60, and Frei,
1976, 9. Shafer,
however, suggested
that
after
O
( = 10),

represents
1/2 of 10 (i.e.
5), so
that
O - = 15. Similarly,
he suggested
that ^ - = 7 1/2.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

63

occurs also In TL 26 (line 13), and assigns the value 100 to It on the basis
43
of its similarity to the Phoenician symbol for 100 (1976, 13-15).
Thus
he Interprets | ^ o o as 100 + 2 x 10 (= 120). If this line of reasoning is
44
correct, then on the basis of the trilingual 120 adas = 1 1/2 minas-,
In
other words there

are

80

Lycian adas

to the

Greek mina.

This

interpretation has some merit, especially if we can assume that where

combinations of symbols occur the symbol representing the largest
numerical unit appears first; of course on this basis if O = 10, then in
theory M could represent any numerical unit larger than 10. The main
difficulty with Frei's proposal is that it assigns a very small value to the
Lycian ada - only 1/80 of a mlna - far too small, perhaps, to be feasible
for the monetary amounts stipulated in the Inscriptions.

We will

consider this further in vol. II in the course of our discussion of the

Lycian coinage.
In general, all the Interpretations suggested above for the Lycian
numerical symbols must be regarded as very tentative and, we have to
admit, produce some very odd-looking fractional amounts In the texts;
e.g. Otll- = 13 1/2, 04.IH-

= 1 8 1/2, o o / i -

= 22 1/2. The best we can

do is to accept these interpretations as providing us with a working

hypothesis, which may well be subject to substantial modification if and
when new Information about the numerical symbols comes to light.
Towards the decipherment of Lycian
The first attempts to decipher Lycian proceeded along etymological
lines.

Various 19th century scholars postulated links with Syrian, the

46
Iranian group of languages, Greek, Slavic, and Albanian.
However the

inconclusiveness of their studies led scholars later in the century to

switch the line of approach to the combinatory method.

43. Note

that

in TL 26.

13 the

symbol

is

slightly

Using this

different

in

form - -y .
44. This Interpretation
is accepted
without question
by Eichner
in his translation
of lines
19-22 of the Lycian version
of
the trilingual
(1983,
54J.
45. Cf. the survey made by Neumann, 1982/83.
46. See the references
cited by Neumann, 1969,
361-62.

64

The

Lyeians

method, which was initiated by Pauli, the scholars Six, Deecke, Imbert,
Arkwright,

and

Thurneysen

made

significant

progress

towards

an

understanding of the syntactical structure of Lycian, by comparing

recurrent patterns of expression in the various texts. By the end of the
century

the

success

of

the

combinatory

method

had

been

fully

demonstrated by the collaborative efforts of the Scandinavian scholars

Thomsen, Torp, Bugge, and Pedersen who established beyond doubt the
47

main syntactical features of the language.

But little additional progress was made with the decipherment in the
early decades of the 20th century until the 1930's when Meriggi further
refined the combinatory method and provided a more detailed analysis of
the language (see especially Meriggi, 1936). While a number of Meriggi's
original conclusions have been modified or amended in the light of recent
48
investigations,
nonetheless his work on the language has proved a
major contribution, through the application of the combinatory method,
to the field of Lycian scholarship.
On the other hand, the etymologists were also actively at work on
the Lycian language during the first half of the 20th century.

The

scholars of the so-called 'Knigsberg school' - Kluge, Bork, and Knig attempted to link Lycian with the Caucasian language family, and
Kretschmer and Georgiev postulated a link with the language of the
49
' Cretan-Pelasgians'.
But their studies did not produce conclusions
able to stand the test of detailed critical scrutiny.

The first steps

towards the final solution of the problem proceeded from a different

direction.

Hrozny's decipherment of Hittite cuneiform in the 1910's

paved the way for a series of studies by Sturtevant and (more notably)
Pedersen,

comparing the

Hittite

and Lycian languages.

Finally, in

47. References
cited by Neumann, 1969,
362-63.
48. Note also Meriggi's
own modifications
to a number of his
original
proposals,
1980, 248-50.
For a full
index of the
Lycian
words discussed
by Meriggi,
see
the same work,
264-74.
49. References
cited by Neumann, 1969,
364-65.
50. More recently
Stoltenberg
attempted
to link Lycian
with
Etruscan,
especially
in a work entitled
Die
termilische
Sprache Lykiens
(1955).
His arguments and conclusions
are
today largely
discounted
by
scholars.

The Inscriptions
Lykisch

und

Hittitisch

and The Lycian

Language

appearing in 1945, Pedersen

65
conclusively

demonstrated that Lycian was a member of the Hittite language group.

Several years later, Pedersen's conclusions were taken a stage further by
Tritsch who proved that Lycian was much more closely related to
Luwian, a cognate Indo-European language, than it was to Hittite
(1950). In more recent years Houwink ten Cate has undertaken a study
of Luwian onomastic elements in Lycia (and Cilicia Aspera),

and the

relationship between the Lycian and Luwian languages has been analysed
52
in detail by Laroche.
In view of all these studies, how close can we claim to be to a full
understanding of the Lycian language?

Let us begin with the more

positive side of the picture. The main elements of the language are now
quite readily identifiable - verbal, substantival, and pronominal forms,
conjunctions, particles, prepositions, adverbs, prefixes and suffixes. The
Lycian verbal paradigms, represented in present/future and preterite
tenses, and indicative, imperative, and infinitive moods, are closely akin
to Luwian paradigms, as a comparison of the following verbal endings
53
indicates:

51. Especially
in his work on the Luwian population
groups
(1965),
in which he also gives an analysis
of Lycian
syntax
and accidence,
and translations
of a number of Lycian
texts.
52. In a series
of articles
entitled
Comparaison du louvite
et
du lycien
(1958,
1960,
1967).
Note
also
Gusmani's
comparative
study
of Lycian
and Luwian - Concordanze
e
Discordanze
nella Flessione
nominale del Licio e del Luvlo
(1960).
53. See also the table in Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 83-84,
where
the Lycian and Luwian verbal
endings
are compared
with
those of Hittite.
In addition,
note Heubeck, 1982, who
argues that the verbal endings -idl,
-elti
(as in
ttlidi,
ttleitl,
tubidl,
tubelti),
are not interchangeable
variants
of either
3rd sing,
or 3rd plur.
verbs
in the
present
tense,
as a number of scholars
have supposed.
Heubeck,
taking
up a proposal
already
made by several
other
scholars,
demonstrates
in some detail
that ~idi is
likely
to be a 3rd sing, ending and -elti
a 3rd plur. ending.
Cf.
Neumann, 1983,
141-42.

66

The Lye1 ans

Luwian

Lycian

-ui
-ti
-nti

-u
-ti/-di
*-nti

-ha
-ta
-nta

-ka/-ga

-du/-tu
ndu/-ntu
-una

-tu
*-ntu
-ana/-ane

-te

This is merely one instance of the many close relationships between

Lycian and Luwian which have been treated at some length by Tritsch,
Houwink ten Cate, and Laroche. The Lycian substantives are divided
into two basic declensions, an a-stem declension and an i-stem
declension, with a full range of oblique cases (ace, gen., dat./loc, and
abl.) (see Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 52-55). One of the most distinctive
features of Lycian is the adjectival suffix in -ahi-, which exactly
parallels the Luwian suffix -assi-, as Houwink ten Cate has clearly
demonstrated (1965, 55-56, 59-61). The range of pronominal forms in
Lycian are also clearly identifiable - demonstrative, possessive,
interrogative and relative, indefinite - and also closely related to their
Luwian counterparts.
Knowledge of these and other elements enables
us to analyse fairly precisely the syntactical structure of most of the
Lycian texts, and this provides an important basis for the task of
actually deciphering these texts.
As we have already noted, the great majority of texts are of the
sepulchral variety, and for the most part these present relatively few
problems of interpretation, especially in view of their highly formulaic
nature. The simplest of these merely indicate who the tomb owner is,
and in most cases who are eligible for burial in his tomb; e.g., TL 7:

54. See the tables

in Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 65-69.

The Inscriptions
ebnne:khupa: me ne
ladi:eh[b]i

se

and The Lycian

prnnawate

Language

Triyeftezi]:se

67
ne

piyetfe]

tideime

This tomb Triytezi has built it and he has allocated it to his wife
and children.
Inscriptions which contain more detailed burial instructions are still
reasonably intelligible, although almost invariably they contain a number
of words and phrases whose precise meaning remains obscure; e.g. TL 88:
ebenne
ladi
ntipa

pcnnawa me ne prnnawate
ehhi
tezi

se

tideime

se lada

nipe

hlihml tuwetu

tike

me ne

mhal

se eke
ehbi

kbi

ddaqasa

sttuleh:tideimi

lati

ddaqasa

tike

mei nipe

ntepi

tatu

tibei

ntepi

hlnuni mei

tuweti

tike

tubeiti

trmmili

huwedri

itlehi

hrpi

me ne ntepi

se

tati
tibei
tadi

trqqas.se

huwedri

This building Ddaqasa, son of Sttuli, has built it for his wife and
children. And when Ddaqasa dies (?), they shall place him within the
inscribed/sculptured (?) sarcophagos, and (also) his wife.

(But) let

them not place anyone else within (the sarcophagos), nor set up a
hlinmi, If anyone sets up a hlmmi here or places anyone (else) within,
the huwedri

Lycian itlehi

and (the god) Trqqas, and the huwedri

gods will punish him.

At present we are unable to determine precisely the meaning of hlinml,
huwedrit

or itlehi.

Various possibilities have been suggested,

but

none of them can be regarded as any more than intelligent guesses.

The task of decipherment has been facilitated to some extent by the
small number of bilingual texts, referred to earlier in this chapter, in
Lycian and Greek versions.

These provided the 19th century Lycian

scholars with the meaning of a few Lycian words, as illustrated by TL

117, the first bilingual to be discovered:

55. On hlnuni, see below, n.

itlehi,
see pp.
135-36.

81;

on huwedri,

see

p. 173

; on

68

The

Lyclans

ebeiya : erawaziyah ; me tl ; prnnnawat

tidelml
fhjrppi
etli ehbi se ladi.ehbiise

sideriya

parmfenah]
tidelmiipubleleye

TO yvnija TOO'' otriaaTO EupLO JlapiivQVTOs us aUTOL

Mat T?)L Y ^ V [ a ] L M L

)(L ULL nuLaXpL-

This tomb, Sideriya, son of Parmena, has built (it) for himself and
his wife and (his) son Pubiele.
We can establish from this inscription the following

Lycian-Greek

equivalents:
ebeiya

erawaziya

prnnawate
Sideriya

ParmfenahJ

TOTO TO

tideimi

pvfjya

etli

noLloaTO

se -

Euapuos

ladi

ehbi

auTJu
xau

yuvaLKL

Pubieleye

- napyevovTo

ULOS

IIuudAnt

Other bilinguals provided additional information on such matters as

terms of relationship; e.g. TL 25a in which the Lycian word
('daughter') is equated with the

Greek Suyaxnp , and Lycian

('nephew/niece') with Greek aoe/WLos

and eAtpLfjv .

kbatra
tuhes

We might

also note the bilingual TL 56 which provides the information that the
Lycian mother goddess referred to as ni qlahl

ebiyehi

('the mother of

this sanctuary(?V) was equated with the Greek goddess Leto.

Yet the bilinguals have helped little in overcoming the major
problem still confronting scholars in their attempts to decipher fully the
Lycian language. This problem can be stated in one word - vocabulary.
In spite of the most exhaustive comparative studies by French, Danish,
German, Italian, Dutch, Russian, and English scholars, relatively few
Lycian words are known to have counterparts or cognates in Luwian, or
in any other language for that matter.

And the inscriptions discovered

since Kallnka's 1901 edition throw very little new light on the lexical
problems posed by the language.

The majority of 'new' inscriptions

follow formulaic patterns which are already well known from TL, and
any deviations from these patterns immediately present new problems of
interpretation.
Undoubtedly

the

most

important

new

find

is

the

trilingual

inscription discovered at the Letoon in 1973. The trilingual has already

The Inscriptions
led to a plethora

of

and The Lycian

publications,

authoritative of which is Fouilles

the

Language

69

most comprehensive

de Xanthos

and

VI (Paris, 1979) which

contains a detailed treatment of the three versions of the text.

From

a linguistic point of view, the trilingual has to some respects proved a

little disappointing.

While it has certainly provided a number of new

Lycian words, it does little to solve many of the longstanding and most
puzzling problems of the Lycian language. Moreover the Lycian text in
itself presents a number of difficulties, expecially in passages which do
58
not correspond closely with the Greek or Aramaic versions.
On the credit side, the trilingual has contributed to a partial
understanding of several of the obscure passages occurring elsewhere in
the Lycian inscriptions. TL 84, a sepulchral inscription, is a case in
point. The tomb owner Mizretiye makes the usual burial provisions, but
then continues with a series of instructions whose main intention has up
to

the

present

been

lyase:atlahl
se mizratiyehe:kumehl

almost
:mede

totally

obscure:

tew[e]

kumezeiti

(lines

3ff.).

se

dade
.uhazata:

hrmma:
tuweri

Several of the key

words in this passage occur also in the Lycian version of the trilingual.
For instance, hrmma is almost certainly the same word as hrmmada in N
59
. /
320, 14
which is equated with aypov in the Greek version of the
text. It i9 clear from the trilingual that hrmmada refers to a cultivated
area of land (where buildings have been erected) which is to be resumed
by the local authorities for use in connection with the newly established
cult.

From this we can infer that hrmma in TL 84 may also refer to an

area set aside for a religious purpose.

This is supported by a close

parallel which we can draw between TL 84. 5 mede tewfe]

kumezeiti
56. At comprehensive
bibliography
of the scholarship
on the
trilingual
is provided by Eichner, 1983, S3.
57. The Greek, Lycian,
and Aramaic versions
of the
inscription
are
discussed
by Metzger,
Laroche,
and
Dupont-Sommer
respectively,
as a follow-up
to their
initial
summary
treatment
of the texts in CRAI 1974.
58. E.g.
lines
20-21
and 40-41.
On the former,
see
the
discussions
of Carruba, Heubeck, Neumann, and Gusmani, and
Sevoroskin
in Incontri
linguistic!
4, 1978,
89-98,
and
238-39.
59. hrmmada in
the
trilingual
is
qualified
by
ttaraha
(of/belonging
to the town'),
and is perhaps a plural
form
of hrmma. See also Carruba's comments, 1977,
247-48.

70

The

uhazata
ara

timer1 and tf 320.

kumehedi

seuhazata

Lyeians

26-28 mede tewe kumezidt

uwadi.

nuredi

In the latter passage

nured.1

(se)uhazata

corresponds to wax' EVLCXUTOV in the Greek version of the text ('yearly')

and thus provides the meaning of uhazata

in

TL 84.

Both passages

make provision for sacrifice at regular intervals - TL 84 once yearly

(uhazata)t

and N 320 once monthly with a victim (nuredi

kumehedi) and once yearly with an ox (uhazata uwadi).

nuredi

In the light of

these parallels, it now seems clear that the second half of TL 84 is

concerned with the provision of a funerary cult, or at least an annual
sacrifice, in honour of the deceased, (see Bryce, 1980b). The text and a
translation of the whole of TL 84 appear below, pp. 77-78.
As mentioned earlier, the trilingual provides for the establishment
of a cult in honour of two deities.

The first of these two deities is

referred to in the Lycian version as khntawata

to Basileus

khbidenni,

corresponding

Kaunios in the Greek version. The Lycian word

connected with Luwian hantawata

khntawata,

(see Laroche, 1959, 40), occurs a

number of times elsewhere in the Lycian inscriptions, apparently in

reference to a high ranking military or civilian post. In the trilingual,
however, it is used in reference to a god, qualified in this instance by
khbidenni,

Thi8 latter Is equivalent to the Greek ethnic Kaunios

'belonging to Kaunos', and must therefore be the Lycian ethnic of the

Carlan town Kaunos. -enni

is a common ethnic suffix in Lycian, and we

60

can deduce from this that the Lycian word for Kaunos is Khbide.

Without doubt important advances have been made in the study of

the Lycian language, especially since the late 19th century when the
Scandinavian scholars made clear the basic syntactic structure of the
language, and in more recent years when Lycian was firmly established
as

member

of

the

Luwian

language

group.

Yet

complete

decipherment of Lycian is still a long way off, and will never in fact be
achieved until such time as a demonstrably

correct translation of the

Xanthos stele inscription (TL 44) can be produced. At present we can

60. On Khbide, the Lycian name for Kaunos, cf. Laroche,

1919b,
64, and 83, n. 7 (Laroche argues that the names Kaunos and
Khbide are of quite different
origin),
and Frei,
1981, 361
(who argues
that
they may be the same).
See also
O.
Masson, 1977, 91.

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

71

do no more than speculate on the main contents of the inscription, which

appears to deal principally with the military exploits of a ruling Lycian
dynasty based

at Xanthos, dedications to various deities, and

practices associated with these deities.

cult

This information is provided

partly by the 12-line Greek epigram on the north side of the stele, and
partly by a few translatable words, phrases, and sentences in the Lycian
text, which give at least some indication of the context in which they
occur.
The problems of translation are further compounded by the fact t h a t
the west side (side

d) of the stele is written in a dialect different from

that of the other three sides. This dialect, commonly known as 'Lycian
B' or

'Milyan', occurs also in TL

unintelligible.

55, which is almost

completely

Lycian B is obviously related to the predominant Lycian

dialect appearing in all other inscriptions, and is perhaps an earlier form

of it;

but the precise nature of the relationship between the two is still

a m a t t e r for speculation.
Given the present s t a t e of our knowledge of the Lycian language,
we can only hope t h a t future excavations will provide a significant
number

of new bilingual t e x t s , perhaps even another trilingual,

to

facilitate further progress with the language. But even with the present
limitations, the inscriptions do provide important information on Lycian
institutions

and

offices,

on religion

and

cult

practices,

on

burial

practices, and on family relationships as mirrored in the various tomb

families. This information serves as a valuable basis for a more general
study of Lycian history and civilisation, and is an important complement
to the evidence provided by the numismatic and archaeological material
of Lycia.
Selections from the Lycian Inscriptions
A.

The sepulchral

inscriptions

The sepulchral inscriptions contain a range of information about the

61. See Pedersen,

1945, 14, n. I, and Neumann, 1961, 46,
par.
22 and 1969, 366 and 373 (sec.
lib).
For some
suggestions
as to the Interpretation
of a number of Lycian B words,
see
Gusmanl, 1968; and for a discussion
of nouns,
personal
names, and pronouns in Lycian B, see Meriggi,
1980,
250-64.

72

The Lyei ans

various tomb owners and the arrangements which they made for the
occupancy of their tombs. This information, which is illustrated by the
selection of inscriptions below, can be collectively summarised within
the following categories:
(a) statement of ownership and identification of the tomb owner
(b) the list of eligible tomb occupants
(c) accommodation arrangements within the tomb
(d)

statement of what constitutes

a violation of the

owner's

instructions
(e)

the disciplinary agents responsible for punishing offenders, and

(sometimes) the penalty to be inflicted

(f)

arrangements made with the local mint I (to be discussed in

(g)

a quasi-dating formula (ene. . . .khntawata)

Chapter 5)
(to be discussed in

Chapter 5)
(h) instructions for sacrificial rites in honour of the deceased.
The inscriptions which follow illustrate various combinations of the
above categories, and range from those which contain no more than basic
information about the tomb owner himself to those which encompass
most of the information detailed above.

These inscriptions will also

provide a useful source of reference for the discussion to follow in

Chapter 5 on Lycian social customs and institutions.
The texts transcribed below are taken from Friedrich's edition of
the TL inscriptions appearing in Kleinasiatische

Sprachdenkmler,

pp.

54-88, with some modifications and several additional restorations, the

texts of the post-TL inscriptions, prefixed with the letter
from Neumann's ffeufunde

lykischer

Inschriften

seit

Nt are taken
1901.

As they

appear here, the transcribed texts differ from those of the above
editions in the representation of V as kh (instead of k in Friedrich and X
in Neumann),

as k (instead of c in Friedrich), and 1 as ij (instead of j

in Friedrich and Neumann).

The translations which I offer below involve a substantial amount of
conjecture. No doubt there will be many points where other scholars in
the field will disagree with my proposals. Particularly doubtful phrases
in the translations are indicated by italics.

The Inscriptions
rpL i

ebhn

and the Lycian

khupa me ne prhna<wa>t

khezrimeh

Language

khudali

73

zuhriyah

tideimi[[h]j

prhneziyehi

This tomb Khudali, son of Zuhriya, memberof-thehousehold of Khezrima/e/i

ebhn:khupa:
asawzalah

has built it.

me ti

prhnawat:tewinezi:[s]pphtazah:

tideimi:hrppi:ladi:se

tide[ime]

mihti:

adaiye /{|This tomb Tewinezi, son of Sppntaza Asawazala, has

built it for (his) wife and children.
3

mihti

For the

adas.

ebhn:prhnawa:
ehb:se

me [t]i

tideimi

ad HI

sedi

(or IUI

prhnawate:telekhuzi:hrpi
hta

[tjad

ladi:

tesi:mihti:aladehali:

?)

This building Telekhuzi has built (it) for his wife

and son. And the mihti
ing contract

(??):

for

has imposed here the

the

(burial)

follow-

arrangements

(??)

64

3 (or 4?) ads.

ebhn

htat

me ne prhnawat

dapara pulenydah
epttehe
me iye

se tideime
[tu]be[it]i

purihimeteh
se iye

mulliyeseh

pr[n]neziyehi
tiseri

punama$$i

TOUTO TO yvrjua ipyoavzo

pulenyda
tadi

aladahali:

hrppi

tike

se
lada

htat[a]

ebehi

ada /L

'AoAAcovuns MOAALOLOS wai.

Aaitpa ' ATCOAA [oj] vou IIupLu-CLOS oweuou CUL TOILS

yuvauCtv

x a t s ctoTwv [na] l TOL[] EYYOVOL* wa, av

TLS aLHnariL TO yvrjya TOOTO aiAea [x]ao icavtoAea eun

oTWL

62.

63.
64.

CtVTOJV

The gen. ending eh(e) is found in i^_, e-_, and very

occasionally
also in a^_ stem personal names.
It is therefore
often
difficult
to determine
from the gen. form what the nom. form is
unless
the latter
is separately
attested
(see Meriggi,
1980, 21520) .
For an analysis
of sedi, see Bryce, 1976a, 176, n.7.
The interpretation
of the whole statement
is
conjectural.
For a discussion
of this and similar
statements
in other
sepulchral
inscriptions,
see Bryce,
1976a.

The

Lycians

This chamber Pulenyda, (son) of Mulliyesi, and Dapara,

(son) of Pulenyda, members-of-the-household of Purihimeti, have built it for their wives and children.
And who (ever) places anyone with them in the chamber
of this (tomb) me iye
the

(burial)

arrangements

ebehn:khup:

ladi:eh[b]i

he will punish punama%$i.

(??),

me ne prhnawat
se

5(?)

For

adas.

triy[tezi]:se

ne

piyet[]

tideime

This tomb Triytezi has built it and has allocated

it to his wife and children.
ebehn : khup me ne prhnawat-.triytezi:

nne:ehbiye:se

se ne

piyet

tuhe

This tomb Triytezi has built it, and has allocated

it to his brothers and nephews/nieces.
11-1-2

ebehn prhnaw: me :ti

tid[eimi]

hrppi

prhnawate:ddapssmma:padrmmah:

prhnezizehbi

This building Ddapssmma, son of Padrmma, has built (it)

for his household.
36

ebehn : prhnawa : me ne prhnawat

se:hmprameh:tuhes:se

hta

ahqqadi-.pizibidehztideimi:
tade:mihti

aladehali:ada:

fff - se piyete

seytri:htata:ada:
se mhneieidehe

iye

esedhnewi

) se

piyet:tri:htata:prhnezi:

atlahi:
This building Ahqqadi, son of Pizibida/i and nephew
of Hmprama, has built it. And the mihti
here (the following
arrangements

(??),

chamber, 3i adas.

65.

For the interpretation

contexts
of this kind,

contract)

0-

hrzzizhtat:ladizehbi:

(??):

10} (?) adas,

for

has imposed
the

(burial)

and for the lower

And he has allocated the upper

of the verb piyesee Bryce,

1975,

as "allocate"

in

The

Inscriptions

and the

Lycian

Language

75-

chamber to his wife and the blood-relatives

of

Mrineteida/i; and he has allocated the lower chamber

to his own household.

37

ebehne:khupa:

me ne prhnawat

: mede : ephnni

ehbi : hmprama :

seyatli
This tomb Mede has built it for his younger brother (?)
Hmprma and himself.

39

ehehne:prhnawu:
tideimi
lada

hrppi
sehne

me ti

:smmati

epttehizhtepi

prhnawate

esedehnewi
tiyai

ehbiehi-.se

:kbiyehi

se iyezhta

tane

mmruwi:khhtenubeh:

:khhnahi

Surttai

s :weine: ni yesu
tate:tesi

esedehnewi:
mihti:aladahali:

ada: //I
This building Memruwi, son of Khrtenuba, has built
(it) for the blood-relatives of his grandmother and
the wives of the

urttas

sehne

: snunati

tiyai.

Others

however may not be placed within by their blood-relatives

(lit. others however let it not be permitted
their blood-relatives to place within).
have imposed upon them the
for

49

the

(burial)

arrangements

ebehi:isbazi:mi

iye

pemati

hrppi

tiketkbi

(following)
(??),

The

(?) to
mihti

contract
3

siyni:padrhma:kumaza:me

(??):

adas.

iye

ne

ttane:

On the couch of this tomb lies Padrnma/ sacrifical

priest,

and he does not permit

(??)

to place anyone

else upon him.

66.
67.

68.

69.
70.

For the interpretation

of esedehnewas
"blood-relative,
see below,
pp.
147-50.
For ephnni
as "younger
brother",
see Laroche,
1957-58,
192, and cf. Houwink ten Cate,
1965, 91 (translation
of
TL 37) .
On the term Surtta,
see below,
p.135.
For a
possible
interpretation
of sehne :smmati
tiyi,
see Thomsen,
1899,
61-62,
and Bryce,
221-22.
For kumaza as "sacrificial
priest",
see below, p. 131.
"does not permit"
is the translation
proposed
by Houwink
ten Cate for ne pemati
(1965,
92).

Tne

76

52

Lyeians

ebhn:khup: me nad:krehenube: se
seyni:se

pi[yJet:minti

piyt:waziyeye

nta wata

This tomb Krehenube has made it; and they have allocated
(it) to Waziye and (his) mother.
granted burial

56

rights

And the minti

ebhn prhnaw:me t i prhnawat

ladi:ehbi

has

(??)

se tideimezehbiye

ikhtta:hlah:tideimi:hrppi

se iye

ne qasttu:ni:qlahi:ebiyehi:se

ti

edi:tike:mete:me

wedrizwehhtezi

'Ixxas Aa 'AVTHPEAXUTHS TOUTL TO nvqya qpyaaaTO auxaJtu]

Te Mai, Y^vaLHL xa TEXVOLS* v 6e TLS aouxnonL 'n
aYoparju TO yvnya r\ A n axv LT [pu] i\>[e] L
This building Ikhtta, son of Hla, has built (it) for
And who(ever) commits

his wife and his children.

offence

(?)

sanctuary

an

against them, let the mother of this

(?)

and the municipality of Wehnta (= Phellos)

pass judgment upon him.

57

ebhne:khupu:me ti

prhnawat:ida makhzza uheriyeh

tideimi:hrppi:ladi

ehbi:se

tideime:sei

piyt

minti:tri:khupu:sikhli:aladehkhkhane:se
sikhlazhrzzi

prhnawi:mei:htepi

se la[d d..

s]e

mei:tadi:tike:me

[iye]

tati

i[d:

n[e hrppi ta]ti

ne:tubeiti:mhai

pi ya tu

hrzzi tpmme:
mjakhzza:

tike

huwedri:se

kbi:hrppiye
itlehi:

trmmili:ebidalahaditi:ebei:hte
This tomb Ida Makhzza, son of Uheriya/i, has built (it)
for his wife and children. And the minti have given
72
(??) to him/them
to arrange/prepare(??)
the

approval

lower tomb for one shekel and the upper (tomb) for
two(?)

shekels.

In the upper building they will place

within Ida Makhzza and (his) wife .. and they will not

71.
72.

place anyone else upon them.

If (someone) places anyone

(else) upon them, the huwedri

gods and the Lycian

"burial rites"
is a very tentative
translation
of nta wta
cf. Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 92.
Various interpretations
have been proposed for the clause
sei piyt piyatu:mihti.
See the discussion in Bryce, 1975,
37-40.

The Inscriptions
itlehi

61

and the Lycian Language

will punish him

ehidalahaditi:ebei:hte.

eb:prhnawa :me ti zprnnawat'z sbikeziyi

tideimi

ladi ehbi:se

''

:mrekhisa <h >:

tideime:n:khntawata:wataprddatehe:

This building Sbikeziyi, son of Mrekhisa, has built

(it) for his wife and children.

Under the command

of Wataprddate (= Autophradates).

75

ebhn:khupa :m ne [pr]hnawat:tett[m]pe:hhtihama:
tid[ei]mi

se ne hteztti

tatu:tike:mm:lad

tiye

tdi i[s]bazi:me
h[rpp]i:la[t.]

iye:ni

hr[ppi]

hrppi[...]i:

tadi: tike :kbi: me ne tubidi:q[lja[y]eb[i

73
mihtaha

s]e maliya:

se t[asa]:

This tomb Tettmpe, son of Hntihma, has built it, and

74
on the couch where they shall place him let them not
place anyone else except

(??)

(his) wife.

Who(ever)

(?) here
places anyone else upon them, the sanctuary
76
will punish
and Maliya and the oaths of the mihti
him.

84

ebhn:prhnawa: me
mluhidaza:surezi

ti:prhnawat:mizretiye:murzah:tuhes:

hrppi atli:ehbi:se

ehbiye:se dad:atli:hrzz

ladi:se

ispaziy:me

hatzse ladaihrppiye mei:tadi:tike:tike:me

[q]a[ss]ttebi:surezi:se
peti

tideime:

teinta

dad hrhma:iyase:atlahi:me

mede tew[e] kumezeiti:uhazata:tuweri

kumehi:adaiye: /( - :uraziy

74.
75.
76.

ebhn:

hakhkhati:mluhidaza:ddeiphte: khi tpi: term

mluhidazi medizhte khultti:hrmm:phtbahi:nte

73.

tati

ne qla:

[..]

se

n:khruwi,

mizratiyehe:

adi::seyepi

hadi

ti:

tjasa] is a restoration to Friedrich's text.

On tesi/tasa,
see Bryce, 1976a, 184-85.
On the translation of this clause, see Laroche, 1960, 176,
and Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 95, n.a. on TL 75.
"except" is a tentative translation of mm, suggested by
Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 95.
Presumably this means that the mihti has undertaken an oath
to safeguard the tomb and to punish anyone violating the
owner's
instructions.

The

78

Lycians

[s]e mei ne:kumazati:me

ne:ppd:qla:smmati:ebi:surezi
mluhidaza

This building Mizretiye, nephew of Muraza,

at Sura, has built (it) for himself and (his) wife and
And he has made (i.e. reserved?)

his children.

for

himself the upper couch/ and they will place within

there this person(?)

and his wife.

If (anyone) places

someone else upon them, the sanctuary

(?) here at Sura

will punish him. And he (i.e. Mizretiye) has made

a hrnuna

aside?)

khruwi.-mede

tew[e]

for his own iyase.

me peti . . .
78
the tuweri
will make sacrifice
(in

yearly, and will make (i.e. provide?) a victim

honour?)
79
adas.

of Mizretiye (to the value

[..]

(set

adi:e:

of?)

2\

uraziy

And whom(ever) one appoints

(?)

(i.e. as the person responsible for conducting the

sacrifice), if he does not become sacrificer, the local
sanctuary (?) here at Sura

86

ebhn:prhnawa:m

ti

will

hold him

responsible(??)

80

prhnawat:erimnnuha:semuteh:tideimi:

hrppi:atli:ehbi:seyni:ehbi
This building Erimnnuha, son of Semuta/i has built (it)
for himself and his mother.

88

ebhn prhnawa me ne prhnawat

hrpi
htepi
htepi
tike

ladi
tti
tatu
tibei

ehbi

se tideime

ddaqasa-sttuleh:tideimi

se ke lati

tezi

tibei

nipe hlmmi tuwetu hlmmi mei

htepi

tadi

huwedri se trqqasrse

se lad ehbi kbi

ddaqasa me ne

htipa

tike

me ne itlehi

tike

mei

nipe

tuweti

tubeiti

trmmili.

mahai huwedri

This building Ddaqasa, son of Sttuli, has built it for

his wife and children.

77.
78.
7980.

And when Ddaqasa dies(?)

they

On hrmma, see above, p. 69.

tuwri is perhaps a term of family relationship;
see Bryce,
1980b, 46.
uraziy appears to qualify
adaiy, but its meaning is unknown.
See Bryce, 1980b, 45.
For a discussion
of the interpretation
of the last
clause,
see Bryce, 1980b, 48.
To the references
contained
therein
add Meriggi, 1980, 243, sec. 78, Frei, 1981, 362.

The Inscriptions

and the Lycian Language

will place him within the inscribed

and (also) his wife.

79

(?) sarcophagos,

(But) let them not place anyone

81

else within (the sarcophagos) nor set up a hlmmi.

If anyone sets up a hlmmi here or places anyone (else)

within (the sarcophagos), the huwedri
and Trqqas and the huwedri

89

Lycian

gods will punish him.

khup:ebnn:me nadzhri[khmjma nne:ehbiye:mei

tashti:nehi:hrikhmma

[..]

itlehi

esedhnew:adi

htepi

mey:tik:e:

khttba : ti shke: me ne : i [tjlehi : qati : trmmili : seiprh: pablti

tiyai
This tomb Hrikhmma has made it for his brothers. And
they will place within here the blood-relatives of the
mother of Hrikhmma.
the Lycian itlehi
pablti

91

81

82.
83.

If anyone commits

any offence

(?),

will pass judgment upon him seipfh:

tiyi.

ebhn pr[h]naw me ne prhnawat khlppasi khsshzi yah

82
tid[eimi mei htepi tti]
khlppasi se ladu e[hjbi se
83
iye ni hrppi ttu tike atlahi tifbe kbiyehi meiy]

Imbert suggested that a hlmmi may have been a cremation urn

(1896, 227). Thomsen preferred to think of it as "un objet
neutre tel que pierre, table commemorative ou quelque chose
de semblable" (1899, 53-54).
hlmmi appears also in the
trilingual
(line 25) where i t is associated with piyata,
but i t is still
not possible to fix a precise meaning upon
the word. Laroche translates line 25 of the trilingual as
"et tout le profit que l'on en retirera"
(1979b, 72), and
Houwink ten Cate has suggested to me that hlmmipiyata
could perhaps be translated as "additional gifts".
Some
importance should, I think, be attached to the fact that
in both TL 88 and 93 hlmmi is used with the verb tuwe- which
elsewhere is used with sarcophagoses, stelae, and statues i . e . erected monuments. This may indicate that a hlmmi could
refer to something that was set up either in the tomb itself,
or at least in its vicinity.
Perhaps this was a common practice,
unless for some reason or other it was expressly
forbidden,
as in the case of TL 88 and 93. See also Carruba, 1978,
306ff.
( 'Zusatz'' , 'Hinzufgung' J and Frei, 1981, 362
( 'Zusatzgabe' ) .
An additional restoration to Friedrich's text by Houwink
ten Cate, (1965, 96) .
A further addition by Houwink ten Cate to Friedrich's
text
(ibid.).

The Lycians

80
adi tike

ti[h]e

zu[n]ma meweyesu httmi

This building Khlppasi, son of Khssenziya, has built

it.

And they shall place within Khlppasi and his wife.

Let them not place anyone (else) upon them, whether

from his own (i.e. Khlppasi's) or from someone else's
(family).

If someone commits
84

an offence(?)

here, let

him be answerable(??)

e[b]nn[ kh]upa me t[i

93

tideimi

hrppi ladizehbizse

[h]t[ep]i
htepi

t[at]i

tike

tideime:statti

[t]i

upazi se laduzehbi kbi tike

[meji

mei nipe

hlfhmi tuwe[tu] [. .]ahi[.]izhlmmi

ttu tibei

mei tuweti
tubidi

p]rhn[a]wat upazi muskhkhah

tibei

ht[epi]

tadi tike

me ne trqqas

se muhai huwedri:

This tomb Upazi, son of Muskhkha, has built (it) for

his wife and children sttati

t i . And they will place

within here Upazi and his wife. Let them not place
anyone else within nor erect a hlmmi [..]ahi[.]i.

If

anyone erects a hlmmi here or places anyone (else)

within, Trqqas and the huwedri

94.1-2

gods will punish him.

ebenne:prnna[w]z me ti:prhnawate
ladi:m[e] ne ntepi

tati

hrzzi

:hurttuw[e]ti:hrppi

prhnawizse ladazehbizse

hakhanazse [iyje

nezhrppi tatiztik[e]zh[rpp]i[y]e

tadi

nezitlehizqahtiztrmmiliz

[tjikezme

m[ei]:

This building Hurttuweti has built (it) for his wife.

And they will place him and his wife and Hakhna within
the upper building, and they will not place anyone
(else) upon them.

If (someone) places anyone (else)

upon them, the Lycian itlehi

will pass judgment upon

him.

84.

On the possible meaning of httmi

("answerable/'responsible?),
see most recently Bryce, 1981b, 228.

The Inscriptions
101

and the Lycian Language

81

ebenne:khupa: me ti prhnawate:za[h]ama:ddawapartah
tideimi:me
ehbi[s]
tibe

ntepi

tati:za[h]ama:se

kbi:tike:ti

ntepi

te:ala[h]adi

lada:se:tideimis:

tadi:a[t]la[h]i:tibe:kbiyehi

tizme ne ma[h]ai:tubeiti

wed[reh]ni

This tomb Zahma, son of Ddawaparta, has built (it).

And they will place within Zahma and (his) wife and
his children.

Who(ever) places anyone else within

whether from his own (i.e. Zahma1s) or another's

(family) or who(ever) lays

out/arranges(??)

(anyone

else) there (OR makes (other) burial arrangements

85
there(??)),
the regional
gods will punish him.

102

ebenne : khup : me ti

prhnawate:skhkhutrazi

teti:skhkhutrazi:se

laduzehbi

hte:hri:alahadi:tike:tibe
ttleiti

se

me ne: ntepi

tideimis:ehbis:ti

hte ti:hrppi

tadi;tike:me

puwa:aitta:ammma:qebeliya:ni:qlahi:ebiy[e]hi

ph :}n]\ trehni : sewe: tubidi :pde khba

This tomb Skhkhutrazi has built (it). And they will
place within Skhkhutrazi and his wife and his children.
Who(ever)arranges/lays

out(??)

anyone (else) within

on top, or who(ever) places anyone (else) within upon

(them) will pay

85.
86.

87.

aitta

cattle as a

penalty(??)

On the meaning of wedrehni ("regional"),

see Bryce, 1981a,
83.
It seems preferable to translate
t t l e i t i , ttlidi
as "to make
payment" (with ni qlahi ebiyehi as its indirect
object),
rather than "to impose, inflict"
(with eni qlahi ebiyehi
as
its subject).
The verb may well be cognate with
tllakhhta,
which appears in lines 19-20 of the trilingual,
where it
stands in apposition to the ada expression and obviously
means "payment". See also Heubeck, 1982, 113-14, Eichner,
1983, 54-55, n.44.
aitata is one of several numerical expressions which occur
in alphabetic form in the epichoric texts.
Others are
kbishtta
(TL 111.3 and 4), nuhtata (TL 131.3), and kmma
shta (TL 149.9).
Meriggi in his discussion of the Lycian
numerals proposed the following values:
kbishtata
-20,
aitta - 80, nuhtata - 90, shta - 100, kmma shta - 500 (1936,
266-68) . And in more recent times other scholars have suggested
similar values; e.g. Laroche: kbishtta - 20 or 200, nuhtata
- 90 or 900 (1967, 47), Neumann: nuhtata - 90? shta - 100?
(1969, 368, 394), aitata - "wahrscheinlich ein hheres
Zahlwort, vermutlich die Bezeichnung einter Dekade" (1974,

The Lycians

82
qebeliya

to the pntrenni

sewe:tubidi:pde:khba.

106.1

ebehi khupa-.mei ti

~ 89

mother of this sanctuary

(?)

90

siyenizsbi:

:aza:%urtta:mihtehi

pddeneh:mmi:

In the chamber
chairman(??)

107a.1

[e]beli:me ti

92

of this (tomb) (it is) Sbikaza,

of the mihti,

Surtta,

who lies here.

siyeni:tele:se

lada:se tideime:ehbi: :

sladai:ebttehi:W

Here lies Tele and (his) wife and his 5(?) sons and
their 4(?) wives.
111.1-4 ebftn:khupa: me ti:prhnawat[e]
tr[zzuba[h....]

erzesinube:kumaza:

tti:ebhne:ebei:tiye:h<r>ppi

tike:ebei:etleh[i]:[sje
ammam:qlebi:kerut[i]:e[

[kbiyehi]
] se

me

[t]ti

ttlidi:kbishtata;

ttlidi:trzzubi:ammama:

kbi sh ta ta. : uwa :

88.

89.
90.
91.
92.

638, n.2) , Korol'ov and Sevoroskin: krhma shta - 50 (1969,

524, n.2).
None of these interpretations
are at all
certain,
and the values that have been assigned may in most cases
be far too high, especially when one considers their
practical
implications in the penalty clauses.
For instance, in TL
102 i t seems unrealistic
to think in terms of a fine of 800,
or even 80, cattle to compensate for unauthorised use of
a tomb. Carruba in fact argues for much smaller values,
interpreting
an ta as 1, kbishtata as 2, aitata as 8, and
nuhtata as 9 (1974, 583-92).
His arguments are plausible
but not conclusive, and one must accept that the Lycian
numerals when expressed alphabetically
are still unknown
quantities.
1
The interpretation
of ammama as "fine ' or "penalty" accords
with the suggestion of Kishimoto (1965, 283ff.).
Other
scholars however construe ammama as an adjective
qualifying
uwa ("cattle").
Neumann suggests that it may be a Lycianised
form of aywyos ("unblemished") - a Greek word taken over
into Lycian (1974, 110). Carruba suggests that i t is the
Lycian word meaning "young" (1974, 581, n.8) , a suggestion
adopted by Heubeck (1982, 114-15).
On the meaning of pntrenni, see Bryce, 1981a, 82-83. To
the references contained therein add Frei, 1981, 362.
Neumann interprets
khba as the name of a deity; see below,
Chapter 6, p. 189.
On the term pdaenehmmi, see below, Chapter 5, p. 135.
khpa is apparently used here in the dat. case to refer to
a chamber within the tomb rather than to the tomb as a whole
(xs also in TL 131.2)

The Inscriptions

and the Lycian Language

83

This tomb Erzesinube, priest of Trzzbi, .... has built

(it).

(And) they will place (within) this (person)

there.

Who(ever) places anyone (else) upon him there,

from his own and (= or?) from another (family) will

93

pay kbishtata

cattle as penalty(??)

here kerutji]:e[

to the sanctuary (?)

7 and will pay kbishtata

cattle

as penalty to Trzzubi.

114

esedeplemeye:rneyade:tesi:mihti
ne:eph:puhte

awahai:khupa:ehbi:sei

mei:[a]wahi:tesi:aladahali

With Esedeplmi the minti

for-the-purpose-of

burial(??)

has made
94

have subsequently admitted him.

-)

an

117

And they

The agreement for the

arranging/preparing for-the-purpose-of
)

agreement(??)

in his tomb.

burial(??)

(is)

(adas).

ebeiya:erawaziya:me
tideimi

[hjrppi:etli

ti:prnnawate:sideriya
se ladi:ehbi:se

:parm[enah]:

tideimi:

pubieleye

TO pvriia TO'ObriaaTO ELptoapuvovTOSULO eauxwu

Mot ifju YUv[a]uwi, XCXL u)i, nuuaAriL.

This heroon(?)

Sideriya, son of Parmna, has built (it)

for himself and his wife and (his) son Pubiele.

118.1-2 [ebejhne:[.]tisni:me
tideimi:hrzzi:htat[a
uwe ni :hrppi:tatu:

This (.]tiseni

ti:prnnawate:khuhniyei:masasahe:
khu]hniyeye:s[e]

ladi:[ehb]i:se

tike

Khunniyei, son of Masasa/i, has built

(it), the upper chamber for Khunniyi and his wife.

95 upon (them).
And one may not place anyone (else) uwe

121

93.
94.
95.

ebehn khupa me ti

prnnawate ermmeneni:se lada ehbi

On kbishtata,
see above, n.87.
On the interpretation
of awahai/awahi as "for the purpose
of burial",
see Houwink ten Cate, 1965, n. b on TL 16.
uwe i s , perhaps, a particle
meaning "further",
"in
addition".
Cf. Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 79-80, par. 24.

The Lycians

84

hrppi atla eptte

se prhnezi

epttehi

This tomb Ermmeneni and his wife have (lit. has) built
(it) for themselves and their household.

124

ebene khupu sei hri ti htipa me ti

kmmis itei

htata sebeilyjes

ade uhetei

e[[b]]behi

ladi tideime ehbiye 0

This tomb and the sculpture {inscription?)

that is here

on (it), Uhetei has made (it), the apartment of it

and these kmmis for Itei(?),

(his) wife and his 10(?)

children (translated by Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 97).

131

]a [t}i

tati:ebnn:se

[prjnnawate:hrppi ladi:ehbi:me
lad:ehbi:[....Jeruma[.Ju

se iye ti:eseri
[tikje

tiye:se

tadiztike
khttadi:tike

se khawarttu:

khupa:ebehi:tibe

te:alahadi:

hruttla:ebeiya:me

nuntta:amm[ajma:uwa se

ni qlahi:ebiyehi
se t t i t i

ne:ntepi

ttlidi:
niyepiczalatu:

eni qlahi:ebiyehi:rmmazata:khi^ase:ada:Z..sewe

trbbalahxti : tawa
[

]a has built (it) for his wife.

And they will

place him, this (person), within and his wife

[....]eruma[,]u

se khawarttu.

And who(ever) places

anyone (else) with them in the chamber of this (tomb)

or lays out(??)
anyone (else) there, and who(ever)
96
erases/alters
this inscription/these
instructions(?
will pay nuhtta cattle as a penalty to the mother of

96.

The Lycian verb is khttadi, which occurs again in the Lycian

version of the trilingual
(lines 34-35) where i t corresponds
to yeTctHLvnaeuv in the Greek version (lines 34-35) . The
precise meaning of the verb is not altogether
certain,
although in the contexts referred to here, i t does seem to
have the sense of modifying/altering/erasing
the text of
an inscription
(cf. Robert, 1974, 291, Bryce, 1978-79, 12324, Laroche, 1979b, 74, Metzger, 1979, 39, Frei, 1981, 35758) . We might compare a number of the Greek inscriptions
of Lycia where the erasure of an inscription,
or additions
to i t , are specifically
referred to as violations (e.g. TAM
II
247.8, 357.9-12, 622.3-4, 797.11-13, SEG IV 765).

The Inscriptions
this

and the L,ycian Language

97

sanctuary (?) se myepi:zalatu

85

and he w i l l pay
go

to the mother of this sanctuary (?) 5 adas of grain (?)

monthly sewe

138

trbbalahati:tawa.

ebehne:khupa:me

ti

99

prnnawat:uwihairi

kbatrizehbi:

plezziyeheye

This tomb Uwihairi has built (it) for his daughter

Plezziyehi(?).

139

ebenezkhupa me ti
hrppi ladi
ti

hrppi

prnna[wat]e

ehbi:khukhuneye

tati

tike

tilume:zizahamah

se tideime

me ne tubidi

ehbiyfe]

h[p]pnte[rus]

maraziya mihtaha:hlmmidewe:mleyeusi

tideimi
se uwe:
mahai:se

murhna

This tomb Tilume, son of Zizahama, has built (it) for

his wife Khukhuni and his children. And (those) who
place anyone (else) upon (them) uwe, the
gods(??)

and the tribunal

punish them.
143

(?)

hppnterus

of the minti

will

For Hlmmidewe(?), Mleyeusi(?), and Murnna(?)

Koapct Oaatptos

zalatu is probably to be construed as an imperative

verb,
made negative by n^.
Neumann suggests that the
expression
may mean "und er soll
(seil,
diese Angabe der Rinder)
nicht
verzgern!"
(1974, 114).
He compares zala- with
Hittite
zallaz and Luwian zallati- "in langsamer Gangart", and
suggests that epi zala- may correspond to the Latin retardare.
98. For the suggestion
that kh%%ase is an oblique form of *khad(a)and that *khad(a)- means "grain", see Neumann, 1962, 208,
and 1974, 113-14.
99. I would suggest,
very tentatively,
that sewe
trbbalahati:tawa
may mean "and he (i.e.
the offender)
will
re-arrange(??)
(the tomb/the tomb's contents)
adequately(???)".
In other
words, the person who has committed the offence is
responsible
for restoring
the tomb (or its contents)
to its
original
state.
Cf. Carruba, 1969, 97 and Sevoroskin,
1969, 270.
100. For the interpretation
of hppnterus mahai, see below, Chapter
6, p. 188.
101. "tribunal"
is the translation
proposed for maraziya, a cognate
of mara which appears in line 33 of the trilingual
and means
"laws, regulations"
(or similar).
maraziya may then refer
to a court of justice,
consisting
of members of the local
minti
responsible
in this instance for passing judgment
on those charged with tomb violation.
Cf. Laroche, 1979b,
74, 98, Heubeck, 1982, 110).
97.

The Lycians

86

ebehne:htatu:me ti prhnawate :khudara:[hrppi

1]adi:ehbi;

mmiyezse tideime:ehbiye

se piy[ete]

htatu:pttlezeye:se

e[h]bi mammahaye:kbatri:ehbi:

se

ladi

mla:hnazi:ebehne:

tideime:ehbiye

This chamber Khudara has built (it) for his wife Mmi
102
and his children. And (the(?))
Mlannazi
has allocated
this chamber to Pttlezei(?) and his wife Mammaha, his
daughter and his sons.

149
1-10

ebehne:prhnawa me ne prhnawat
tideimi

iyamara:terssikhlehe:

maliyahi:wedrhnehi:akh[[s]]ataza:me

prhnezi:se

tteri:adaiy

mei ne hta wata

ebene me iye ne:hrppi tati

tike

ehbi:hrpp[iye

mei] tadi

prhn[eziyehi]

kbiyehi:tike:me

pibiyeti

pibiyeti:tere

:iyamaraye:tibe:ladi:

tike :kbi:ti[b]e

khttbadi:eti:

httemi:anabaye:se

7 wedrehni : ammama kmma shta : wawa :se k[

n[

khawa: se ne

:testi:qahti:trmmiliyt:i

This building Iyamara, son of Terssikhle, priest

104

of the regional Maliya, has built it, and he allocates

(it) to (his) household se tteri:adaiy
mei ne hta wta
105
:tere
ebene.
And they will not place

me pibiyeti

anyone (else) upon them, upon Iyamara or his wife. If

(someone) places anyone else upon them, or commits
offence(??)

ti

anyone of another household, he

be) responsible(??)
[... ] kmma shta
penalty

an
(will

anabaye.And [
.
.
.
.
] the regional

cattle and k[

] sheep as a

(??); and the Lycian oath-gods will pass

judgment upon him.

102. It is uncertain whether Mlannazi is an official

title
or
a personal name,
103. In the original text the name Terssikhleh- ends with the
symbol Q , which should probably be transcribed purely as
a vowel after the preceding aspirate; see above, n.30.
104. On the term akhatza, ("priest"),
see below, Chapter 5, p. 132.
105. Houwink ten Cate translates mei ... pibiyeti
as "and he gives
not the right-to be buried (?) here" (1965, 98).
On the forms
pibiti,
pibiyeti,
see also Heubeck, 1981, 166-67.

The Inscriptions
150

eheliime

and the Lycian Language

87

siyni:khssenziya:khhtlapah:tideimi:mutleh:

prhneziyehi:prhnawate ti:htat:atli:ehbi:se
hrppi tati: tike :kbi:hrppiye mei:ta[t]i:me
maliya:wedrehni:se itlehi:trmmili

iye ne:
ne

:qastti:

huwedri:khssehziyaye:

hberuse zasani:khadrhna:uhazata:kumezeine

Here lies Khssefiziya, son of Khfitlapa, member-of-thehousehold of Mutla/i, who has built the chamber for
himself.

They will not place anyone else upon him.

If they place (anyone else) upon him, the regional

Maliya and the huwedri Lycian itlehi

will pass judgment

hberuse

upon them (i.e. the offenders) . For Khssefiziya

zasni:khadrfina

N 306

to make yearly sacrifice.

ebef[n]:prhnaw[a] :mti

prnnawat:pihteusi:tewinaza:

idazzalah:tideimi:hrppi:ladi:ehbi:setideime:ehbiye:
[mjene:ntepitati:hrzzi:prhnawi:pihteusi:selada:ehbi:
kbi: tike : mente

ne:hriyalahadi:tike:atlahi:tibekbiyehi:

hrihtemei:alahadi:tike:atlahi:tibekbiyehi:mei:mahai:
httem:lati:seheledi:seneitlehi:qahti:trmmili:huwedri

This building Pinteusi, tewinaza,son

of Idazzala, has

built (it) for his wife and his children.

(And) they

will place him within, Pinteusi and his wife, in the

upper building.

One will not arrange/lay

out(??)

anyone

else on top inside, anyone of his own or another's (family).

If one arranges/lays

out(??)

anyone on top inside, (either)

of his own or another's (family), he (i.e. the offender)

will be responsible to the gods latai
the huwedri
310

Lycian itlehi

seheledi,

and

will pass judgment upon him.

ebhn:khup[a:m]ne:prhnawate khlasitini:magabatah:
tideimi khali:qehhniteti:ebehne:

e[ne]:arppakhuhe:

khntfawjata

This tomb Khlasitini, son of Magabata, who has

106.

purchased(??)

For the suggestion that latai and heledi are the names of
deities,
see Neumann, 1979, 25, and see below, 189.

Tne

88
this place(??),

Lycians
has built it.

Under the command

of Arppakhu (= Harpagos).

322

ebnri

:khupa:mene:prhnawa[t]e[.]azz[.]pmudiyah:tideimi:

qelehi:kumaza

[h]rppizladi:setideime:aladahali:ada

If

This tomb [.]azz[.], son of Pmudiya, sacrifical priest

of Qeli/ has built it for (his) wife and children. For
the

(burial)

arrangements(??),

2 adas.

*******

107. The translation

"who has purchased(??) this place(??)"
is
based on Neumann's interpretation
of khalizqehhniteti
- "der
diesen Platz (?) gemietet (gekauft? gepachtet?) hat" (1979b,
27).
See also Bryce, 1981b, 229.

The Inscriptions
.

The non-sepulchral

and The Lycian

Language

89

inscriptions

The great majority of the non-sepulchral epichoric inscriptions are

largely unintelligible, and in very few cases are we able to translate
more than a few scattered words and phrases in them. Broadly speaking,
the non-sepulchral inscriptions can be categorised as follows:
(a)

inscriptions on monuments commemorating a person or family - TL

25, 27, 28,

51,

54.
1 Oft

(b)

inscriptions dealing with religious rites - TL 26(7),

N 304,

(c)

65(7),

320.

an administrative decree - TL 45.

(d) religious dedications - N 311,

312,

318, N Suppls.

1, 3,

4.

(e)

the Xanthos stele inscription (TL 44)y a record of military activities

(f)

inscriptions of uncertain classification - TL 24,

and achievements, and religious practices.

AT suppl.

35,. 55,

319,

2.

Of these inscriptions we can offer reasonably complete translations

of the following:

108. Although fragmentary

and largely
obscure,
the
inscription
contains
various
references
to the gods (lines
9 and 22),
in particular
Trqqas
(lines
7 and 18),
to a g la
(sanctuary?)
(lines
3, 8, 17, 24), to a priest
(line
20),
and to a monthly
sacrifice
(line
16).
Note Neumann's
discussion
of the inscription,
1976,
83-86.
109. The text and translation
of the Greek epigram appearing on
side c of the stele
appear
below under D. The text
with
a brief commentary appears also in Hansen, 1983, 97.

90

The Lycians

TL 25(a)

(inscription on a statue base):

ebeis:tukedris:m[e

ne]

krup[sseh] tideimi:se
tlhna:atru:ehb[i]

tuwet:khssbez:

purihime[teh]

se

tuhes:

ladu:ehbi:tikeukepre

pillehni:urtaqiyahh:kbatru

se priyenubehh:

tuhesh
Ilopa 8pU(J;LOs HopuaTOUs aEA(pL6os TAweo
aUTOV x a [ u ] xny Yuvauxa TuaEUaeupav w
LvaptV 'OpTdxua uyaTp<a> Ilpuavoa
6e(pufjv

'AOXWVL

Khssebez, son of Kruppsi, nephew of Purihimeti, citizen

of Tlos, erected these statues (representing) himself
and his wife Tikeukpre, citizen of Pinara, daughter
of Urtaqiya, niece of Priyenuba.

27

(inscription on a stele):
mekhistten:

ep[h]

tuwete:atli:ehbi:

skhkhuliyah:tideimi: sa ladi:ehbi:merimaway[e]
petnneh;tideimi:se

tideimi

ehbizskhkhuliye

Mekhistte, son of Skhkhuliya, has erected (it) for

himself and his wife Merimawa, offspring of Petnni,
and his son Skhkhuliya.

text.
110. An additional restoration to Friedrich's
111. Khssbez, the name of the tomb owner, corresponds to uopTia
in the Greek version.
ITopna is obviously not a Greek
transcription of the Lycian name, but it may be a translation
of i t .
As an ordinary noun Tiopua is the term used for the
handle of a shield, and this may in fact indicate the meaning
of khssbez in Lycian.
112. On the (e)ne ending, see Carruba's comments, 1978, 76-78.
113. An additional restoration to Friedrich's
text.

The Inscriptions

and the Lycian Language

N 320 (the Letoon trilingual).

91

The full text of the trilingual,

with French translations and commentaries, has most recently been

published in Fouilles

de Xanthos

VI, and we shall confine ourselves

here to the epichoric version of the inscription:

1.

ke:trmmisn:khssa%rapazate:pig-

2.
3.
4.

esere:katamlah:tideimi:sehnentepddehade:trmmi1e:pddenehmmis:iyeru: senatrbbiyemi: seyarhna:asakhlazu:erttimeli:mehhtit-

5.
. 6.

ubede:arus:seyepewetlmmei:arh-

7.

nai:mmait:kumeziye:%:khhtawa-

8.

ti:khbidehni:seyar??azuma

9.

wati:sehnaite:kumazuimahana:eb-

114

10.

ette:eseimiyu:qnturahahh:tideimi:sede:eseimiyaye:khuwatiti:s-

11.
12.

eipiyte:arawa:ehbiye

13.

delimitate; teteri : seyepewetlm-

14.

mei:hrmmada:ttaraha:mekhbaite :z-

15.

16.

sehtehtekmme : seyeti :d .
sttat-

18.
19.
20.

iteli:setahhtai:khntawatehi:khbidehnehi:seyar??azumahi:seipibiti:uhazata:ada:

25.

:eti:ttla-

ide:arawa:hatikmmetis:meipibiti:sikhlas:sewayaite

:kumaha:ti

sttalizppuweti:kmme:ebehi:khhta-

23.
24.

l>ioo

khnta:arnna:sesmmati:khddazas:ep-

21.
22.

:esiti:se-

:esekheshtedi:qhtati:sepigrei:

17.

114.

zkhnta-

wataha:khbidehnaha:ser??azumaha

:meiyesiteniti:hlmmipiyata

26.

medetewe:kumezidi:nuredi:nure-

27.

di: ara:kumehedi:seuhazata:uwad-

28.

i:khhawati:khbidenni:seyer??az-

29.

uma:mekumezidi:seimiya :sede:se-

The question marks represent the symbol /W (used twice),

referred to above, p, 57 n.20, perhaps a Carian symbol,
roughly equivalent to the Greek kappa', see again Laroche,
1979b, 57.

The Lycians

92
30 31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

seiyehbiyai-

te:tasa:mere:ebette:teteri:arhnas:seyepewetlmmei:arnnai:metepituweti:mara

ebeiya:eti

sttal-

i:ppuwetime:ebehi:sewene:khttadi: tike:ebinentewe:rnahana:ebett~

36.

e:ebine:htewe:kumazi:ebehi:khtta-

37.

derneye: tike :mepdde:mahna:smma-

38.
39.

1-9:

imiyaye:khuwatiti:

ti:ebette:seyni:qlahi:ebiyehi
pntrnni:setideime:ehbiye

:sey-

40-

eliyna:pigesereye:meiyeseri-

41.

hhati:mehriqla:ashne:pzzititi

When Pigesere (= Pixodaros), son of Katamla (= Hekatomnos) ,

was satrap of Trffimisa (= Lycia) and appointed Iera and
commissioners for the Trmmili (= Lycians),
116
and Erttimeli as governor
of Arnna (= Xanthos), the
117
citizens and perioikoi
of Arnna determined to establish

Natrbbiymi

an altar for the Lord of Kaunos and for the Lord

Arkazuma.
9-18:

And they made Eseimiya (= Simias), son of Qnturaha,

priest for these gods, and (subsequently) whoever
succeeds Eseimiya; and they gave to him/them exemption
from property dues; and there the townspeople and
perioikoi

set aside (?) property belonging to the town;

(and they) resumed(??)

Pigrii

(the land) which Khesntedi and

till; and whatever is erected and attached

there (will

become

the property?)

(?)

of the Lord of Kaunos

and Arkazuma.
115. For the possible implications of the equation between
Natrbbiyemi in the Lycian text and Apollodotos in the Greek,
see below, Chapter 6, pp. 187-88.
116. The Lycian term is
asakhlaza, which is equated with LUEr)Tns
in the Greek text.
117. The possible implications of this term are discussed below,
Chapter 5, PP- 169-71.
118. On the transcription
of the proper name, see Laroche, 1979b,
57.

The Inscriptions

18-22:

And Arnna will give each year x

and will

slaves
22-25:

and the Lycian Language

be responsible (?)

121

119

adas

93

(as) payment
120all

(for ensuring that)

who are subsequently enfranchised there

will give shekels (one shekel

apiece?),

And they further made all that

is inscribed

(?) on this

stele sacred to the Lord of Kaunos and to Arkazuma.

25-30:

(And from) whatever tribute(??)

medetewe(?)

is gathered (???)

here

one will duly make sacrifice monthly with

a victim, and yearly with an ox to the Lord of Kaunos,

and to Arkazuma; (and) Seimiya (is the one who) will
make sacrifice and (subsequently) whoever succeeds
Seimiya.
30-35:

And the townspeople of Arrina and the perioikoi

of Arnna

made an oath for these regulations, and they set up

all these regulations that

are inscribed

(?) on this

stele; and furthermore one will not remove (i.e.

alter?)

erase?

anything herewithin (pertaining) either to these

gods or to this priest.

36-40:

Whoever removes (i.e,

erases?

alters?)

anything will

be answerable before these gods and the phtrenni

40-41:

of this sanctuary (?)

122
Unintelligible

mother

and her children and the nymphs.

119. The interpretation

of the numeral associated with ada here
has been referred to above, pp. 62-63.
120. Cf. Eichner, 1983, 54-55, with n. 45.
121. The interpretation
of khddaza as "slave" seems now to be
widely accepted, see most recently Eichner, 1983, 54-59
122. See Laroche's analysis,
1979b, 76, and cf. Frei, 1981, 36263.

The

94
C.

The Erbbina

Inscriptions

Lycians

123

During the course of the French excavations at the Le toon, two

statue bases were unearthed bearing inscriptions, both Lycian and Greek,
which were composed on the orders of Erbbina, one of the last members
of the ruling dynasty at Xanthos

(see Chapter 4, pp. 110-11). For

convenience' sake, we shall refer to these inscriptions as Erbbina

Erbbina

I and

II.

Erbbina

J, a dedicatory inscription referring to Artemis as the

recipient of a bronze statue set up by Erbbina, consists of 2 lines of

Lycian followed by an 8-line Greek epigram, imperfectly preserved
(published by Bousquet,

1975, 141-42).

The Lycian text has most

recently been published by Neumann as N 311y and reads as follows:

[erjblnayene

ubete

khruwata

ertemi

fkherjigah

tldeiml

seyupeneh
Erbbina, son of Kheriga and Upeni, has dedicated it (as) an offering
to Ertemi (= Artemis).
The right hand side of the Greek epigram has disappeared, but has
been conjecturally restored by Bousquet as follows:
rpYLo. 'u v ULOs T[ ou 'Apityou -nyeyaixo,?],
"ApTeyL 3npocp6va,[aou y'vSrixe 5 Se?] ,
HavSov Mat, TeAey [no~oov 6

paa

n Iluvapa]

'Apuvas AUXLWV [MXCLVOTCITOS a a t A e u s ? ] ,

'pywv MaLOTuJV [xAos pyevos xau cntons]

eCos wat (i>uxnv [eoxos nXuxuas?]
IlaLOTpLas En [

p ' itounae eXfeynta 'Apuvau ?is aocpoa?] .

The
question.

restorations

proposed by Bousquet

are obviously open to

But enough of the text survives to indicate that while the

statue is dedicated to Artemis the huntress (dripocpovos) the inscription

123. These
1983,

Inscriptions
97-104.

are discussed

at

some length

by

Asheri;

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian

Language

95

s concerned primarily with commemorating the military exploits of

Erbbina (in particular, his conquest of Xanthos, Telmessos, and
1 24
pinara
) and extolling his personal qualities and accomplishments. The
inscription concludes with a reference to a pedotribe, apparently the
composer of the inscription.
Erbbina

II

is one of four inscriptions appearing on the statue base

unearthed by the French during their 1973 excavations at the Letoon and
referred to above (p. 43-44) as part of N Suppl. 1. As I have already
noted, the inscriptions on sides B-D have not yet been published, but on
the basis of advance information provided by Metzger (1979, 24-25), the
Greek inscription on side B credits Erbbina with the building of a temple
of Leto. Erbbina

II, the inscription on side A, is in the form of an elegy

composed by Symmachos of Pellana, and indicates that the statue was

set up by Erbbina in honour of Leto. The inscription has been published
by Bousquet, 1975, 143-148.
["AVEXO ue 'ApL,v]as uaus r p Y | > o s , 'pot xeXeaaas?]
[aua TJ\ poyovajv] pETps, ^ VEH[POV EVEOTL?]
[awpa aopju, axriXri] E r\e EOTH yvrjya [ e a o a t ]
M-

[i AuMuots? ap]a auveaeu uvaeu TE H [pccTLOTrib]

p[xn^] cp' T]\LnLa itpaa y ynv xpua CCG[TTI]
SavOov TG n ITuvapa xa euyevov Te [eyriaaov]
OXXOLGLV AuMuouat (poov apexwv Tup[vvEi,] .

Twv yvriyea vESrjWE SEOU cppaau

'AOXX[wvos].

IIuSou pwTnaas AI~|X3L y vdnMev auxo[u]

EMOVCX, TV epywv xo axnya LL>{VU[ x a i Xwnv] .
KxEuva yp OXXOS, uaxpa ewXELaas xov r[pYLv],
12

itoXX yv a a i e a ETCEPGE, waXov 6 HXO [axa Ttaaav]

YHV 'Aatav 'Apuvas auxJL POYOVOL TE XXOLE,
vxa JJ Tiaou Tiprccov oaaiCEp aotpou avpES b f a a a u v ] ,
xooauvrib TE pExnL XE, LJUJV XE Lyyaxa Eilofu]

16

Eus xXos p x n s , 'Apuva, yEyXa EpY XEX[aaas]

Savxouau $EOLS xExotpuyyEva ( ! ) wpa ofuMa].

124. Bousquet's
restoration
grouping of Xanthos,
II inscription
(line

of Pinara in Une 3 is based

Pinara,
and Telmessos
in the
6).

on the
Erbbina

The

96

Lycians

Euyyaxos Enneos ITEaves

yvxu [pyu)v]

ipov EXEUE eyriLcc 'AppLvaL EOUVXWS.

[Arbinjas,

me,

having

accomplished deeds worthy of the] valour [of his forefathers].

son

of

Gerg[is]

(=

Kheriga),

[dedicated

[Within

the tomb chamber lies] (his) cor[pse]. But the stele [that one] s[ees] here
commemorates (4) how he established his rule over the Lycians] by his
resourcefulness, his sjupreme] might and po[wer].

In his youth he

conquered in one month three cities - Xanthos, Pinara, and Tel[messosj

with its fine harbour - striking terror into many Lycians and becoming
their mas[ter]. (8) A monument to these (achievements) he set up on the
advice of the god Apoll(o]. Having sought counsel at Pytho, he dedicated
me to Leto - his own image, whose outward appearance(??J
expresses
125
the prowess?] of his achievements.
Having slain many people, having
brought honour to his father G[ergis], (12) having conquered many cities,
Arbinas made his own and his forefathers' name renowned [through the
whole] land of Asia.
wisdom,

He was conspicuous amongst all in all human

in bowmanship,

in

courage,

in horsemanship.

(16)

From

beginning to end, Arbinas, [you have] accomplished] great deeds, [you

have presented] pleasing gifts to the immortal gods.
(18) Symmachos of Pellana, son of Eumedes, seer w[ithout reproach],
skilfully produced (this) elegy as a gift for Arbinas.

125.

The interpretation
of
aMnv at the end of
Robert's
assumption
appearance')
refers
various exploits
(x
one (1978, 5 n. 2) .

line 10, along with the

restoration
the line is open to question.
But
that axnya (the
statue's
'outward
to relief
sculptures
depicting
the
Epya,) of Erbbina seems a
reasonable

The Inscriptions

and The Lycian Language

The Greek epigram in the Xanthos stele

inscription

97
(TL 44 c

20-31)
20

['E] 3 T ' Epwnnv ['A]auas Lxa OVTOS v e [ p ] e [ v ] 5

21

[O]OE Tcw AuLUV axnAriv TOLOVE vedrix<e>v

22

[6]wExa SEOLS yopag v wadapwu XEJJEVEL.

23
24

[vuxjewv Ma TCOAIJOU pvnya Toe $v<a>xov.

[ K E ] P [ P ] L S OE 'Apiyou uo ptaTeuaa x aiiavxa

25

[xepja

26
27
28
29
30
31

[o]AAas 6E xpoKoAes o\)\) 'A^nvauat TEXOALTTOPSWL

[it]paas auvyevEauv 6GXE ypo 3aauAas.
Sv xpuv dvaxoL o MV<n>aavxo tMauav,
TUTA TtALxag HXELVEV V nypau 'Apxas avpa,
ZnvL 6 Ti<A>axa xporcaua <p>6xwv E<O>[T]noEV iiav<x>(jov,
MaAAuaxous O'EPYOL Ka[p]wa yvo EaxEqjvwaEV.

TiaAnv AUHLOJV TWV XOT ' v FIALMLCIL.

(20) Since the time when the ocean separated Europe from Asia, no
Lycian has ever yet raised such a stele to the Twelve Gods in the holy
temenos of the agora, this immortal monument to his victories in
1 0 f\
war(?). (24) It was [Kejr[r]is(??)t
the son of Harpagos, having
excelled in all respects the youth of his day in his prowess at wrestling,
who conquered many acropolises with (the support of) Athene, sacker of
cities, and distributed part of his kingdom amongst his kin. (28) In

126. The name to be restored here is that of the author of the

inscription.
In my view Childs
has
successfully
demonstrated that the author is Kherel, the brother and
probably the successor of Kherlga as ruling dynast at
Xanthos (see Childs,
1979. The members of - the ruling
dynasty at Xanthos will be discussed in vol. II.)
I am
confident that the authorship of the inscription
is to be
attributed
to Kherel and not to Kherlga as Bousquet (1975,
138-40) and others
(e.g. Heubeck, 1979, 253) have
supposed.
Even so, the precise form of Kherel's name
in
Greek remains
uncertain,
and the
restoration
[Ke]p[p]us
is very tentative.

98

The

Lyclans

recognition of this, the immortal (gods) made him just recompense. He

killed seven Arkadian hoplites in a single day, he who of all mankind set
up the most numerous trophies to Zeus and garlanded by his illustrious
127
exploits the family of Karika.

127. Presumably
the founder of the dynasty
to which the author
of the inscription
belongs.
It may be that Karika is the
(or a J Greek form of Kheriga,
a name which may well have
been borne by several
members of the dynastic
family.
We
note, however, from both Erbbina I and II that Kheriga
is
represented
In Greek as rpybS. Is it possible
that
Karika
and Gergis are alternative
Greek forms of the Lyclan name
Kheriga?

4. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first historical reference we have to Lycia is Herodotos' claim
(1.28) t h a t the Cilicians and the Lycians were the only people unsubdued
by the Lydian king Kroisos in his campaigns west of the Halys river .
Herodotos'

statement

may indicate

that

these peoples

successfully

resisted a t t e m p t s made by Kroisos to take their countries. On the other

hand it may simply mean that, for reasons unknown to us, Kroisos never
campaigned against them.
In any case Lycia apparently remained free of foreign control until
the

campaigns

of

the

Persian

commander

Harpagos

c.

According to Herodotos' account of these campaigns (1.176)

540

B.C.

Harpagos,

after securing or receiving the submission of the seaboard Ionian Greeks

and the Carians, proceeded into Lycia where he m e t and defeated a
small Lycian army on the plain lying north of the city of Xanthos. The
Lycians withdrew into the
Harpagos.

city, which was placed under siege by

When it became clear to the inhabitants that a Persian

victory was inevitable, they destroyed the buildings on the acropolis,

slew their wives, children, and slaves, and made one last suicidal a t t a c k
on Harpagos' troops.

The outcome, according to Herodotos, was the

total destruction of the population of Xanthos, except for 80 families

2
who were absent at the time,
presumably in mountain pastures.
Whether or not the devastation was as complete as Herodotos suggests,
this one engagement was sufficient to establish Persian authority in the
country.

1.

2.
3.

We should, however, note a brief

attestation
by
Timachldas
(citing
Timokritos
and Polyzelos)
of a Rhodian
campaign
against
Lycia led by Kleoboulos
(of Lindos)
(Lind.
Chron.
C. XXIII).
If this event,
not attested
in any of our other
sources,
did
take
place,
it
should
probably
be
dated
relatively
early
in the 6th century
B.C. , or at
least
before Kroisos'
campaigns in Asia Minor.
On Kleoboulos
of
Lindos, see Diog. Laert. 1. 89.
UOTLEWV in Herodotos'
text
almost
certainly
refers
to
individual
family
units;
cf. Treuber,
1887, 93 (who wrongly
gives the number of families
as 60).
See Demargne and Metzger,
1967, 1381.
Cf.
the comments of
Treuber,
1887, 95.
For evidence
of the destruction
as
reflected
in the excavations,
see Metzger,
1963, 1,
17-18,
31-32,
46-47.

100

The

Lycians

What was the extent of Lycian territory at this time?

I have

suggested in Chapter 2 that in Homeric times the territory politically

identifiable as Lycia was confined essentially to the Xanthos valley. In
the period which followed, up to the time of the Persian conquest, there
may have been no appreciable change in this situation. We have noted
the fragment from Panyasis which suggests that the towns of the
Xanthos valley and the region immediately to the west comprised a small
group of interrelated settlements - Xanthos, Tlos, Pinara (allegedly
founded by colonists from Xanthos), and the as yet unidentified town of
Kragos (see above, p. 22). Perhaps it was the area encompassed by these
towns to which the term Lycia most particularly applied in the 6th
century. Almost certainly Xanthos was the chief settlement in the area,
and probably from the foreign invader's point of view the only Lycian
settlement of any significance. We note that after his conquest of Caria
Harpagos marched directly and apparently without impediment to the
plain near Xanthos, and it was only here that the Lycians opposed him.
In fact in Herodotos' account the terms Xanthian and Lycian seem to be
used almost interchangeably. To conquer Xanthos was to conquer Lycia.
Whether or not other settlements outside the Xanthos valley were in
any way attached to or dependent upon Xanthos is uncertain. But there
is little doubt that in a political sense the term Lycia was much more
limited in its application at the time of the Persian conquest than it was
by the end of the 5th century B.C. And if so, then as I suggested in
Chapter 2, 'political' Lycia must have been merely one element within a
broader cultural zone extending both east and west of the Xanthos
valley, and no doubt containing a number of communities with close
ethnic and cultural affinities.
At this stage in Lycian history, then, we should probably recognise a
distinction between a 'political' Lycia and a 'cultural' Lycia. The latter,
which incorporated the former, applied to a region whose inhabitants
may have had a strong measure of cultural coherence but little or no
sense of an overall common political identity.

In this respect the

situation in Lycia at this time may have closely parallelled that of the
Bronze Age Lukka communities referred to in Chapter 1. From the late
6th century onwards, however, we

see a number of political and

administrative developments taking place in the country leading to a

The Historical

Background

101

more comprehensive organisation until by the end of the 5th century

political Lycia and cultural Lycia were virtually co-extensive.
The rebuilding and repopulation of Xanthos which followed in the
wake of Harpagos' victory were probably carried out under Persian
auspices.

And it was Persian authority, I believe, which provided the

initial stimulus for the political and administrative developments which

4
While for

took place in Lycia during the 5th and early 4th centuries.

the most part Persian control in Lycia appears to have been very
nominal, the Persians must have taken some steps to ensure that the
country would henceforth be administered in their interests; and it is
more than likely that they provided the basis for a comprehensive
administrative

system in Lycia designed to give some measure of

political and economic coherence to the country as the best means of

serving their interests.
In more

specific

terms,

the

Persians may have

been

largely

responsible for the establishment (or at least the endorsement) of a

ruling dynasty in Xanthos which came to exercise authority through
much of central and western Lycia until early in the 4th century B.C.
This dynasty may have come to power at least as early as 520 B.C., if we
can associate it with the earliest

Lycian coins which make their

appearance about this time (to be discussed in vol. II).

At all events, the early coinage provides evidence of a recognisable
administrative organisation in Lycia by the last quarter of the 6th
century, and in 516/15 B.C. Lycia was included amongst the states
constituting the first nomos, upon which the Persian king Darius I
imposed an annual tribute of 400 talents of silver (Herodotos

3.

90).

Each member state was presumably responsible for gathering together

its own share of the tribute, and this in turn would indicate the existence
of some form of centralised administrative organisation in Lycia at this
time.
It is unlikely, however, that this development resulted in a lasting or
deepseated unity amongst the Lycian communities as a whole. The unity

4.

J.e. the territory

extending from Telmessos in the west to
Rhodiapolis in the east, as indicated by the
epichoric
inscriptions.

102

The

Lyeians

and solidarity for which the country later became noted, as reflected in
the operation of the Lycian League, was in my opinion a relatively late
development in Lycian history, and very likely grew out of the various
political

and military

circumstances

affecting

the

centuries following the campaigns of Alexander.

country in the
The first explicit

evidence of the League comes from two inscriptions belonging to the

early 2nd century B.C. The first of these, datable to the period 188-81
B.C.,

refers

to

certain honours which the

League

Ptolemaic official in the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes.

an inscription from

Araxa, datable to c.

accorded to a
The second is

180 B.C., in honour of

Orthagoras, a citizen of Araxa, in which the League appears as 'a

vigorous and apparently efficient government; making its own decisions
in peace and war....' (Bean, 1948, 54).
Though a detailed discussion of the League falls outside the scope of
this work, we should at least note here that it was a development of
major importance
unprecedented

in Lycian history, giving the 'Lycians a perhaps

commonality of purpose, which becomes

particularly

marked after the battle of Magnesia (190 B.C) when Lycia was assigned
to Rhodes by the Roman senate (Appian,
21,

24.

7-8).

Syr.

11.

7.

44,

Polyblus

Rhodian overlordship weighed heavily on the country as a

whole, and the Lycians' success in persuading the senate to restore their
independence in 167 B.C. (Polybius,

30.

5. 12, Livy

44.

15.

I) was

no doubt one of the early major achievements of a confederation which

served the interests of all Lycian communities.
But such a confederation had, in my opinion, no real counterpart in
earlier times, especially in the period of the epichoric inscriptions, in
o

spite of A.H.M. Jones' claim to the contrary.

5.
6.
7.

8.

Certainly the network

For a discussion
of the possible
origins
of the League,
see
Larsen, 1945, 71-75, and note Bean's comments, 1948, 54.
See Dittenberger,
OCXS 99.
See also Treuber,
1887,
149-50,
Fougres,
1898, 15, Kornemann, 1924 (RE Suppl.
IV),
927,
Larsen, 1945, 72, von Aulock, 1974,
16.
The inscription
was discovered
by Bean in 1946 and is
discussed
in detail
by him,
1954,
46-56.
For
later
editions
and commentaries on the decree,
see the
references
cited by Larsen, 1968, 241, n. 2.
There are no firm grounds for Jones' claim that the
Lycians
very early displayed
traces
of a vigorous national
spirit

The Historical
of dynastic

Background

103

alliances which developed in the wake of the

Persian

conquest gave the country the semblance of a relatively unified and

coherent political structure in the 5th and early 4th centuries.
political

coherence

was,

I believe,

an

artificial,

But

Persian-inspired

development rather than a natural one, and depended for its maintenance
on the authority of the Persian-backed line of dynasts based at Xanthos.
Lycia's close ties to Persia in the early decades of the 5th century
9

are reflected in the Lycian contribution of 50 ships to Xerxes' armada,

a sizable contribution in relation to the likely resources of Lycia at th

time. But the Lycian allegiance to Persia was broken for a period during
the middle decades of the 5th century when Lycia became a member of
the Athenian Confederacy.

The shift in allegiance to Athens seems to

have occurred initially during the campaigns in south-west Asia Minor

by the Athenian commander Kimon. According to Diodoros (11. 60.

4),

Kimon secured 'by persuasion' (iteuoas npoaeAaeTo ) the allegiance of

Lycia to the Athenian Confederacy prior to the battle of Eurymedon (c.
468 B.C.).
It has been argued that Diodoros' statement indicates a military
conquest by Kimon. Demargne and Metzger suggest that the evidence of
a second devastation of the Lycian acropolis at Xanthos which is datable
to this period may indicate a sack of the city by Kimon's troops.
suggestion while feasible is open to question.

This

In the first place, the

so-called Harpy tomb which lies just to the north of the acropolis
certainly antedates Kimon's arrival in the area (to be discussed in vol.
II), and if his troops did in fact sack the city it is surprising that this

(1911, 96), or the comment by Bean that the Lycians 'had an

instinct
for
union and federation'
(1978,
20).
For a
contrary
view
see
Bryce,
1983a,
32-33.
Larsen
also
speculated
on the possibility
of a kind of prototype
of the
League in the eplchorlc
period (1945,
73-74).
9. This is the figure
given by Herodotos,
7.92.
According
to
Diodoros,
the size
of the Lycian contingent
was 40
ships
(11. 2. 1 and 11. 3. 7) .
10. Demargne and Metzger,
1967,
1383,
1386,
who date
the
'second devastation'
to the period
475-70 B.C.
For more
detailed
information
on the signs of destruction
at Xanthos
at this
time,
see Metzger
and Coupe 1, 1963, 22-23,
24,
26-27, 32-33, 60-61, 68-69,
81.

104

The

Lycians

tomb was left unmolested. Moreover If the devastation of the acropolis

was due to enemy attack, we might well expect some reference to this in
Diodoros* account of Kimon's 'conquest' of Lycia.
We have no other reference in our literary sources to a sack of
Xanthos at this time, again a surprising omission given that the 6th
century destruction of the city was noted in later times when it was
compared to the 1st century destruction of the city by Brutus (see
Appian,

bell.

civ.

4.

10.

60).

And a further point to note is that

whatever the nature of Kimon's takeover of Lycia, it had no apparent

effect on the internal political organisation of the country. Kuprlli, the
ruling

dynast

based

at

Xanthos,

continued

to hold

authority,

as

illustrated by his coin-issues which continue down to c. 440 B.C., and the
system of regional administrators who were probably subject to his
authority (to be discussed in vol. II) remained unchanged.
I believe that Diodoros' statement is to be taken at face value, and
that the Lycians submitted to Kimon without resistance as an alternative
to almost certain military defeat at his hands - at a time when little or
no assistance could be expected from Persia. That this alternative was
available is clearly implied by Diodoros (following Ephoros), who states
that after using either force or persuasion to bring the cities of Caria
into the Athenian Confederacy, Kimon likewise won over the Lycians by
persuasion. The distinction indicates that a number of the cities of both
Caria and Lycia submitted to Kimon without military action. Diodoros'
statement might well mean that all the Lycian cities submitted in this
way; indeed the only city in the region for which we have evidence of
military conquest is Phaselis, which according to Plutarch (Kim.

12.

3-4) was placed under siege by Kimon and taken by force. And at this
time Phaselis was not part of Lycian territory.
If the above interpretation of Diodoros' statement is correct, then
obviously the destruction of the buildings on the acropolis at Xanthos
would have to be attributed to some other form of disaster - perhaps
accidental fire or earthquake.
Perhaps because of its peaceful submission, Kimon seems not to
have interfered with the internal political system of Lycia, the Athenian
takeover simply meaning a shift in the country's political alignment from
Persia to Athens. At all events it is likely that Lycia's membership of

The Historical
the

Athenian

Background

Confederacy dates from this time,

105
although

explicit

evidence for its attachment to the Confederacy appears first in the

Athenian Tribute List of 452/51 B.C.
On the three occasions on which the Lycians appear in this list
(452/1, 451/0, 446/5), they are grouped with the Telmessians.

The

entries on the Lycians are as follows:

list 3

29-30

[TeApeoauou
[Mat

list 4

32-33

[TeXpaJoLou
[Mau

list 9

in

33-34

A]U)(LOU

AUMLOU]

reXeycaaUot]

AUKUOL: MOL auv[TEX]

Several interesting points emerge from these entries.

Firstly it is

clear that Telmessos, near the Carian border, did not at this stage belong
to Lycian territory in the political sense, but was grouped with it by the
Athenians for administrative purposes. Indeed it is not until the final
decades of the 5th century, when the Xanthian dynast Kherei issued
coins bearing the name of Telmessos (see Mrirkholm and Zahle, 1976, 52,
nos. 50-54), that we have any clear indication that Telmessos had
become part of Lycia.
commonly

regard

Similarly other towns and districts which we

as lying within

Lycian territory

were

probably

politically Independent of it at the time of Lycia's membership of the

Athenian Confederacy.
syn(teleis)
synteleis

These were most likely covered by the term

in the third of the above mentioned lists. That is to say, the

may have consisted, in part at least, of communities which

were Lycian in a cultural and ethnic sense, but lay outside the more
12
limited region which we have defined as Lycia in a political sense.

11. These lists

appear In ATL II.
On the restorations,
see ATL
III, p. 7. Jones (1971, 97) mentions only the third of the
lists.
12. Cf. Childs'
suggestion
that
the term 'may indicate
a
grouping of various
entities
within
the area called
Lycia
or an area "Lycia" to which other units were attached
for
administrative
reasons'
(1981,
57).
There is nothing
to
indicate
that these communities were not ethnically
Lycian,
as Jones assumes
(1971,
97),
although
it
is of
course
possible
that
the
syntelels
also
included
non-Lycian
commun!ties.

106

The

LyeIans

Conceivably such communities were located both west of the Xanthos

13
valley as far as (but not including) Telmessos
as well as east of the
14
valley.
This explanation is, I believe, to be preferred to the suggestion
that the term synteleis
perhaps

reflects

epewetlmmeij

represents a division within Lycian society and

distinction

between citizens

as referred to in the Letoon trilingual.

between citizenry and perioikoi

and

perioikoi/

The distinction

was almost certainly a purely internal

matter, of little or no direct concern to Lycia's external overlords.

At all events, in the 5th century B.C. the territory of Lycia proper
was clearly more limited than it was in post-Classical times when it
extended from Telmessos in the west to Phaselis in the east.
The size of the contribution assessed for the Lycians and the
18
- 10 talents - was a relatively modest one
- and was

synteleis

probably deliberately intended as such.

The importance of Lycia to

13. As Jones comments (1971, 97), we cannot be altogether

sure
whether the Telmessos
in question
is the Carian
Telmessos
(near ffalikarnassos)
or the Telmessos
which later
in the
5th century was incorporated
into Lycian
territory.
14. Although not as far east as Phaselis,
which was
entered
separately
in the Tribute
Lists.
It is possible
that
the
Mil yas district
belonged amongst the synteleis.
On Mil yas
and the Mi 1 yans, see Herodotos 1. 173 and 7.77.
15. Another suggestion
made by Childs (1981,
57).
16. As Hahn notes
(1981,
53),
the
distinction
is
not
acknowledged
in the Aramaic
version
of the
trilingual,
which is the official
version
of the satrap's
decree.
In
this version
reference
is made purely
to the citizens
of
Xanthos (line
16).
17. Note that in the 5th century
Phaselis
was clearly
outside
Lycian territory,
as reflected
in its separate
entry in the
Athenian Tribute
Lists,
and probably
continued
as a member
of the Athenian Confederacy
after
the withdrawal
of
Lycia.
For the list
of Phaselitan
entries,
see ATL I, pp.
434-45.
18. Jones'
comment
that
Lycia's
contribution
was
a
comparatively
large sum (1971, 97) is hardly justified.
On
the one hand it must have been very much smaller
than
its
share of the 400 talents
of silver
imposed by Dareios
on
the 1st nomos.
And on the other
hand a comparison
of
Lycia's
assessment
with
the amounts payable
by
other
members of the Confederacy
- in particular,
those
located
in
the
general
vicinity
of
south-west
Asia
Minor
demonstrates
how light Lycia's
financial
obligations
to the
Confederacy
were.

The Historical

Background

107

Athens, I believe, lay not in the monetary revenue that could be

extracted from it, but rather in its strategic location at the entrance of
the eastern Mediterranean (discussed below, pp. 204-05); access to the
harbours in this region was clearly a matter of considerable importance
to the Confederacy.

And the Athenians may have assumed that the

Lycians were less likely to try to sever their membership of the

Confederacy if the monetary obligations imposed upon them were not
burdensome and contrasted favourably with their earlier obligations to
19
Persia. In any case, Lycia may have been only a sporadic contributor,
and perhaps defaulted regularly on its financial contributions to the
Confederacy.

If so, Athens may well have chosen not to enforce what

were little more than token payments. To do so would have aroused, for
little gain, the hostility of the Lycian people, who must have been fully
aware of the importance Athens attached to maintaining access to the
strategically important harbours of the south- west coast of Asia Minor.
Clearly, Lycia's association with Athens was a desultory one, and
very

likely

all

links

had been

severed

by

the

beginning

of

Peloponnesian War at the latest, and perhaps as early as 440 B.C.

the
20

Already in the early years of the war the Lycians seem to have been
markedly

hostile

to

Athens,

as

reflected

in

their

resistance

to

Melesander and the conflict which resulted in his death (430/29 B.C.)
(Thucydides

2.

69).

This episode seems also to be recorded in the Xanthos stele

inscription, in the words trbbenimi

tebete

tern

se

milasantra

'Trbbenimi defeated(?) the army and (= of?) Melesander' (TL 44a

44-45).

Several scholars have questioned whether these words do in fact

refer to the Thucydide an strategos,

since they occur immediately

before, or within the context of, an account of Lycian involvement in the

Dekelean War (413-04 B.C.); in view of this Thompson has suggested that
the Melesander of the

Lycian inscription must have been a later

19. An observation
made In ATL III,
p. 210;
62, n. 33.
20. Cf. Treuber, 1887, 100, Houwink ten Cate,
Metzger,
1979, 34, Childs,
1981, 62 and
suggestion
that the Lycian withdrawal
may
as 430 B.C., see Mrkholm and Zahle, 1976,

cf.

Childs,

1961,

1965, 5 and n. 7,
n. 33.
For the
have been as late
75-76.

108

The

Lyeians

namesake of Thucydides' Melesander (1967; see also Childs, 1981, 64).

The evidence for Thompson's proposal is a suggested restoration to
the record of loans made by the treasurers of Athene in 414/13 B.C.
2
(IG I
297). Merritt had earlier restored line 3 of the inscription as
Tcapopev aTpotTeyous tg Ta nu BpauxES 'EUETUOVL

followsrf

MeX] ea[a]vp[o.J (1932, 88, 90); but in place of this Thompson proposed
cjTpaTEYOL MeX]ea[a]v6pou ,

concluding

that

Melesander
21

was

the

recipient of funds from the treasurers of Athene in 414/13.

This is an attractive possibility and would certainly bring the

Melesander of the Lycian inscription within the compass of the Dekelean
War. But we must stress that the name Melesander in the Athenian loan
record is heavily restored, and for this reason in particular Thompson's
proposition must be regarded as very conjectural. We certainly cannot
exclude

the

possibility

that

the

Thucydidean

Melesander of TL 44 are one and the same.

strategos

and

the

It may well be that the

reference in the Lycian inscription is a historical flashback, highlighting

an earlier Lycian victory over an Athenian army within the context of an
account

of

Lycian involvement

in the

Dekelean War.

Given the

likelihood of Lycia's participation in the Persian alliance with Sparta

against Athens at this time (see Childs, 1981, 68), the reference to
Melesander's defeat in 430/29 might well be appropriate here. If on the
other hand Thompson's proposal is correct, we would have to accept not
only the existence of two Melesanders, but also the coincidence of two
Melesanders engaging in military conflict with the Lycians and being
defeated by them. Such a coincidence is clearly suspect.
Whether or not Lycia immediately reverted to Persian allegiance
after breaking from the Athenian Confederacy is not altogether clear.
But it is not unlikely that the Xanthian dynasty was amenable to, or
indeed actively sought political realignment with Persia in the last
decades of the 5th century, a conclusion that can be drawn from the
satrapal heads appearing on the coins issued by Kherei, and the evidence
indicating that the satrap Tissaphernes minted coins in Lycia (see n. 24).

21. This hypothesis

is supported,
in Thompson's view, by the
fact that the final
loan made by the treasurers
in 415/14
B.C. went to the strategos
v *E(p[aou] (IG2 302, line 69) .

The Historical
As Treuber

points

out,

Persian

Background
overlordship

109
was not without

its

advantages (1887, 101); on the one hand, the local ruler was allowed
considerable autonomy within his own sphere of influence, while on the
other hand his acknowledged role as a Persian vassal was a confirmation
and to some extent a guarantee of his political authority.
Moreover,

the

Xanthos

stele

inscription

clearly

indicates

the

resumption of a Lycian-Persian alliance during the last decades of the

5th century. Kherei, the author of the inscription and grandson of
22
Kuprlli, was an ally, if not a vassal, of the Ionian satrap Tissaphernes,
23
he participated in the suppression of the revolt of Amorges,
and he
was apparently in close touch with Darius (II) and Atarxerxes (II).

We

can reasonably conclude, then, that close ties existed between Lycia and
Persia, or more particularly between the Xanthian dynasty and Persia, in
the final decades of the 5th and the early decades of the 4th century.
Unfortunately our sources provide us with little information about
events within Lycia itself during this period. No doubt the central ruling
dynasty at Xanthos provided a strong measure of stability in the region
where it exercised authority, but we should not too readily assume that
the

country remained

politically

tranquil throughout

the

dynasty's

existence.

We have, for example, a possible indication of rebellion by

25
the army of Tlos in TL 44 a 47,
and the list of cities appearing in

22. Note the references

to Tissaphernes
(in the Lycianised
form
Klzzaprnna/ZisaprnnaJ
in the Xanthos stele
Inscription:
TL
44c 1, 11-12, 14, 15.
These references
appear in what is
apparently
a religious
context.
23. Amorges appears
in TL 44 a 55 (in the Lycianised
form
Humrkhkha) in a context
which apparently
ties in with
the
events recorded by Thucydldes,
8.28; cf. Childs,
1981, 64.
24. See Childs,
1981, 66-68,
and Bryce,
1983a, 36, with nn.
42-45.
The closeness
of Lycia's
ties
with the
Persian
administration
at this
time is further
indicated
by a
recently
published
coin bearing
the name Tissaphernes
in
Lycian characters;
see Hurter, 1979, 100.
The coin (M 221)
bears
the name Arnna on its
obverse,
and was
therefore
Issued
at Xanthos.
The fact
that Tissaphernes
actually
minted in Lycia seems clearly
to indicate
that at this
time
the country was at least nominally subject
to the
authority
of the Ionian satrap.
See also Zahle, 1979, 103.
25. The relevant
words are Kherei qastte
tern tlahn, which can
perhaps
be translated
'Kherei
disciplined(?)
the army of
Tlos'.

The

110

Lycians

TL 44 b 30 (Xanthos, Pinara, and Tlos) may also be an indication of

military activity in the country, as Childs suggests, though the context in
which this list occurs is at present unintelligible to us.
There were certainly conflicts in western Lycia during the early
decades

of

the

4th

century,

as

indicated

by

Erbbina's

military
26
engagements with the cities of Xanthos, Pinara, and Telmessos.
Quite

possibly these conflicts represented attempts to break away from or

overthrow the authority of the central dynasty.

If so, Erbbina was

apparently successful in re-establishing control by military force; but

the very fact that he was obliged to resort to force suggests a marked
degree of fragmentation and unrest amongst the western Lycian cities in
this period.
Robert

suggests,

mainly

on

the

basis

of

topographical

considerations, that Erbbina may have mounted his campaigns against

the rebellious cities from Tlos, arguing against Bousquet's suggestion
that Kaunos was his base of operations (1978, 18. Cf. Bousquet 1975,
27
145).
In Tlos, perhaps, he had been installed as a regional
administrator while his father Kheriga or his uncle Kherei occupied the
dynastic seat at Xanthos.

But in spite of the apparent success of his

campaigns, his sphere of authority seems to have been more limited than
that of his predecessors at Xanthos, as indicated by his coin issues which
are known only from Telmessos.

In contrast to Kuprlli, Kheriga, and

Kherei, he did not mint at Xanthos, nor in any of the cities east of the
Xanthos valley.

Yet the votive inscriptions which he set up in the

Letoon (see above, pp.

94-96) indicate that he did in fact exercise

authority at least as far east as the Xanthos valley, if not beyond it.
How then do we explain the fact that his coins were minted at
Telmessos?

Did he use one city, Xanthos, as his administrative centre

while issuing his coins exclusively from another? We cannot prove that

26. Recorded in the inscriptions

Erbbina. I, line 3 and Erbbina
II, lines 5-6.
(see above, pp.
94-96).
27. Robert's
suggestion
is
based
mainly
on
topographical
considerations,
but also
on the fact
that Tlos is
not
mentioned
amongst the cities
conquered
by Erbbina;
this
might Indicate
that Tlos was Erbbina's
headquarters,
his
point of departure
(see Robert, REG 89, 1976, 550, no. 661,
and 1978,
21).

The Historical

Background

111

this was not the case. But we must admit the possibility that Telmessos
actually became the seat of his administration.

If so, then we would

have to assume that circumstances in Lycia at the time made it

politically and administratively expedient for him to establish his seat
there.
It is possible, then, that under Erbbina there was a shift of the
administrative centre of gravity westwards, accompanied probably by a
temporary decline in the importance of Xanthos, which may have
facilitated in its turn a growing rift between the western and eastern
parts of the country.

And it may well be that what influence Erbbina

possessed in Lycia did not extend east of the Xanthos valley.

While we do not have any explicit information about Erbbina's
political sympathies, the west probably remained firm in its Persian
allegiance, perhaps until not long before Lycia's participation in the
satrap rebellion. This is indicated, for example, by TL 40, the inscription
on the so-called Payawa sarcophagos recording a presentation made to
Payawa, the builder of the tomb, by the Lydian satrap Autophradates.
The inscription indicates continuing Persian influence in the west until at
least 370 B.C., the earliest date that can be assigned to the tomb on
9tyli9tic grounds (to be discussed in vol. II).
But east of the Xanthos valley a rather different situation emerged.
Amongst the local administrators who issued their own coins in eastern
Lycia during the early decades of the 4th century, one in particular
seems

to

have

developed

far-reaching

ambitions

which

were

incompatible with a pro-Persian administration in the country - a man

called Perikle.

Encouraged perhaps by the declining power of the

Xanthian dynasty,

Perikle appears to have adopted an aggressively

independent line. He extended his authority throughout the eastern half

of the country, perhaps as far east as Phaselis, and then extended his
operations
encountered

across
and

the

Xanthos

defeated

river

Arttumpara,

in western
probably

Lycia

where

he

the

last of the
28
pro-Persian rulers in the west, and conquered Telmessos.
Perikle

28. Perikle's
defeat of Arttumpara
is recorded in TL 104b (eke
ese Perikle
tebete
Arttumpara
- 'When Perikle
defeated
Arttumpara',
or 'When he (i.e.
Tebursseli)
with(?)
(ese)

112

The

Lycians

may well have had before him the vision of a united, independent Lycia,
free from the shackles of Persian overlordship.

At all events he was

almost certainly responsible for, and played a leading role in, Lycia's
participation in the satrap rebellion.
It is impossible to be precise about the chronology of Perikle's
activities or the events leading up to Lycia's entry into the rebellion.
But if we accept the broad limits generally assigned to his career, c.
29
we must suppose that it was only in the latter part of this

380-60,

career that he began to make his presence felt throughout Lycia.

Moreover for some of the period when he apparently held office, Persian
influence still extended to the eastern half of Lycia, as indicated by a
reference to the Lydian satrap Autophradates in an inscription from
30
Bayindir Liman (TL 61).
We can assume that on defeating
Telmessos,
control.

Perikle

established

Lycia's

Arttumpara
independence

and conquering
from

Persia's

But we cannot be altogether sure when this took place. We

note, however, that c. 370 B.C. Arttumpara appears to have been at Side
in Pamphylia.

This is indicated by a coin minted at Side which bears

Arttumpara's name, a tetrobol struck on the Persian standard.

Atlan

date8 this coin early in the period of the satrap rebellion and suggests
that after his defeat by Perikle Arttumpara had gone to live in exile in
31
Side for the duration of the rebellion (1958).
If so, then Lycia must
have been freed, or wrested, from Persian authority prior to or in the
very early stages of the rebellion. An alternative possibility, suggested

Perikle
defeated
Arttumpara';
cf. Gusmanl, 'Zwei
kyprische
Konjunctlon',
Glotta
44, 1966, 24, n. 2, Neumann, 1969,
391),
and his
conquest
of Telmessos
is
recorded
by
Theopompos, ap. Photius,
bib. 176, 120a 14-17 (Jac. 115 F
103, 17).
See also Bryce,
1980b, 380, and Childs,
1981,
74, who refers
in n. 117 to the variety
of opinions
which
have been expressed
on the dating
of these exploits
of
Perikle.
29. See the references
cited by Childs,
1981, 73, n. 111.
30. In this inscription
the name tfataprddate
( ~
Autophradates)
appears
In the n....khntawata
formula.
We cannot
of
course rule out the possibility
that the inscription
dates
to the period after Perikle's
career had come to an end and
Persian authority
once more extended to eastern
Lycia.
31. Atlan's
proposal
is supported
by Mrkholm, 1964, 73, and
Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 10, n. 1.

The Historical

Background

113

by Childs, is. t h a t Arttumpara may have been sent to Pamphylia with a

Lycian contingent by Autophradates, prior to his conflict with Perikle, in
order to assist in suppressing the revolt of Datmes; and while in
Pamphylia Arttumpara minted coins to pay his troops. It was subsequent
to this, according to Childs, t h a t Arttumpara was recalled to Lycia to
quash the revolt led by Perikle, but instead suffered defeat at the Lycian
leader's hands (1981, 76).
If Childs' explanation is correct, then Perikle's rise to supreme
power must have been a late and very rapid development in the Lycian
leader's career. This would certainly seem to have been the case if the
Payawa sarcophagos is dated much l a t e r than 370 B.C. And the fact that
he apparently did not issue any coins in the west may be a further
indication t h a t the supremacy he had won there was of relatively short
duration.
We would be in a better position to reconstruct the career of Perikle
32
and were able to

if we knew more about Autophradates' role in Lycia,

date

more

precisely

the

two inscriptions, TL

40 (on the

sarcophagos) and TL 61, which make reference to him.

possible

that

these inscriptions

Perikle's career.

post-date

the

Payawa

Indeed it is

satrap rebellion

Perhaps Autophradates himself was responsible

and
for

reconquering Lycia, and in the wake of the conquest he may have for a
time established his authority more directly in the country than had been
the practice in the past for the local satrap.
appearance in the e n e . . . .khntawata

This may explain his

formula in TL 61. As we shall see,

this formula is generally used in connection with rulers/administrators of

local origin (pp. 133-34).
In any case, Perikle's career seems to have come to an abrupt end in
the rebellion, since we hear no more of him after the Persians regained
control in the area.^3

Presumably he would have been one of the

32. On Autophradates
in general,
see Keil in RE 13, 1927, 2177,
s.v.
Lydia, Sthelln,
RE Suppl. 3, 190, s.v.
Autophradates,
Judeich,
Kleinasiatische
Studien,
Harburg,
1892,
85-100.
See also Childs,
1981, 74, n. 119.
33. Houwink ten Cate suggests
that he was 'cruelly
punished'
for his part in the rebellion
(1965, 13), but we have no
evidence
at all of what his eventual
fate was.
For the
suggestion
that he may have fled to Strato I of Sidon,
see
Borchhardt,
1967, 166.

114

The

Lyeians

prime targets of the Persian administration if in fact he had been

responsible for Lycia's participation in the conflict.
After the collapse of the rebellion, Lycia once more reverted to
Persian control, under the immediate authority of the Carian satraps of
the Hekatomnid dynasty. In the new arrangements made for Lycia, the
system of local dynasts and regional administrators was abandoned, and
the

country was placed under the immediate

administration headed by an LpeXriin s

two apxovTE(Lyc. pddnehmmls)

(Lye.

authority of a civil
asakhlaza),

and

residing at Xanthos. While we do not

know the precise functions of these officials in Lycia, it seems clear that
satrapal control of the country was to be much more direct than in the
past.

And whether or not the trilingual inscription which contains this

information is to be dated to 358 B.C., or as more recently suggested,

337/36 B.C.
significant
Hekatomnid

(see above, pp. 48-49), it seems clear that it reflects a

tightening

up of

Persian

control

over

Lycia,

via

the

dynasty, in the aftermath of Lycia's participation in the

satrap rebellion.
This was the political situation in Lycia at the time of Alexander's
conquest in 334/33 B.C.

5. CUSTOMS AND INSTITUTIONS

Our knowledge of Lycian society is based very largely on the
information provided by the inscriptions which I have discussed and
illustrated

in

chapter

3.

While we

can hardly

claim that

these

inscriptions present us with a detailed, comprehensive picture of Lycian

society during the

5th and 4th centuries B.C., they do provide a

significant amount of information on Lycian institutions and offices, on

burial practices, and on family relationships.

As we have noted, the

majority of inscriptions appear on tombs and contain instructions for the

disposal of the dead, along with a list of those eligible for interment
within a particular tomb. In this respect they are one of the earliest
documentary sources on communal burial practices in the Near East,
containing as they do detailed information on the nature and composition
of the various groups making up the tomb families, and the burial
provisions which the tomb owner wishes to be put into effect.
It is quite clear that the tomb owner wished to recreate in death a
family environment to be shared by those with whom he had the closest
ties in life.

On this understanding we can reasonably assume that the

inscriptions shed important light on the Lycians themselves, providing

information not only about their burial practices, but also about their
social customs, their institutions, and their family relationships.

My

intention in this chapter is to survey the range of information which the

inscriptions contain.
I shall be referring on a number of occasions to the later Greek
inscriptions of

Lycia, particularly

the sepulchral inscriptions which

contain much more detailed information about local burial practices and
the

persons

making* up the

tomb

families

than do the

epichoric

inscriptions. While the customs and practices attested in Lycia in later

times were not always indigenous in origin or current in the epichoric
period, nevertheless the marked similarities which exist between the
earlier and the later inscriptions do indicate a strong measure of
continuity in a number of aspects of Lycian society. In view of this, we

1.

For a discussion
1979a.

of

the

various

tomb families,

see

Bruce,

116

The

Lyeians

will find it useful to refer to the Greek inscriptions from time to time,
partly as a means of illuminating practices and customs for which we
have evidence in the epichoric inscriptions, and partly to highlight
certain characteristics of Lycian society observable both in the epichoric
period as well as in later times.
Burial practices
As we noted in Chapter 3, the most detailed burial instructions
contain the following elements: (a) identification of the tomb owner,
sometimes by rank or profession as well as by a family designation; (b) a
list of persons, or groups of persons, eligible for burial in his tomb; (c)
burial arrangements within the tomb; (d) a statement of what is to be
regarded as a violation of the owner's instructions, and sometimes the
penalty to be inflicted for such violation; (e) the disciplinary agent(s)
who will seek redress from the violator; (f) arrangements made with the
local mint!

for the supervision of the tomb; (g) a quasi-dating formula;

(h) occasionally, instructions

for sacrificial rites in honour of the

deceased.
Tomb owners of the 5th and 4th centuries generally provided for the
burial only of their wives and children, although on occasions they
extended burial rights to other family connections, including servants
and retainers.

Even so, the average size of the tomb family which

2
was small compared with tomb families of

seldom ran to double figures,

the Roman imperial period in Lycia when burial rights were frequently
granted to a wide range of relatives, dependants, friends, servants, and
slaves (see Bryce, 1979a, 298-312).

Given the small area of the tomb

chambers and the very restricted

accommodation available on the

built-in stone couches, limitations of space may originally have been an

important consideration in determining the size of the tomb family.

Yet

in most cases a tomb family of even five or six persons would have
caused overcrowding problems if a particular area within the tomb were
to be allotted to each person.

2.

Likely exceptions
pp. 82, 84.

We would have to assume that fresh

are TL 107a and TL 124,

translated

above,

Customs and Institutions

117

interments necessitated the disturbance or removal of earlier burials, or

the stacking of the remains on top of each other. Such in fact does seem
to have

been

the

fate

of human remains in other Near

civilisations where communal burials were practised,

Eastern

and may indeed be

indicated in a number of the Lycian t e x t s .

This is illustrated by the Lycian practice whereby the tomb owner
sometimes set aside an area within his tomb for the exclusive use of
himself, and sometimes one or more other privileged occupants.

The

area so reserved could be a couch, a sarcophagos, or an upper chamber.

TL 49 is a case in point:
ebehi: 1sbazi: mi
pemati

tike-.kbi

i ye
hrppi

siyeni:padrnma:kumaza:

me

i ye

ne

ttane:

On the couch of this (tomb) lies/is laid (?) Padrnma, sacrificial

priest, and he does not permit

(??) to place anyone else upon

him.
Padrnma claimed sole right to the couch after his death, and his remains
were to be left undisturbed.

But this did not mean t h a t no other person

was to be admitted to his tomb. In fact we know from TL 48a, which

appears on the tomb's exterior, t h a t Padrnma also granted the right of
interment to a number of his relatives, including nephews/nieces.
Consequently the prohibition applied only to the owner's couch within

3.
4.
5.

For brief references,

see Bruce, 1980a,
165-66.
Cf. Laroche, 1958, 179-80, and Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 92.
The inscription
appears on the back wall above the
kline.
In TL 48 a, Padrruna (here represented
as Padrama)
grants
burial
rights
nere se tuhe - 'to (his)
ner- and
(his)
nephews/nieces'
. nere is an emendation made to
Kalinka's
text
([pjere)
by Friedrich.
The form nerl
is found in
TL 103. 2.
Various
translations
have been proposed
for
neri - e.g.
'Stiefschwester'
(Meriggi,
1930, 423, on the
assumption
that
neni = 'sister'),
and
'Geschwisterkind'
(Gusmani,
1962,
80-81),
'parent-in-law'
(Shafer,
1959,
493-95).
Laroche, however,
prefers
to regard neri as the
product
of a simple
dissimilation
of neni before
tuhes
(1974b, 133).
A second inscription
on the tomb,
designated
as TL 48b, may be of slightly
later
date;
see
Kalinka,
1901, 51.

118

The

Lyclans

the tomb and not to the tomb in general. But the fact that such a clause
was necessary is in itself an indication that removal or disturbance of
earlier burials was not uncommon practice.
However the tomb owner probably did not expect that all those to
whom he granted tenancy in his tomb would actually be buried there,
especially in the Roman imperial period when the lists of potential
occupants were often extremely long, and sometimes open-ended. Many
ot those listed in the tomb family probably did not take up their tenancy
rights, for one reason or another - for example, if they eventually built
tombs of their own. No doubt there was a good deal of status attached
to having tenancy rights in a particular tomb; and no doubt the tomb
owner himself derived some prestige from putting on display a long list
of 'dependants' to whom his post

mortem hospitality was extended. But

most importantly, perhaps, the list of eligible occupants provided a clear

delineation of the family structure, a public statement of the owner's
immediate circle of relatives, friends, and retainers. And this may have
been as Important to the tomb owner as providing a reference list of the
eligible occupants.
In some instances, the tomb owner left instructions indicating where
in his tomb the various occupants were to be placed. We might note, for
example, the stipulation which Ida Makhzza made in TL 57, the tomb in
this

case

consisting

of upper and lower chambers.

After

making

provision in general terms for the burial of his wife and children, Ida
Makhzza states in lines 6-7:
hrzzi
d. . s]e

prnnawl:mel:ntepl
[lye]

n[e....

tatl
tajtl

i[da:mjakhzza.se

tike

lafda

kbl-.hrpplye

(and) in the upper building they will place within Ida Makhzza
and...(his) wife, and they will not place anyone else upon them.
This would seem to indicate that the upper chamber was for the
exclusive tenancy of Ida Makhzza and his wife. It would follow, then,
that

the

Makhzza's

other

persons

children, were

designated as the hyposorlon

mentioned
to

be

in the inscription, namely Ida

confined

to the

lower

chamber,

in the Greek texts.

The practice of making specific place allocations within the tombs

Customs and Institutions

119

was one which continued through the Roman period; and the Greek
inscriptions, from the 3rd century onwards, are often much more explicit
in fact in the allocation of burial space. This is particularly so when the
tomb owner made provision for a wide range of family connections, or
when a tomb was jointly owned by two or more persons, each of whom
wished to make provision for the burial of his own family.
cases, the

inscription

often

contains quite

In these

explicit instructions

to

indicate precisely where in the tomb each of the eligible occupants was
to be placed.

And as a rule in cases of joint ownership each of the

owners was free to use his allotted space in whatever way he chose, but
could not encroach on the space allotted to his co-owner(s) (see Bryce,
1980a, 172-73). The main concern was probably to ensure a systematic
arrangement within the tomb, and also to ensure that the homogeneity of
each of the family groups was preserved intact.
On some occasions the burial allocations in the Greek inscriptions
draw a broad distinction between the various members of extended
family units, most notably in cases where threptoi,

freedmen, slaves,

and more remote family connections were relegated to the

hyposorion

of the tomb, while the more privileged family members were assigned to
the upper area or areas.

It may be that such a distinction sometimes

applied in the epichoric period as well,

but at present we have no

clear-cut evidence for this.

Once the tomb owner had decided who had the right to be buried in
his tomb, and in some cases where inside the tomb the various occupants
were to be placed, his next concern was to try to ensure that his
instructions would be carried out. The inscriptions generally contain an
explicit statement of what constitutes a violation of these instructions as a rule, unauthorised interments and/or unauthorised use of reserved

6.
7.

terms,
On the meaning of SPETITOS, Tpo(p6s and other related
see Cameron, 1939,
27-62.
8-9,
See, e.g.,
TAM II 217. 4-5, 218. 5-6, 223. 16-17, 247.
322.
6-7,
438.
13-14,
454.
6-9,
in which persons
of
inferior
status
Including
slaves,
freedmen,
and
threptoi
are consigned
to the hyposorlon,
and TAM II 208, 212, and
213 in which the upper areas of the tomb are reserved
for
the more privileged
occupants
- generally
the tomb owner
and his immediate
family.

120

The

Lycians

burial space within a tomb.

In neither the epichoric nor the Greek inscriptions are there any
violation clauses which refer to specifically criminal offences, such as
the malicious damage of a tomb or theft of its contents; criminal acts of
this nature were no doubt subject to a different type of disciplinary
process which fell outside the scope of the sepulchral inscriptions. The
tomb owner's main concern was to prevent the use of his tomb by
unauthorised

persons. Admittedly in a number of Greek inscriptions the

would-be offender is threatened with the v6yos Tuuwpux^as

which

very likely did coveT a variety of criminal offences committed against a

tomb or its occupants.

But within the

context of the

sepulchral

inscriptions this law invariably refers to unauthorised burials, and never

o

to offences of an intrinsically criminal nature.

Provision against unauthorised acts committed upon a tomb could
also include the unauthorised carving of a new inscription or the erasure
of an old. Again, such an action was not an intrinsically criminal offence
since a tomb owner reserved the right to add supplementary clauses to
an original inscription. Both the epichoric and the Greek inscriptions
9
provide examples of this.
Similarly, an original inscription could be
erased quite leitlmately if a tomb passed into the hands of a new
owner.

There are several examples in the Greek inscriptions where a

second inscription was inscribed over an earlier one in order to indicate

change of ownership.

8. We
know
from
several
Inscriptions
that
a
law
against
xuucopuxLa was in force
at least
from the
1st
century A.D.
onwards, and probably dates back much
earlier
than this.
The distinction
in law in Roman times
between
illegal
use of a tomb and criminal
acts committed
upon it
(desecration
etc.)
was probably somewhat blurred.
The tomb
owner if he so wished could probably have casesd
involving
illegal
use of his tomb dealt
with under the same legal
procedure which applied
to other cases of xuywpuxLa.
9. See Bryce,
1975, 33-35, particularly
in relation
to TL 36
and TAM II 1028.
10. In TAM II 70 we are given the information
that
Panegorus
purchased a tomb from Aurella Zosime.
Lines 1-7 were

Customs

and Institutions

121

VVho was responsible for ensuring t h a t the tomb owner's instructions

were

faithfully

carried

out?

From the inscriptions we learn of a

community institution or council called the / i n t i , which seems to have

been closely connected with the supervision of the tombs.
composition of the minti

The actual

is not known, although Thomsen suggested that

it was a type of family council made up of representatives from various

households (1899, 67) - presumably those with a vested interest in the
tombs.

At all events its chief function seems to have been to ensure

that only authorised persons were buried in the tombs which fell within
its jurisdiction, and it probably also exercised some disciplinary powers
12
against persons guilty of violating the tomb owner's instructions.
A number of inscriptions make reference to a payment to be made
to the mintii

expressed in terms of a certain number of adas.

In the

past this has generally been interpreted as a fine imposed upon the tomb
violator, but I believe that it is more likely to have been a fee, albeit a
token fee, payable to the minti

for some service it was to render on

behalf of the tomb owner - perhaps supervision of the actual burial

arrangements for the authorised tomb occupants (see Bryce, 1976a). The
monetary value of the Lycian ada was very small, perhaps no more than
13
1/12 or 1/15 of a Greek mina-,
and since the amounts specified are
often

no more

than

two or

three

adas,

and the largest

amount

probably
carved by the first
owner, and then on
purchasing
the tomb the new owner instead
of erasing
the
original
Inscription
simply carved his name over the top of it
(see
the reproduction
of TAH II 10 in TAM 11/1, p. 26, based on
Hula's
ectypus) . He might also note TAH II 318 where on
top of the original
letters
MOY a second inscription
was
carved,
indicating
that Aurelius
ffermakotas
had
purchased
the tomb for the Interment
of himself
and his
family.
11. The m i n t i a r e referred
to in the following
epichorlc
inscriptions:
TL 2. 3, 3. 4, 4. 4, 11. 3, 31. 4, 36. 3, 38.
8, 39. 7, 42. 4, 46. 3, 47. 3, 50. I, 52. 2, 57. S, 58. 2,
75. 5, 106. 1, 114. 1, 115. 1, 118. 3, 135. 3, 139. 4, 145.
5(7), 149. 14.
12. The minti
figure
in the penalty
clauses
in TL 75. 5 and
139. 4 which are concerned
with the punishment
of
persons
defying
the tomb owner's
Instructions.
13. Cf. Bryce, 1976a, 177, and Laroche,
1979b, 101.
And on the
Lycian
numeral which determines
the relationship
between
the ada and the mina, see above, pp.
62-63.

122

The

Lycians

may have been no more than 10 1/2 adas,

14

approximately 2/3 of a roina,

it is hardly likely that the mint! performed a very laborious service for
this amount. One would have to say that the fee, if that is what it was,
must have been a very nominal one. Yet if so, what point was there in a
tomb owner adding such an apparently trivial detail to his inscription?
Perhaps the important point was not so much the size of the fee as the
indication that the minti

had some authority over the use of the tomb,

which quite possibly provided a measure of protection against defiance

of the tomb owner's instructions. In one of the early Greek inscriptions
from Lycia, there is a stipulation that no interment could take place,
even of eligible occupants, without the authorisation or (perhaps) the
presence of the minti,

and this no doubt acted as a safeguard against

unauthorised burials.
At all events the minti 's role was apparently of some importance in
ensuring proper use of certain tombs at a time when interment rights
were generally limited to a tomb owner's immediate family and rarely
extended beyond two generations.
period, the minti

But by the end of the epichoric

seems to have become virtually defunct. It is referred

to in only three Greek inscriptions, which are of comparatively early

date,

and certainly by the Roman imperial period had disappeared

altogether.
Yet in the Roman period the enlarged tomb families, and the
apparent

lack

of

any

institution

concerned

specifically

with

the

supervision of burial rights must have made it increasingly difficult to

ensure that only eligible persons were admitted to the tombs. Moreover,
the apparent reluctance of many of the later tomb owners to impose an
upper limit on the size of the tomb family resulted in a variety of
provisory and supplementary clauses in the Greek inscriptions, which

14. TL SO concludes
with a d a O r . The numerical quantity
has
been interpreted
both as 10 1/2 and as 15; see above,
p.62.
15. Petersen and von Luschan, 1889, 22, no. 27, line 4: ,\ir\ (jTW
voiyetv yn^evc aveu TIS yuvOLOS.
16. Petersen
and von Luschan,
1889, 22, no. 27, TAH II
62,
and TAM II 40. The last of these refers
to the yevuTaL,
presumably the individual
members of the group.

Customs and Institutions

would appear to have complicated the situation even further.

123
In a

number of cases the owner indicates the possibility of his making

additions to the burial list, either in a supplement to the original
inscription, or by an entry in the public archives, or perhaps even by
verbal consent.

There

are

also cases in which the tomb owner

delegates the right of authorising additional burials to certain specified

18
and in one

persons - Eor example, his wife, his children, or his heirs,

case to all prospective tomb occupants, whether or not they have been
named by the owner in the original burial provisions (TAM 11 602.

7-10).

The eligible members of the extended tomb families may to some

extent have taken over the supervisory role once exercised by the
minti.

Nevertheless effective supervision of the tombs became a far

more complex matter, especially in view of the proliferation of these

tombs during the Roman period, and the 'open-ended' formulae in the
inscriptions which often made it difficult to determine precisely who
had, and who had not, been granted burial rights. Perhaps for this reason
incentive was given to informants to bring to light 'violations' which
19
The system of laying information, with

might otherwise go unnoticed.

the inducement of a substantial monetary reward in the event of a

8ucce99ful prosecution, may have been operating in Lycia long before the
Roman imperial period, and was perhaps similar in some respects to the
system of

auxo(pavT^a which became prevalent in Athens during the 5th

century B.C.
After stating what constitutes unauthorised use of his tomb, the
tomb owner frequently concluded his inscription with a penalty clause
which indicates that anyone disregarding his instructions will be liable to
punishment by one or more disciplinary authorities. During the epichoric
period, tombs were in most cases under the protection of one or more
deities, and any violations of the tomb owner's instructions were likely

17. Cf. TAM II 72, 8-9, 78. 1-3, 121. 4-6, 215. 4-5, 326.
6-8,
331. 2-3, 357. 8, 618. 6, 754. 4, 989. 4-7.
18. Cf. TAM II 61. 9-14, 224. 6-12, 321, 323. 5-6, 599.
4-5,
980. 2-3, 1096. 2-3, 1227.
7-10.
19. According
to Arkwrlght,
'experience
seems to have shown
that they (i.e.
the tomb owner's heirs or descendants)
were
apt through suplneness,
timidity,
or possibly
corruption,
to neglect
their duty' (1911,
270).

The

124

Lycians

to bring divine retribution upon the offender.

Some penalty clauses

contain no more than a simple threat of punishment by a deity, or a

group of deities - e.g. TL 93.
me ne trqas

3:

tubidi

se muhai

huwedri

(the god) Trqqas and the huwedni gods will punish him (i.e. the
offender).
But a number of tomb owners combined or replaced the threat of divine
retribution with a threat of punitive action by more tangible authorities
-

e.g. the itlehij

possibly an administrative official,

or group of

officials, whose jurisdiction extended into the religious sphere (see below
pp. 135-36). We might also note in this connection TL 56. 3-4 where the
offender was to be subject to the judgment both of the local mother
goddess and the municipal authorities at Phellos:

se iye

ti

se wedri

edi: tike:mete:me

ne

qasttu:eni:qlahl.ebiyehl:

:wehntezi

And who(ever) commits

an offencei?)

mother of this sanctuaryf?)

against them, let the

and the municipality of Wehnta (=

Phellos) pass judgment upon him.

In some cases the offender seems to have been liable to punishment
under regulations laid down by the minti for the proper use of the tombs,
to judge from TL lie.
marazlya

3,

135.

3(?),

and 139.

4 which refer to the

mintaha ('the tribunaK?) of the minti) within the context of a

penalty clause (see above, Chapter 3, n. 101).

Mo doubt there were established procedures for judging and
punishing persons guilty of tomb violations. These perhaps included some
direction on the nature and size of the penalty to be imposed, which is
generally not

indicated

in the

inscriptions

(unless the

containing the ada formula fall into this category).

inscriptions

However, a small

number of inscriptions from Limyra in which the penalty is clearly

specified suggests that payment in kind may have been the usual form
the penalty took. Note TL 131.

2-4:

Customs and
se

iye

ti ; eseri

eni qlahi:ebiy<hi

tadi

125

Institutions
tike

nuntta

khupa: ebehi

...

me

ttlidi

amm[a]ma:uwa

and who(ever) places anyone (else) with them in the chamber

- * 20
this (tomb)
will pay nuntta
cattle as a
21
penal tu(??) to the mother of this sanctuary (?)
of

It may well be that the penalty was always determined in kind - a

22
certain number of livestock, and/or a certain quantity of grain
- and
was probably regarded as a form of expiatory offering rather than simply
as a form of punishment. Moreover in some cases the penalty may have
involved not only an initial payment, but also a series of subsequent
23
payments to be made on a regular basis.
By the Roman period, the rapidly increasing number of tombs, the
wide range of tomb owners, and in many cases the indefinitely large
number of potential tomb occupants seem to have led to a streamlining
of the disciplinary procedures, which no doubt greatly reduced the
deliberative

functions

of

the

disciplinary

bodies

concerned.

The

inscription itself specified not only the nature of the violation and the
identity of the disciplinary bodies, but also the size of the penalty, the
proportion to be paid to the informant, and the proportion to be paid to
any other parties involved in the action. For example in TAH II 325 the
offence is specified as unauthorised burial, the penalty 4000 denarii, of
which

1500 den. are to be allocated to the TCX^ILCCS and 2500

to

the Y^POuaL of the city of Xanthos; in TAH II 626, 1/3 of the penalty is
to be paid to the informant.

20. On nuntta,
see above, Chapter3 , n. 87.
21. The other inscriptions
which indicate
payment in kind by
way of penalty are TL 102 (2-3),
111 (2-3),
and 131
(3-4).
22. Note that in TL 131 the tomb violator
will be liable
to a
penalty
of nuntata head of cattle,
and possibly
also to a
monthly (rmmazata) payment of grainf?)
(ktifta-) . For the
interpretation
of
kh\>a- as
'grain' , as suggested
by
Neumann, see above, Chapter 3, n. 98.
23. As suggested
by the penalty
clause in TL 131, referred
to
in n. 21.
24. Cf. TAM II 73. 4-5: penalty
- 3500 den., 500 den. of which

126

The Lye tans

I have suggested above that while the majority of tomb occupants

could look forward to no more than temporary occupancy of a tomb

before having to make way for new arrivals, in some cases the tomb
owner and other privileged occupants enjoyed the prospect of permanent
undisturbed residence. In a few of these cases there may also have been
a type of funerary cult established, involving periodic sacrifices in
honour of the dead. Several of the Greek inscriptions from the Roman
imperial period provide for sacrificial offerings (e.g. a cock and a fowl)
to be made to the tomb occupants at certain times of the year by the
descendants or heirs of the tomb owner (e.g. TAM II

245,

636,

637,

715), and it may well be that the performance of sacrificial rites in such
a context dates back to a much earlier period. Tritsch suggested that
the relief on the east side of the so-called Harpy tomb at Xanthos can be
25
so interpreted (1942, 47-50).
In this relief a small figure is depicted
making an offering of a cock in the presence of a seated, bearded figure
- perhaps the tomb owner who was evidently a man of considerable
importance and may in fact have been an early Lycian dynast.
One

of

the

epichoric

inscriptions, TL

?6

84, may also refer

to

sacrificial rites performed in honour of the tomb owner - in this case

Mizretiye, an official in the town of Sura. The relevant section of the
inscription reads as follows:
mede

tew[j

kumehi
[sje

kumezeiti

adaiye:

mei ne: kumazatl

(lines

uhazata

/ / - .uraziye

[..J

tuweri

se

adi:e

mizratiyehe

seyepi

me ne :pdde :qla:smmati

hadi

:ebi:

\
ti\

surezi

5-7)

the tuweri

will make sacrifice yearly, and will provide a

victim (in' honour?)

uraziye

of?) 2 1/2

one appoints

(?), if he does
here at Sura

hold him

And whom(ever)

value

not become sacrifie er, the local sanctuary(l)

will

adas.

of Mizretiye (to the

responsiblef??).

are to be paid to the demos of Telmessos,

and 3000 to the
fiscusi?)-,
TAM II 526. 41-42: penalty
- 6000 dr., 3000 dr.
of which are to be paid to the owner's grandson,
and 3000
to the demos.
41-42.
25. Cf. Bryce, 198b,
interpretation
of the Harpy tomb reliefs
is,
26. The precise
however,
very much open to question.
The reliefs
will
be
discussed
in some detail
in vol.
II.

Customs and Institutions

127

Vtfe may have another example of a sacrificial rite which is to be

erformed in honour of the deceased in the final words of TL ISO:
khsserizi y aye ; hberuse

zasani : khadrnna ; uhaza ta : kumezeine.

three of these words can be translated - khssenziyaye

(the tomb owner), uhazata

Only

= 'for Khssenziya'

kumezein& = 'to sacrifice yearly' - but these

are sufficient to suggest a reference to a yearly sacrifice to be carried

out in honour of the tomb owner.
One of the more recently discovered epichoric inscriptions, N 304t
also contains instructions for a sacrificial rite. The inscription is very
fragmentary, but it seems to provide for the monthly sacrificial offering
27
of an ox or a sheep.
It is not, however, a sepulchral inscription, and
may be connected with the cult of a particular deity (or deities) rather
than with a funerary cult.
In general, the inscriptions of Asia Minor provide relatively few
examples of funerary cults established in honour of the tomb owner or
the tomb family as a whole.

However we might compare our Lycian

examples with a late 1st century Greek inscription from Apateira in the
valley of the Caystros river (in the territory of Ephesos). In this case
Peplos, the owner of the heroon, has founded an association of npwLTau,
the members of which are responsible for the care of the heroon and the
28
funerary cult of the persons who are buried there.

We know little of the rituals and procedures which accompanied

Lycian burials, although an interesting, and as far as I know unique,
funerary custom is alleged in two of our literary sources of the Roman

26a. TL 74b may provide

a further
example of a sacrificial
rite
In honour of the deceased.
See Borchhardt
et al.,
1985,
91, and 121-26.
21. Indications
of
this
are
given
by
k]umezeti[i
or
kjumezelnfe,
referring
to the act of sacrifice
(line
1),
and ujwa or wa]wa ('ox')
or kha]wa ('sheep')
(line 2).
In
line
5 the word arinma ( 'monthly')
may indicate
that
the
sacrifice
is to be performed at monthly
intervals.
28. For the Inscription,
see Keil and Premerstein,
1914,
88-90;
see also Kubinska, 1968, 125.

The

128
imperial period.

Lycians

The Roman historian Valerius Maximus (2. 16. 3) in

survey of rites of passage practised by different peoples refers to a

Lycian custom whereby males wear female garments as a sign of
mourning for the departed.
Plutarch (consol.
it.

ad Apoll.

The same custom is also referred to by

112F-113A) who offers an explanation for

In his letter to Apollonius, Plutarch urges Apollonius to sustain his

personal

grief

with fortitude,

maintaining

that excess of grief is

unmanly, as the Lycians show by wearing female garments when in

mourning.
Whether or not the Lycians ever did practise such a custom is a
matter of some doubt*, and even if they did, Plutarch's explanation of it
must be regarded as highly suspect.

Conceivably such a practice could

have been a fossilised relic of the past whose origins the Lycians of the
Roman period had forgotten, and to which a quite spurious explanation
came to be attached. But if it was a genuine relic of an earlier period in
the civilisation, it is surprising that Herodotos makes no mention of it.
This is precisely the sort of detail one would expect him to comment on.
Perhaps the Lycians had a tradition of wearing certain types of garments
at funerals which were later misinterpreted as female garments.
But if we suppose for a moment that the Lycians did wear female
garments on such occasions, is it possible that the practice was intended
to have an apotropaic function? Transvestitism seems on some occasions
to have served this purpose on Greek and Roman wedding days - a means
of confusing or duping malevolent spirits likely to be lurking around.
And a similar explanation might be offered for the alleged Lycian
funerary practice. Sir James Frazer suggested that the Lycian practice
'might be intended to conceal them (Lycian men) from the ghost, just as
perhaps for a similar reason some peoples of antiquity used to descend
into pits and remain there for several days, shunning the light of the sun,
whenever a death had taken place in the family' (1927, 264). Delcourt
suggests that the men may have worn female garments in the belief that
malevolent spirits were less likely to harm females than they were males
29
(1958, 6).
But all such proposals must be regarded as highly
29. Delcourt's
explanation
for this is that 'les femmes ayant
moins de valeur,
les dmons laisseront
indemnes ceux qui se
dissimulent
sous leurs
habits'.

Customs and

129

Institutions

speculative,.since as far as I know there are no parallels to the alleged

Lycian practice,

and we must have serious reservations about its

genuineness.
Ranks, titles, and professions in Lycian society
In the introductory statements in the inscriptions, the tomb owner
as a rule

provides

some

form

of

identification

of himself.

This

identification is expressed most commonly by reference to an important

30
family connection, usually the owner's parent.
But it can also be
expressed by reference to a particular office which the owner had held,
or by reference to the town or towns of which he was a citizen.
Occasionally we find a combination of all three.
If the comparatively small number of inscribed tombs of the 5th and
4th centuries indicates that the owners of these tombs belonged to the
upper strata of Lycian society, then we can assume that the titles which
the owners bore or the professions in which they were occupied were
31
Unfortunately we do not have enough information

high-ranking ones.
to be

able

professions.

to determine

the

precise nature

of

these

titles

and

Some of them, however, can be broadly categorised as

religious in function, and some as secular, on the basis of the contexts in

which they occur.

Several others, while clearly indicating ranks or

titles, cannot be more precisely defined as either religious or secular,

and may in fact have combined both functions.
-aza.

We note that many of the terms in question incorporate the suffix

32
But not all the ~aza words in Lycian can be classified as

30. We cannot assume that the parent in question

was always the
father since in most cases it is impossible
to tell
whether
a Lycian proper name is masculine or
feminine.
31. In the case of priestly
offices
in particular^we
note
that
it was common practice
in many Hear Eastern societies
for
these offices
to be held by members of the
aristocracy.
See Sullivan,
1978.
Sullivan
comments: 'The high
position
of priests....reflects
a unanimity
throughout
Anatolia
on
the fundamental place of religion
in society.'
(p.
938).
32. See Merlggi,
1928, 443-45,
and the list
in Houwlnk ten
Cate,
1965, 63, sec.
10.
Note also
the discussion
by
Laroche, 1979b,
98-100.

130

The

Lycians

official titles or ranks since some are quite clearly personal names - e.g.
Sbikaza (TL 106.
family relationship.

1) and Izraza (TL 24) - and others may be terms of

33
Consequently we must relegate to the 'Doubtful1

category any of these terms which we are unable to classify on the basis
of contextual or other considerations.
These

considerations

provide

the

basis

for the

following

list,

obviously a tentative and incomplete one, of Lycian titles, ranks, and

professions.
RELIGIOUS
akhataza

(TL 149.3)

kumaza(TL 26.20,

49, 65.22,

mahtnaza (TL 133.

1)

111.

1, N 320.9

and 36,

322.2).

uwehl (TL 22. 2, 29. 3 and 4, 92. 2)

SECULAR
asakhlaza
khntawatl

(N 320.

5)

(TL 35.
23-24,

1, 44 b 58, 62,

and 63, N 320.

7-8,

8-9,

17,

and 28)

khntawaza (TL 44 d 67)

pddnehmmi (TL 106.
sttrat

1, N 320.

3-4)

(TL 44 b 18)
RELIGIOUS/SECULAR?

itlehi

(TL 57.9,
134.4,

83.16,

88.5,

89.3,

150.7)

maraza (TL 44 c 4)
mluhidaza
tewinaza

(TL 84.1)
(N 306.

1)
DOUBTFUL

hakhlaza

(TL 44 a 51)

khddaza (N 320.
mlatraza

20)

(TL 44 b 40)

90.5,

94.2,

95.3,

118.3,

Customs and Institutions

131

tabahaza (TL 44 b 53)

wasaza (TL 38.4)
zkhkhaza (TL 44 b 57, c 6)
zzlmaza (TL 54.2)
mlannaza (TL 143.4)
DISCUSSION
(a)Religious
(i)

offices

The titles or ranks designated as religious in function are generally

found in association with a particular deity.

For example kumaza, the

term used in the tomb owner's identification formula in TL 49, TL 111,

and N 322, is associated with the god Trzzubi in TL 111
kumaza [trjzzubafh)

and the god Qeli in // 322 (qelehi

(erzesinube

kumaza.)

More precise information about the office of kuntaza is provided by

the trilingual, where it is equated with the Greek

epeu . Simias has

been appointed as the priest of the two deities in whose honour the cult
has been established, with the task of supervising their cult and making
annual sacrifice to them on behalf of the townspeople and perioikoi

of

Xanthos. Several other cognate forms of kumaza appear in the trilingual-,

namely kumezi

= Sueuv, kumaha = xocTLEpwSri, kumeziye

= 3wyo$, and

kumehi = epetov.The comparisons with the Greek suggest that these

terms refer specifically to the act of sacrifice; e.g. kumezi
sacrifice', kumeziye

- 'make

= 'altar , i.e. the place where sacrifice is made,

kumehi = 'victim', i.e. the object sacrificed.

It may be then that

kuma/.a basically means 'one who makes sacrifice', and this may in fact
indicate the principal function of the kumaza - an official appointed to
make sacrifice in honour of a particular cult or deity. Presumably this
was the most important function exercised by Simias in his role as
kumaza in the newly established cult at the Letoon (see below, Chapter 6,
pp. 192-94).
33. zzlmaza (TL 54. 2) and wasaza (TL 38.4) may fall
into
this
category.
On zzlmaza,
see tieriggi,
1928, 444, and Laroche,
1979b, 99, and on wasaza see Laroche, 1919b, 99.
34. See Eichner's
discussion
of the possible
etymology of these
cognate words, 1983,
59-62.

132

The

(ii) The terms akhataza

Lycians

and uwehi are also used in contexts which

indicate that they are primarily religious in function.

For example, in

TL 149 the tomb owner Iyamara is identified as maliyahl

wedrennehi
35
akhataza - 'akhataza of the regional
(goddess) Maliya', and in TL 22
the tomb owner Hrikhttbili is identified as mahanahl uwehi - 'uwehi of
the gods'.
The fact that all these terms - kumaza, akhataza,

uwehi - refer

apparently to religious offices might indicate a relatively high degree of

specialisation in the religious roles undertaken by leading members of
Lycian society. And it is clear that in some cases certain persons were
appointed as priests or attendants attached to the worship of a particular
deity as distinct from the Lycian gods in general.
iii) We might also include in the religious category the term mahlnaza.
In TL 133 the tomb owner Khntlapa identifies himself as the mahlnaza of
the Lycian Perikle. Laroche, taking up a suggestion originally made by
Meriggi, connects the term with mahana- 'god', and suggests that it
36
means 'prophet* or 'seer'.
The suggestion is a plausible one, and might
tie in with the information provided by our Greek literary sources that
Lycia and Caria were notable centres for the practice of divination (see
below, Chapter 6).
The likely importance of Khfitlapa's office may be indicated by the
fact that, contrary to usual practice, the official title precedes
parental

identification:

epntlbazah

tldelml

khntlapane:prnnawate:perikleh:

the

mahlnaza:

- Khntlapa, mahlnaza of Perikle, son of Bpntibaza,

built it*.
(b) Secular
(i) asakhlaza

offices
is one of the very few -aza terms indicating a title or

profession which is clearly secular in function. The term occurs only

once, in the trilingual, where w e are informed that Erttimeli has been

35. 'regional'
Is the suggested
translation
of the
epithet
wedrnnl which Is cognate with wedrl; wedrl means something
like
'region,
district,
municipality'.
Quite
clearly
wedrnnl
indicates
the geographical
sphere
In which
the
goddess Haliya operated.
See also Bryce, 1981a, 83.
36. Laroche,
1979b, 99 (cf. Meriggi,
1928, 445).
Thomsen had
earlier
proposed the meaning 'conseiller'
(1899,
45).

Customs and Institutions

appointed asakhlaza

133

of Xanthos by the Carian satrap Pixodaros

(line

5). asakhlaza

which corresponds to uyeXriTris in the Greek version of

37
trilingual,
seems to designate here the
administrative

the

representative of the local satrap in Lycia's chief city.

(il) The most prestigious title in the inscriptions is khntawatl,

38

a term

which is equated with aauXeug in the trilingual where it is used in

reference to a god. Its corresponding abstract khntawata

appears in a

number of inscriptions in the quasi-dating formula ene. . . .khntawata ~

39
'under the command/authority (of)...'.
On the basis of this formula,
we can make a list of those persons who apparently held, or were
accorded the title
(1)

khntawatl:

Alexander the Great, if he is identifiable with the Alakhssantra who

40
appears in TL 29. 9.
khntawata appears in the same context as
Alakhssantra,

although

not

in

the

standard ene. . .

.khntawata

formula.
(2) the Lydian satrap Autophradates (Lycian Wataprddate) (TL 61.

2).

(3) members of the ruling dynasty at Xanthos - Kheriga (TL 43.

Arppakhu (Harpagos) (TL 77 2b-3b,
(A) the Lycian Perlkle (TL 67.2,
n

83.

2),

N 310.4).
5-6,

103.3,

132.

1-2,

H 314.

o^l

7-8)
(5)

other Lycian coin issuers - Mithrapata (TL 64.

(TL
ene

11.

2-3).

2) and Arttumpara

In this latter case Arttumpara appears not in the

khntawata

formula

but as the subject of the verb

37. On the range of officials

which could be covered
by the
term epimeletes
in Greek, see Hrrle, 1975, 72-73, n. 6.
38. For a recent,
comprehensive
discussion
of this term and its
corresponding
abstract
khntawata,
see
Heubeck,
1979.
Earlier
discussions
of the term are cited by Heubeck,
1979,
247-48, n. 1.
39. On the interpretation
of this formula,
see Gusmani,
1963,
284 ff.,
and Heubeck,
1979, 249-50.
Laroche
originally
suggested
that
ene.... khntawata
was
a
title
'sous-officer'
(1957/58,
182, followed
by Houwink ten Cate,
1965, 9, 92 - 'under-strategus');
but see more recently
his
translation
of TL 43. 2 (1974b,
134).
40. See above, Chapter 3, p. 49 and cf. Heubeck, 1979, 256.
41. In N 314a. 7-8 we read ejti
khntawata pjerlklehe
(ejtl
as
restored
by Carruba).
On this
variation
on the
standard
formula, see Carruba, 1979, 82.

134

The- Lycians
khntewete.
trinmisn:khntewete
terf.]
arttumpara 'Arttumpara ruled/governed - as - khntawata ter. (?) Lycia'.
In addition to these references, we might also note TL 35.

the term khntawati

occurs, perhaps in reference to pttule,

1 where
which

Laroche identifies as the Lycian name of one of the early Ptolemies. I

have already expressed my reservations about this identification (see
above, Chapter 3, p p. 49-50).
It seems clear from the examples listed above that the term
khntawati /khntawata

did not indicate a precise station or rank, since it

could be used of a god, satrap, members of the ruling Xanthian dynasty,

the Lycian Perikle,

and other prominent Lycians known also from their

coin issues. It may also have been a title bestowed on Alexander the
Great after his conquest of Lycia, and perhaps

on one of the early

Ptolemies who exercised authority in Asia Minor. It was a general term

- though undoubtedly a very prestigious one - which was used in
reference to high-ranking administrators within Lycia as well as to
44
outsiders who came to exercise authority over the country.
We might also note here the term khntawaza which occurs in the
Lycian B or Milyan text on side d of the Xanthos stele inscription (TL 44
d 67).

Conceivably khntawaza

belongs to the category of -aza terms

which denote ranks, titles, professions (cf. Houwink ten Gate, 1965, 63,
Korol'ov and Sevoroskin, 1969, 528). But it may on the other hand be the
Lycian B equivalent of the abstract khntawata

(translated by Gusmani as

'Herrschaft' - 1963, 288).

42. On this form see Pedersen,

1945, 11, sec.
25,
Gusmani,
I960, 502, n. 15, 1963, 288, n. 25, 1968, 9, Neumann, 1969,
389, 1976, 84, Heubeck, 1979, 250-51, Laroche, 1979b, 105.
43. We might also note that In one of the two literary
sources
which refer
to him the Lycian
Perikle
is
designated
as aoLAeus (Theopompus, Jac. 115 F 103), which
indirectly
provides
a further
example of the equation
between
the
Lycian term khntawati and the Greek aouAeus. Cf.
Heubeck,
1979, 255.
44. Cf. Heubeck, 1979, 257, Laroche,
1979b, 104-06.
The term
occurs also in a number of passages
in the Xanthos
stele
inscription:
TL 44 a 51, b 37, 58, 62, 63, 64, c 8-9,
10-11.
With the partial
exception
of c 8-9, the
passages
in question
are obscure and are thus of little
value to the
present
discussion.

Customs and Institutions

135

(iii) Pddenehihmi. In TL 106 the tomb owner Sbikaza identifies himself as

urtta

mintehi

pddenehihmi.

While it is not altogether clear how this

phrase should be construed, I suggest that the genitive mintehl

dependent on pddnehmmi, and that mintehi
to

%urtta - 'Sbikaza,

urtta,

is

pddenehnuni is apposltional

pddenehnuni of the mihtl*.

The general

meaning of pddenehnuni is now made clear by the trilingual where it

appears in the accus, plur. form pddenehmmls (lines
with ctpxovxas in the Greek version (line
the

meaning

'commissaires'

3).

('commissioners')

3-4) and is equated

Laroche suggests for it

(1979b,

60-61).

The

context in which it occurs in the trilingual clearly indicates that it can

be used in reference to high-ranking administrative positions, in this
case perhaps the most important administrative positions in Lycia under
the Hekatomnid regime.

But it probably has a relative rather than an

absolute meaning - i.e. its precise sense depends on the context in which
it is used and the terms with which it is associated.

Thus we have

pddenehmmis for the whole of Lycia and a pddenehnuni of a local

minti.

In the latter case I suggest that the person with this title had perhaps
been appointed as the chief official of the organisation, a position which
may have been sufficiently prestigious to justify its inclusion in the
identification formula of a sepulchral inscription.
The meaning of
(iv) sttrat

urtta

is quite obscure,

occurs in a fragmentary context after the name Aruwatiyesi

in r, 44 b 18, a name which belongs to a 4th century coin-issuer in

Lycia (to be discussed in vol. II). It is possible, though far from certain,
that

sttrat

is

the

first

part

of

Lycianised

form

of

the

Greek arpa-rriYs, and if so it may have been the Lycian term for a
military commander, representing a direct borrowing from Greek.

(c) Religious
(i)

itlehi

or Secular

Office

(or

both)

appears frequently as a disciplinary authority in the penalty

clauses of the sepulchral inscriptions, where it is regularly qualified by

*
45
trmmill
('Lycian'), and sometime also by huwedri.
It has been
variously interpreted as a term designating an office holder, the office

45. E.g.

TL 83. 16, 88.

5, 95. 3 , 118. 3, ISO. 7.

136

The

Lyeians

itself, or a corporation, federation, or the like (see Bryce, 1981a, 87). A

number of scholars have equated it with the Greek terms xaytas, Tapeuov,
or (pianos in view of the frequency with which these terms appear in
similar contexts in the Greek inscriptions, referring to disciplinary
46
authorities involved in punitive action against tomb violators.
Heubeck, however, has recently argued against these equations. He
construes huwedri

as a plural adjective used to qualify itlehi,

must therefore be plural), and suggests that the Itlehi

divine beings like the Lycian teseti

(which

are a group of

- the oath gods - who are also

invoked in the penalty clauses (1982, 109-10).

Heubeck's proposal is

quite plausible, and if he is right, we should transfer the itlehi

to our

discussion of the Lycian deities in Chapter 6.

On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that

itlehi

refers to officials in Lycia, either individually or in a group, whose

functions and responsibilities may have been religious as well as secular
in nature. We might compare the functions of the xaytct, whose office
had distinct religious overtones, as indicated by the epithet Lept&Taxos
which appears regularly in association with xaycas in the Greek inscrip47
tions.
(ii) maraza.

As Laroche points out, maraza almost certainly derives

from mara/mere Claw') and is probably the Lycian word for judge (1979b,
98, cf. Heubeck, 1982, 110). The term occurs only once, in the Xanthos
stele inscription (TL 44 c 4), in a passage which begins with references
to Tissaphernes, Kaunos, Athens, and continues with a reference to the
erection of a stele (by Otanes) in the temenos of Maliya at Athens. We
cannot determine what the maraza'5 role was in this context, but his
office may well have combined both religious and secular functions.
(iii) mluhidaza

appears in TL 84 as the office held by the tomb owner

Mizretiye in the town of Sura. Our Greek literary sources indicate that
Sura was a well known oracular centre in Lycia (see below, Chapter 6),
and it is just possible that Mizretiye's office was connected with
oracular practices in the area.
46. Cf. Imbert,
1896,
1945, 39, sec. 65,
57, Laroche, 1967,
47. E.g. TAH II 59, 63,

We cannot, however, be certain that

230-31,
Torp,
1898,
17-18,
Pedersen,
Houwink ten Cate, 1965, 94, n.g on TL
56.
77, 83, 89, 221,
222, 228 etc.

Customs and Institutions

137

the oracular seat attested in Greek literature was already established in

Sura during the epichoric period.
(iv) tewinaza

appears in N 306.1 as the title or office held by the tomb

owner Piflteusi. But the context in which it occurs gives us no indication

48
of what the nature of Pinteusi's office was.
(d) The Doubtful

category

Although all the words listed in this category terminate in -aza we

have insufficient evidence to indicate whether they do in fact refer to
titles

or professions.

inscription

(hakhlaza,

The words

occurring

mlatraza,

tabahaza,

in the

Xanthos

zkhkhaza)

stele

belong

to

passages which are quite obscure, (cf. Laroche, 1979b, 99), wasaza and
49
zzimaza may be terms of family relationship,
khddaza is probably the
50
**
Lycian word for 'slave',
and mlannaza may simply be a personal name.
In general there is too much uncertainty surrounding these words to
make any detailed statements or assumptions about them.
In the Roman imperial period, as in the epichoric period, a number
of tomb owners identified themselves as the holders of religious or
secular offlces> although clearly by this time a much wider range of
social classes were represented. Tomb owners of priestly rank, generally
associated with particular deities,
women and slaves.
are represented.

are fairly common, and include both

On the other hand, a wide range of secular offices

Tomb owners are sometimes identified as teachers,

48. See further

on tewinaza Neumann, 1969, 380.
On the
likely
relationship
between
tewinaza
and
the
personal
name
Tewinezel,
see Laroche, 1979b, 99, and Neumann, 1983, 146.
49. See the references
cited in n. 33 above.
50. See most recently
Eichner,
1983, 54-59.
Other
references
to Lycian
slaves
occur in Herodotos
1. 176 (slaves
at
Xanthos at the time of the Persian
conquest)
and IG II2,
1951,
lines
73, 143, 165, 361, 371, 401 (referring
to
Lycian slaves in the Athenian navy; for a recent
discussion
of the inscription,
see Jordan, 1975,
265).
51. E.g. SEG II 672 which refers
to the tomb owner as
priestess
for life of Artemis.
Cf. TAM II 434 where the tomb occupant
is referred
to as priestess
of Demeter.
Sometimes
the
priest(ess)
is designated
as being
in the service
of
deified
members of the imperial
household
- e.g.
TAM II
206. 4-5, 328a.
7-9.

138

The

doctors, or soldiers,

Lycians

52

but much more commonly as the holders of

53
political or administrative posts.
Identification by citizenship is very rare in the epichoric inscriptions

but quite common in the Greek, an understandable situation in view of

the apparently much greater fluidity of the Lycian population in the
Roman period, and the fact that individual Lycians in this period often
held citizenship rights in two or more towns

- rights which may well

have had important practical implications, especially as far as legal and

political privileges were concerned.

But such matters fall outside the

scope of our present investigation.

Lycian family relationships
Indirectly, the inscriptions provide a wide range of information on
Lycian family structures and family ties.

In contrast to the large

amorphous tomb families of the Roman period, the tomb families of the
epichoric period were generally much smaller, more coherent, more
definable units.

In most instances the tomb owner provided for the

burial of himself, his wife, and his children in his tomb. But there are
also a significant number of cases where other family connections were
provided for, In the main these were restricted to a small group of lineal
and collateral family connections, including the owner's mother (TL 86,
95,

127) and grandchildren (TL 127,

his brothers (TL 8,

37,

48a,

146) in the former category, and

89) and nephews/nieces (TL 8, 48a,

95,

127) in the latter.

52. E.g. TAH II 224. 3, 339. 1-2, 485.

53. E.g. TAM II 366. 2-3, 382.4-6,
437.5-6,
949.2,
1151.1-2.
54. Some examples of joint
citizenship
bring together
the names
Xanthos and Telmessos (TAM II 156), Xanthos and Pinara (TAM
II 194, 308), Xanthos and Patara
(TAM II 304, 432,
487),
Xanthos and Sidyma (TAM II 236, 306, 347),
Kadyanda and
Xanthos (TAM II 335), Tlos and Xanthos (TAM II 285),
Pinara
and Sidyma (TAM II 223, 224), Pinara and Kadyanda (TAM II
681), Patara and Sidyma (TAM II 188, 189), Myra and Patara
(TAM II 422a), Tlos and Rhodiapolis
(TAM II 586), tfeisa and
Tlos
(TAM II 585),
Myra, Tlos,
Kyaneae
(TAM II
586),
Akalissos
and Rhodiapolis
(TAM II 859), Myra and Olympos
(TAM II 977).

Customs and Institutions

139

While we must be careful not to infer too much from what is

admittedly a very small group of inscriptions, the provision for the burial
of brothers and nephews/nieces perhaps indicates that in some instances
collateral ties involved certain obligations and responsibilities including,
if the need arose and circumstances permitted, the provision of burial
accommodation. We note, for example, from TL 7 and 8 that the tomb
owner,

Triyetezi,

actually built two tombs, one for his wife

and

children, the other for his brothers and their children.

(a) Avuncular

identification

The possibility that in some cases at least particular significance

was attached to collateral ties may be supported by the fact that in a
number of inscriptions the tomb owner identifies himself by reference to
an uncle (or aunt?) as well as to his father (TL 25,
82, 95,
84).

29,

36,

59,

10,

136) , and occasionally by reference to an une le /aunt? alone (TL

The Lycian term indicating this relationship is tunes,

which we
55
learn from the bilingual TL 25 can mean either nephew or niece.
Thus

in TL 36, for example, we can translate the introductory statement

(lines

1-3) as follows:

'This building Ahqqadi son of Pizibida/i and

nephew (tubes) of Hmprama, has built it. 1

Perhaps in some cases, this

form of identification was little more than a formality. But even if this
is so, it still seems to indicate that a special significance could attach to
the relationship between a person and his (or her) brother's or sister's
offspring.

Some of the possible implications of this have been discussed

by Pembroke, (1965, 228-47),

who suggests that two of the inscriptions

(TL 29 and 223) may be interpreted to mean that the tomb owner's wife
was also his niece; Pembroke draws a parallel with the Greek practice
whereby marriage with a brother's daughter was in some instances
actually prescribed (1965, 240-41).

55. tuhes in line 4 is equated with otoeAtpLosi/i 2ine

tuhesn (accus, form)
in line
7 is equated with
in line 14.
56. There is no immediately
recognisable
parallel
to
of
identification
in
the Greek inscriptions
Pembroke, 1965, 241, n. 3).
In not one Instance
tomb owner identify
himself
initially
through an
aunt.
57. Cf. Shafer, 1959, 487 and 501, and Beneviste,
1969,

9,
and
oieXtptnv
this
form
(but
see
does the
uncle or
207.

140

The Lye1 ans

But in general,

questions.

the

tunes

identification

For instance, is the tuhes

through an uncle or an aunt?

maternal or paternal?

raises

a number of

identifying himself or herself

Is the relationship thus designated

Why is this form of identification used next to

that of a parent?
Of the various explanations that have been offered, we might note
the following:
(1)

the suggestion originally made by Thomsen (1899, 18), that tuhes

most likely indicates a relationship with a maternal uncle - brother
of the tomb owner's mother - so as to indicate the maternal as well
as the paternal side of the family by designating the mother's
closest male relative.

(2)

the suggestion originally proposed by Shafer (1959, 487 and 501) and
taken up by Beneviste (1969, 207) that the tuhes
indicates a system of cross-cousin marriage.

nomenclature

According to this

system, a man can marry the daughter of his father's sister or his
mother's brother, but not the daughter of his father's brother or
mother's sister.

As Beneviste

explains it, the reason for this

restriction is that the brother of the father is designated as 'father',

and the sister of the mother as 'mother'; hence a person is excluded
from marrying the offspring

of his 'father' or 'mother' since

marriage between brothers and sisters is prohibited.

From this

Beneviste concludes that for the nephew the 'uncle' is the brother of
his mother, and for the uncle the 'nephew' is the son of his sister. It
would then follow that in TL 36 Hmprama is the maternal uncle of
Ahqqadi.
(3)

The suggestion by Hestermann that tideimi

and tuhes

marked a

distinction between the tomb owner's 'natural' and 'legal' fathers the 'legal' father being the eldest brother of the tomb owner's
mother (1929, 262-63).
We are unable to substantiate any of these theories, and we must of
course

bear

in mind

that

the

number of

instances

of

avuncular

identification in the inscriptions is relatively small. Nevertheless it is

quite possible that the tuhes

form of identification does indicate' a

special relationship, which existed only in comparatively rare situations

- situations in which an uncle did exercise some authority over or have

Customs and Institutions

141

some legal responsibility for, a nephew or a niece. Such a situation could

have occurred if a tomb owner's father had gone to live with his wife's
family> who would then in all probability have exercised some authority
over the children of the marriage - authority which was perhaps legally
vested in a maternal grandfather or uncle, it is not in fact unlikely that
a matrllocal system operated to a limited extent in Lycia, both in the
epichoric

period and in later times.

We shall be discussing

this

possibility below.
The

explanations

so

far

outlined

place

the

tuhes

form

of

identification essentially in a general family context - i.e. it may have

been a means of identifying the mother's side of a tomb family, or it
may indicate a matrllocal marriage on the part of the tomb owner's
father. In each case the formula is regarded as referring to a maternal
relationship, a view which is no doubt prompted in the minds of some by
Herodotos'
58

below).

statement

on

Lycian

matronymics

(2.

173\

discussed

But it may be that tuhes as a form of identification stresses a

close personal relationship between two people quite apart from a

general family context.

And it is also possible that the term was not

confined exclusively to a nephew/niece - uncle relationship.

Pembroke

offers a number of parallels to suggest that tuhes may have had a much
wider range of meanings.

For instance, he compares with tuhes

the

Latin nepos which in different contexts can mean 'grandson', 'nephew',

ormerely 'descendant' (1965, 240).
It is reasonable to assume, however, that after the natural father an
uncle is the most likely relative to establish some form of protective or
59
supervisory relationship with his brother's or sister's offspring.
Indeed, when a tomb owner provides for the burial of his nephews/nieces,
he is in effect assuming a responsibility normally exercised by a father.
This is a particular instance in which an uncle acts in loco

parentis,

and there may well have been other situations in which an uncle
assumed, for one reason or another, a parental role. Perhaps then when

58. E.g. Imbert, 1893, 236-37 and Thomsen, 1899, 18.

59. A number of examples of such a relationship
can be
cited
from Roman society;
see,
e.g.,
Pliny,
Ep. 1. 14, where
Junius Maurlcus assumes the responsibility
of finding
a
suitable
husband for his brother's
daughter.

142

The

Lyeians

a tomb owner refers to a particular uncle in the initial identification

formula,

he

is

acknowledging

the

existence

of

a special

personal

relationship with this person, which warrants mentioning him alongside

his natural father.
Generally speaking the relationship with the father was the more
important one, both because of the greater frequency with which the
paternal identification occurs, and because it invariably precedes the
avuncular

identification

when

both

forms

of

identification

appear

together. In at least one instance, however, tuhes appears in the initial

identification without tldeiml

('son') - i.e. a tomb owner identifies

himself through his uncle without making any reference to his father:
ebenn

prnnawa me ti

mluhidaza

surezi

prnnawate

mizretiye

murazah

tubes

(TL 84)

This building Mizretiye has built (it), nephew of Muraza,

mluhidaza

at Sura.

Now when a tomb owner names his uncle not in addition to his father but
actually in place of him, this may indicate that for one reason or another
his natural father has not figured in the normal parental role.

If so,

perhaps the uncle named in the inscription has taken a more direct part
than usual in his nephew's upbringing.

And in such a case it is not

inconceivable that some form of adoption or fosterage was involved (cf.

Pembroke, 1965, 245-46). The practice of rearing someone else's child is
much in evidence in the Greek inscriptions of Lycia, as indicated by the
numerous occurrences of threptos
formulae.

There

were

of

and related terms in the sepulchral

course

major

uncle-nephew relationship and the tropheusthreptos

differences
threptos

between

the

relationship. The

was generally regarded as an inferior member of the household,

illustrated by the fact that he was usually buried in the

hyposorlon

60. Note that in TL 95. 2 the tomb owner makes provision

for
the burial
of his mother,
which is perhaps
a
further
indication
of the absence
of the father
from the
family
scene.

Customs and Institutions

143

or lower chamber of t h e tomb along with slaves, freedmen, and more

distant family connections of t h e tomb owner; and in some cases he was
the owner's offspring by concubinage, and clearly distinguished from the
owner's legitimate children (see Bryce, 1979a, 310-12). But i t is quite
possible

that

institution

the principle

was t o

some

of dependence Inherent in the

extent

implicit

in

the

threptos

nephew/niece

identification formula, even if i t operated in a rather different way.

(b) Was Lycian

society

matrilineal?

As far as t h e overall Lycian family structure was concerned, we

have an interesting claim made first by Herodotos, whose comments on
the Lycians have the rare distinction of having been made a t a time
when t h e Lycian civilisation was still relatively une ont animated by
Greek influence.

Herodotos observes that the customs of the Lycians

are in some respect similar to those of t h e Cretans (with whom they

allegedly had ethnic ties), and in some respects to those of their
neighbours the Carians. Yet, he claims, there is one custom which sets
the Lycians apart from all other people - their practice of taking their
names not from their fathers but from their mothers:

epoyvoo xpou TOV HOLOV TOS e t n , waTaXeu

JUTOv priTpoEV wa THS vntpos vavEpEETat xas ynfEpa.
(1.173)
When a Lycian is asked who he is he will give his own and his
mother's name, and then list the mothers of his mother.
A similar claim is made by the 1st century (B.C) writer Nikolaos
Damaskenos:
AUMLOL l a s YUVdLHcts yaAAov n TOUS \>6pas Tuyou Hau
HaAovTaL yriTpo^EV, Tas t e MAnpovoytas xaus OuyaTpaau
Aeuououv, o TOUS UV,OLS.

(Jac.

90F. 103k)

144

The

Lycians

The Lycians offer more honour to women than to men, and they take
their name from their mothers. Likewise they make their daughters
not their sons their heirs.
Nikolaos thus goes one step further than Herodotos in claiming that
inheritance also passed through the female line.
A further reference to a maternal form of identification in Lycia
occurs in Plutarch, (mul.
originated out of

virt.

248b) who claims that the practice

Bellerophon's

conflict

with the

Lycians; it was

instituted as a mark of honour for the women of Lycia who successfully

prevailed upon Bellerophon not to take vengeance on their race for the
attempts of their king Iobates to kill him.
Further to the matrilineal question, a number of scholars have
drawn attention to Sarpedon's pre-eminent status amongst the Lycians in
Homeric tradition.

Although Sarpedon shares the leadership of the

Lycian contingent at Troy with his cousin Glaukos, the latter seems to be
assigned a subordinate role. Mote, for example, II.

12.

101-04 where

Glaukos is chosen by Sarpedon, leader of the allies, to be his companion

(along with Asteropaeus); and note also Glaukos1 reaction to his cousin's
exhortation

in II.

12.

329,

which

again

implies

a position of

subordination:' "s Ecpax', OE rXaunos nerpiiET' o' cntLSnoe.

'Thus spoke (Sarpedon), and Glaukos did not turn aside nor disobey him1.
This implication is perhaps strengthened by Sarpedon's dying words to
Glaukos in II.

16.

492-501,

which convey the impression of a leader

handing over the command to his deputy.

The apparent differentiation in the status of the two Lycian leaders
was first noted by the ancient commentators on Homer (Eustathius and
the scholiast Townley, (comms.

on II.

12.

101) who saw in it a

reflection of the honour paid to Sarpedon's mother Laodameia.

more

recently

scholars

have

interpreted

the

relative

And

statuses

of

Sarpedon and Glaukos as an indirect indication of matrilineal descent;

Sarpedon's

61. Note
tense

grandfather

Bellerophon inherited the kingship of

that Plutarch
speaks
of this
practice
- I.e. as though it were defunct In his

In the
own day.

Lycia

past

Customs and Institutions

through his. wife

Laodameia,

daughter

of

145
the

previous king,

and

Sarpedon's supreme status was due to his descent from Bellerophon via
his mother; Glaukos on the other hand was the son of Bellerophon's son
Hippolochos, and thus his status was inferior to that of his cousin.
The 19th century scholar Bachofen incorporated such inferences in
his elaborate and highly fanciful hypothesis on 'Mother Right' in Lycia
(1861)

and in more recent years a number of scholars have accepted

64
It has

virtually without question that Lycian society was matrilineal;

even been stated quite categorically that it was matriarchal (Thomson,

1961/78, 99).
We should of course be careful to distinguish matrilineality from
matriarchy,

a distinction that

is

sometimes not

recognised by either ancient or modern scholars.

clearly made

or

Lycian society was

certainly never matriarchal and we can confidently discount the claim

made by Herakleides Pontikos that in Lycia it was the females who
exercised control (Mller FHG 2. 217.

15).

But how firm is our evidence that Lycian society was

matrilineal,

if by this we mean that the Lycians named themselves after their

mothers and their mothers' mothers, and that inheritance passed through
the female line? What in fact does our evidence amount to? To begin
with, we can attach little credence to the assumption that a matrilineal
system is implicit in Sarpedon's genealogical relationships in the

Iliad.

There is absolutely no indication that the Lycians over whom Sarpedon

and Glaukos ruled were regarded in Homeric tradition as a matrilineal
people.

Even if we accept that the Iliad

does differentiate between

the ranks of Sarpedon and Glaukos, and that the latter was in fact
regarded as the subordinate of the former, it does not automatically
follow that the Greeks saw in this differentiation the reflection of
matrilineal succession. The claim that this kind of succession is implicit
in Sarpedon's alleged supreme

status in Lycia is a piece of pure

62. See, e.g.

Monro, 1890, 313, n. on line 206, Immisch in
Roscher,
1977, 406-07, Burn, 1930, 132, Tritsch,
1950, 496,
n. 15, Wace and Stubbings,
1962, 306, Thomson,
1961/78,
165, Delcourt
1962-63.
63. Bachofen, 1861.
See in general Treuber, 1887,
117-24.
64. E.g. Goetze, 1957, 181, Gurney, 1980, 102.

146

The

Lye1ans

speculation, triggered off, no doubt, by the statements made about

Lycian society in l a t e r times by Herodotos, Nikolaos, and Plutarch. As
far as our literary sources are concerned, it is on these statements, and
these alone, that the case for a matrilineal system in Lycia rests. To
what extent, then, are we justified in assuming that they do provide us
with valid evidence for such a system - at least from the 5th century
onwards? The sepulchral inscriptions should provide the acid test if we
accept that the provisions made for communal burials reflect existing
family structures in Lycian society.
At first sight, the inscriptions appear to offer no support. The tomb
owners are in all identifiable instances male,

it is they who decide who

are, and who are not, to be buried in their tombs, and in the tomb
families they delineate there is no immediately apparent evidence of a
matrilineal system.

On the other hand, we cannot be sure that when a

tomb owner identifies himself by reference to one of his parents that the
parent in question is always the father. In most cases it is not possible
to tell whether the Lycian personal name is masculine or feminine, if we
cannot determine this from contextual evidence or from corresponding
Greek names in the bitingual texts.

In later times there are in fact a

number of examples of maternal identification in the Greek inscriptions

of Lycia,

and a number of examples where a female is the property

owner and provides a tomb for the burial of her family.

65. They can be so identified,

for example, in cases where they
make burial provision
for their
wives.
66. This applies
both to tomb owners as well as to
prospective
tomb occupants,
and to both males and females;
e.g. TAM II
53 (son),
318 (daughter),
442 (s),
453 (d),
802 (d),
855
(d),
856 (d?),
886 (s),
955 (d),
984 (d),
992 (s),
998
(s?),
1000 (s),
1004 (d),
1014 (s),
1042 (s),
1045
(s),
1049 (s),
1053 (d),
1118 (s?) 1121 (d?),
1122 (s),
1130
(s?),
1132 (s?),
1135 (s?),
1142 (s?),
1148 (d), 1151
(d),
1162 (s?), SEG VI 140 (d), SEG VI 160 (d).
It seems
likely
that in many of these cases
the mother was of freed
or
slave status.
There are also several
instances
In which a
tomb owner
identifies
himself
Initially
through
his
grandmother;
e.g.
TAM II 989, where Onesimos names his
paternal
grandmother
Tatla.
61. E.g. TAM II 51, 165, 214, 322?, 323, 631, 692, 152? 802,
811?, 952, 955, 961?, 968, 915?, 984, 1013, 1022,
1046,
1080?, 1083? 1086, 1096, 1103, 1109, 1120, 1126,
1138?,

Customs and Institutions

147

Even so, maternal identification is still far less common than

paternal

in

the

Greek

inscriptions;

and

in

any

case

maternal

identification and female property ownership are not in themselves

sufficient to prove a matrilineal family structure, nor are such features
peculiar to Lycia in the Roman world. What this does indicate, however,
is that the phenomenon referred to by Herodotos quite clearly did exist
in Lycia in the Roman imperial period, and in view of his statement it
may well have been a longstanding feature of Lycian society. It would
be remarkable indeed to find Herodotos referring to a particular social
phenomenon which did occur in Lycia, but not until several hundred years
after he had written about it.

Clearly we should probe a little further

into the epichoric inscriptions.

Several of these inscriptions make reference to a group of eligible
tomb occupants who are collectively designated as the esedennew-

(a

term of relationship) of a female - the tomb owner's mother (eni) in TL

89j and his grandmother (khnna) in TL 39, and probably also in TL 41
68
and 108.
This type of burial provision may have important
implications, as illustrated by TL 39:
ebnn ; prnnawu me ti
prnnawate
tideimi
hrppi
esedennewi ;khhnahi
lada
. . . . kbiyehis
: menne niyesu
ntepi tane (lines
1-6) .

memruwl : khntenubeh
ehbiehi ; se
%urttai
esedennewi : epttehi;

This building Memruwi, son of Khntenuba, has built (it) for the
esedennew-

of his grandmother and the wives of the

Surttas

Others however may not be placed within by their

esedennew-,

68,

1148, 1149. In all these cases the tomb owner

identifies
her children
by reference
to herself
alone. Less commonly
she identifies
them by reference
to both herself
and her
husband (e.g. TAM II 327, 887, 982, 1099, 1130, 1163), and
very occasionally
by reference
to her husband alone (TAM II
451) .
In the latter
two cases the relevant
sections
of the
text
have
to be almost
completely
restored
- although
the
restorations
that appear in Friedrich's
text
(sesedennewi
kh[nnahi
TL 41.3,
and s[e
ese]denne[w.
khnnahji
e[hb]iye[h]i
- TL 108.3-4)
have generally
been
accepted;
see, e.g. Laroche, 1957-58, 191, 1974, 141, and Houwink ten
Cate, 1965, 142, n.2.
It is of course possible
that
the
texts
should be restored
differently
- e.g. by
replacing
khnnahi
with
khugahi
in both
cases
- i.e.
'for
the
esedennew- of his
gradfather'.

148

The

The key word esedennew'grandchild*,

Luwian

in

has long been identified as the Lycian word for

or more generally 'descendant', and is almost certainly

origin;

*ashanta-nawa

Lijcians

Laroche

has

proposed

for

it

the

etymology

- 'descendant by blood'.

But we need to consider in association with this another Lycian term

of relationship - khahbay appearing several times in the inscriptions as a
term of identification (TL 28.

4,

44 a 3-4

and 30-31,

83.

2), and

also as a term designating a particular group of eligible tomb occupants

(TL 74c.

5,

76.

1,

78.

5,

87.

5,

127.

2).

khahba was long

assumed to mean 'son-in-law' or 'daughter-in-law', or both, largely

through a process of elimination, since most other terms of family
relationship had already been identified and there was little else left.
However, it now seems much more likely, on both etymological and
contextual grounds, that Khahba is the Lycian word for 'grandchild', and
72

was probably also used in a more general sense to mean 'descendant'.

If

so,

we

have

two

Lycian

words

to

which

the

meaning

'grandchild/descendant' has been assigned, and we must suppose that

there is a distinction of some kind between them.
Let

us then reconsider

esedennew-.

Since esedennew-

the

groups of

people

referred

to

as

seems commonly to have been attached

to a female term of relationship, I have suggested elsewhere that it

69. See, e.g. Thomsen, 1899, 59-61, and more recently

Houwink
ten Cate, 1965, 91, n. e on TL 36, and 54, par. 3.
70. Laroche analyses
esedennewe
as esede(n)
+ neve,
deriving
esedefrom Luwian *asha(n)-,
'blood'
(cf. Carruba,
1970,
32-33),
and thus proposes
for esedennewthe
etymology
*ashanta-nawa-,
'descendant
by blood'
(1967, 62-63).
See
also
Laroche,
1957-58,
191-92,
and Neumann, 1969,
378,
where Neumann suggests
a possible
derivation
from Luwian
*hassatanna-.
71. Perhaps
also
N 302.
5 on the basis
of a
restoration
proposed by Tritsch,
originally
in his paper presented
at
the Early Alphabets
Conference,
Manchester University,
July
1975; see now Tritsch,
1975, 163.
72. See Bryce,
1978, 217-19,
where khahba is discussed
and
reference
is made to Hawkins' and Morpurgo-Davies'
view
that the Lycian word is derived
from the Luwian term for
grandchild
hamsa-.
This view has recently
been
challenged
by Hamp who accepts
the meaning 'grandchild,
descendant'
for khahba but disputes
the derivation
from hamsa(1980).

Customs

and Institutions

149

perhaps had the specialised meaning 'descendant-in-the-female- line', a

meaning which clearly has matrilineal significance; the tomb owner may
be acknowledging this in his burial provisions in which he (or she) may be
consciously trying to preserve in death a family's (putative) matrilineal
structure. We may have a detailed illustration of such a scheme in one
of the later Greek inscriptions of Lycia, TAM II 1184> in which the tomb
owner (female

in this

case) makes

burial provision for her sons,

daughters, daughters' husbands and offspring, but explicitly excludes the

offspring of her sons (see Bryce, 1978, 220-21).
There is, however, an alternative (and, I now believe, more likely)
explanation for esedennew-

- that it is a comprehensive term of

relationship, embracing khahba and used in reference to members of a

family unit who are related by blood ties, as distinct from marriage ties.
This is suggested by the burial provisions which the tomb owner makes in
TL 83 (the name of the owner is missing) where esedennew-

occurs

twice. The relevant words are underlined:

mei

fttepi:ta[....]:eph[tep]i

eb[ehi]

alama:se

ladas

[esjedeh[new]e:hte

ppuweti

[eb]ttehi[s:se]

meyepi:tadi:ti[k]e

nepi:m%[.]uhati:ebeila:eph

khupaippu

tiyi

[khupja

la%%i .-ebttehi
tik[e]:se
[..Jweti

ebehi:tibe:esedehnewe:ebttehi:tibe:la%$i
ne:tubidi:Trqqas:
(lines

se

iye
tiyi:

ebttehi:me

itlehi:Trmmili:huwedri

6-16)

'And [one will] place within here

and the esedennewe
within

and their wives

of their wives. If one places anyone (else)

either their esedennewe

or (the esedennewe)

their wives, Trqqas (=Tarhunt) and the Lycian huwedri

of
will

punish him.'
The inscription (which as a whole is fragmentary and diverges in a
number of ways from the standard forms of expression in the sepulchral

73. For various

inscription

restorations
as a whole,

and a suggested
translation
see Laroche, 1979b, 72.

of

the

The

150

Lyclans

texts) apparently makes provision for the burial of certain persons along
with the esedennew-

of their wives. Then in the clause which deals with

unauthorised occupancy a distinction appears to be drawn between the

esedennew-

of those warned against violating the owner's instructions

and the esedennew-

of their wives. If this interpretation is correct, then

the alternatives stated would clearly indicate that a husband and wife
each had their own esedennew-i

and such a distinction would only make

sense if the term was used in reference

to blood-relatives - an

explanation which is certainly in keeping with the etymology (

*ashanta-nawa)

Luwian

proposed by Laroche.

But whether esedennew-

refers to descendants in the female line or

members of a family related by blood, the significant point for our

present investigation is that a maternal or grandmaternal form of
identification was sometimes used in the inscriptions to identify specific
family groups.

And it would be reasonable to suppose that a person

belonging to such a group might identify himself individually by naming

the female by whom the group as a whole was identified.
If so, then indirectly the epichoric inscriptions may provide

limited

support for the contention that on occasions the Lycians used, for one
reason or another, a maternal form of identification during and prior to
the period of the epichoric inscriptions, as they did in later times, but
on this basis alone we can hardly claim that Lycian society was in
general terms matrilineal, or that a matronymic form of identification
occurred commonly in Lycia, passing from one generation to another, as
Herodotos et al. would have us believe.
(c) The term prnneziyehi
prnneziyehi

and its

possible

matrilocal

implications

is another term of relationship which we could consider

within the context of the present discussion. In several inscriptions, the

tomb owner identifies himself as the son (tldelml)
<*
74
prnneziyehi
of another. TL I is a case in point:

74. The form prnneziyehi

Incorporates
-ehl-.
See Houwink ten Cate, 1965,

of one person and the

the adjectival
59-61, par. 5.

suffix

Customs and Institutions

ebenne

khupa

tideimi

khezrimeh

This

tomb

me

ne

151

prnna < wa > te

khudall

zuhriyah

prnneziyehi

Khudali,

son

of

Zuhriya,

prnneziyehi

of

Khezrima/i, has built it.

prnneziyehi

is equated with the Greek

OLXELOU in the bilingual TL 6,

which enables us to translate the term as 'member-of-the- household1.

There are four instances of this double identification formula in the
sepulchral inscriptions (TL 1.

2,

6.

1-2,

116,

ISO.

2-3), and one

further instance of it as a form of identification occurs in TL 28, an

inscription on a commemorative monument in which the subject is
identified as the daughter (kbatra)

of one person, the wife (lada) of

another,

of

the

grandchild

household (prnneziyehi)

(khahba)

a third,

and

member-of-the-

of a fourth. We can conclude from this fourfold

identification that someone who was classified as a member of a person's

household was not, or at least need not have been, that person's lineal
descendant.
Another inscription, TL 6, indicates that the tomb is the joint
property

of

two

owners,

who

are

identified

as

members-of-the-

household of a person called Purihimeti:

ebenne

ntata

me ne prnnawate

dapara pulenydah

purihimetehe

pulenyda

mulliyeseh

se

prfnjneziyehi

This chamber Pulenyda, (son) of Mulliyesi, and Dapara, (son) of

Pulenyda, members-of-the-household of Purihimeti, have built
it.
The introductory statement here may indicate that the relationship
between Pulenyda and Dapara is that of father and son, each of whom
had provided for the burial of his own immediate family.
there are other possibilities.

Of course

But whatever the explanation, the tomb

owners were concerned to express the attachment of themselves and

their families to a particular household, of which Purihimeti was the

T52

The Lyei ans

titular head. And it may well be that the tomb owners were not blood
relatives of this person.
Attachment to a household could cover a range of possibilities, and
perhaps within this range certain distinctions existed. We note in one of
the Greek inscriptions where OLHGLOL occurs
provides for the burial of his OLKGLOL but

that

the

distinguishes

from the members of his immediate family (TAM II

some cases prnneziyehi

tomb
them

82).

owner
carefully

Perhaps in

also referred to members of a household who

were distinct from the immediate family group, and may have included
domestic retainers, servants, and/or slaves. And this must at least raise
the possibility that certain tomb owners who identify themselves by the
term prnneziyehi

were of slave or similar status - as in certain Greek

inscriptions, which indicate that a number of slaves and freedman owned

their own tombs.
On the other hand tomb ownership was very much more restricted
during the period of the epichoric inscriptions than it was in later times,
and in all probability the owners of the 5th and 4th centuries were
invariably people of social and political prominence, whose tomb families
were for the most part limited to close family connections, as we have
already noted. In some cases, of course, these could have been marriage
connections, so that a household unit could have incorporated in-laws as
well as blood-relatives. And this in turn opens up the possibility that in
some cases it was the husband who joined his wife's family, and that the
offspring of the marriage remained within the wife's family unit.
other words, some Lycian marriages may have been

In

matrllocal.

Now if a tomb owner had become a member of his wife's family, he

might well acknowledge this fact by identifying himself as 'belonging to
the household o f the person who was regarded as the head of his wife's

75.

E.g. TAM II 59, 627, 845, 941, 961,

1026, 1028, 1032, 1044, 1150, 1156.

986,

1005,

1020,

1023,

76. We might note,

for the purposes of comparison,
that
matrilocal marriages are well attested for Hittite
society
where the term antiyant- (literally
'one entering into') is
used of a man who enters into (i.e. becomes part of J the
family of his wife.
See most recently the discussion of
Beal, 1983, 117-18, and note the parallels which Beal draws
with other societies,
118, n. 23.

Customs
family.

and Institutions

153

Thus the double identification (X, son of Y, member of the

household of Z) would serve to indicate both the owner's natural father,

as well as the household of which he was a member. I suggest that this
may have been the case in TL 6.
(d) Ma.trilineality

and matrilocality:

some tentative

conclusions

On the basis of all the above considerations, I think it likely that

within

particular

family

groups

in

Lycia

maternal

form

of

identification was sometimes used during the epichoric period, and that
the Lycians sometimes contracted matrilocal marriages. Are we able to
find a satisfactory explanation for these features?

Are they in any way

connected?
Perhaps we could begin by considering the reasons a family might
have for importing a son-in-law into the family structure.

The most

obvious explanation is that there was a shortage of males within the

family line, and the importation of a son-in-law would help to offset this
shortage.

Conceivably

it

was in

such a situation t h a t

matrilocal

marriages were sometimes contracted in Lycia - a means of ensuring the

continuance of the family line and obtaining a surrogate son, perhaps for
the purpose of managing or working family estates, or undertaking other
responsibilities normally carried out by a natural son.
But if the family in question was to retain its own distinct identity,
if family property was to remain within the family, any inheritance or
succession rights would have to pass through the blood-line, and be
vested in a person who remained part of t h a t family unit. And in cases
where no males of the line were available, a female might then have
been obliged to assume the role of titular head of a family group, and
probably also of trustee of the family property, on the death of the
previous head. This, I suggest, may be the reason, or one of the reasons,
why in Lycia some family groups had females as their titular heads.
This

line

of

quasi-matrilineality

reasoning

presupposes

that

matrilocality

were neither inherent nor consistently

and

occurring

features of the Lycian civilisation; rather they were ad hoc measures

adopted in critical family situations when there was a shortage or
absence of males of the line. Admittedly we have no d i r e c t evidence

154

The

Lyclans

that Lycian families were hard pressed in the ways I have suggested. But
we could adduce parallels from other societies in which matrilocal
marriages were contracted to offset shortages of males in the wife's
family.

We might note, for example, a number of instances in certain

villages on the east coast of Scotland (especially between Craill and

Leven)

where

in

comparatively

recent

times

families

contracted

matrilocal marriages to offset a high casualty rate amongst their male

members who were drowned on fishing expeditions; and in such cases it
was normal for the offspring of such marriages to assume their mother's
rather than their father's family name.
Are there any indications that Lycian families suffered similar
shortages of males?

As we have seen in Chapter 4, during the period

from the second half of the 6th century to the middle of the 4th century
Lycia was on a number of occasions embroiled in military conflicts which may well have had a substantial and sometimes devastating impact
on many Lycian families.

At the time of the Persian conquest, the

population of Xanthos was decimated; in the early 5th century the

Lycian contribution of 50 triremes to Xerxes' armada for the invasion of
Greece was no doubt a further serious drain on the country's manpower;
and then from the late 5th century to the middle of the 4th century
Lycians were involved in a succession of conflicts, ranging from their
participation in battles and skirmishes associated with the Peloponnesian
War, to their military

conflicts

against each other, to their

participation on the losing side in the satrap rebellion.

final

In times of

continuing military activity, the adult male group is likely to be the most
seriously affected

part of the population; and in Lycia

significant

depletion of this group may well have caused the eventual disappearance
of a number of families and brought others close to extinction. Perhaps

77. We might note also

the practice
of matrilineality
and
matrilocal!ty
in
a much earlier
period
of
Scottish
history.
I am grateful
to Dr. Miche il MacDonald, Museum of
Scottish
Tartans,
Comrie,
Perthshire,
Scotland,
for
the
following
comment:
'There is certainly
a strong
tradition
in the early Celtic
history
of Scotland,
and that
relates
principally
amongst
what
are
today
called
Plcts,
of
matrllineal
descent.
These by definition
involved
a strong
element of matrilocality.
The territory
of an heiress
was
adopted by a husband who afforded
it his
protection.'

Customs and Institutions

155

it was in such a situation as this that certain families attempted to

bolster their family lines by resorting to the measures suggested above.
We must of course be wary of the impression given by our Greek
sources that matrilineality or even the use of a maternal identification
formula was the rule in Lycia. What Herodotos, for example, has done is
to fix upon a phenomenon which he may have observed or been informed
of in a number of instances, but nowhere outside Lycia, and which he
assumes to be applicable to the Lycian people as a whole. But while we
may

suspect

him

of

giving

disproportionate

emphasis

to

the

phenomenon, it is most unlikely that he has completely misunderstood

the Lycian family scene.
There can be no doubt that Lycian family structures were for the
most part ordered along patriarchal and patrilineal lines, and that many
Lycians, perhaps the great majority, identified themselves by reference
to their fathers, as is the case in all demonstrable instances in the
epichoric inscriptions.

We certainly have no evidence of a regular

matrilineal system in Lycia in the epichoric period, nor any evidence

that matrilineality operated consistently from one generation to another
within particular family units. All that is clear is that a maternal form
of identification was sometimes used to identify a family group, and it is
likely that in such cases the female referred to occupied a pre-eminent
position within the group.
It is a matter of some regret that there is not more evidence in the
epichoric
Lycians.

inscriptions

to

support

Herodotos'

statement

about

the

But we cannot altogether overlook the possibility that what

may have begun as an ad hoc measure in critical family situations did

eventually become a more regular feature of Lycian society in later
times, to the extent that it drew comment from writers some centuries
after Herodotos first made mention of it.

And it may be more than

coincidental that a maternal form of identification is used in a number

of Greek inscriptions of Lycia in the Roman imperial period, as we noted
above.
As far as the related question of matrilocality is concerned, there is
a possibility that the Greek inscriptions indicate, although in a very
indirect way, a number of matrilocal marriages during the

Roman

period. The Greek inscriptions, which appear in increasing numbers from

156

The Lyci ans

the 3rd century B.C. onwards, make reference to a far larger range of
potential tomb occupants, and a far more comprehensive assortment of
relatives

and family

inscriptions.

connections

than is evident in the

epichoric

Moreover it is clear that by Roman times persons of all

classes were in the privileged position of owning their own tombs,

including freedmen and slaves,

as mentioned above.

Even so, the

opportunities for owning a tomb must still have been very limited, and
the actual proportion of tomb owners to the rest of the population may
not have been appreciably higher in the Roman imperial period than it
was some centuries earlier, given that the population of Roman Lycia
was almost certainly very much larger. Perhaps then those persons who
did own tombs came under increasing pressure, or felt an increasing
sense of obligation, to grant burial rights to an ever-widening circle of
family connections.
I have discussed elsewhere the various groups of family connections
to whom an owner granted burial rights (spouse and children, parents,
collaterals, in-laws,

threptoi,

slaves and freedmen) (Bryce,

1979a,

298-312), and will refer here only to the in-law group, with particular
reference to parents-in-law.

The inscriptions in which a tomb owner

provided for the burial of his parents-in-law have, I believe, a close

bearing on the matrilocal question.
These occur with approximately the same frequency as those in
which a tomb owner provided for the burial of his natural parents.
However, it is significant that one never finds instances of a tomb owner
78
granting rights to both parents and parents-in-law in the same tomb.
One could offer various explanations to account for this; but in at least
some instances a person who made burial provision for his wife's and not
his own parents may have done so because he had become a member of
his wife's family. If so this would be a further indication of some form
of matrilocal system within the Lycian family structure.
Now

presumably

a marriage

of

this

kind

would

have

been

advantageous both to the husband as well as to the family into which he

married; presumably the husband could look forward to certain social or
material benefits from such a union.

Yet a man who granted burial

rights to his in-laws took on, in this instance at least, the role of a
provider

of benefits for his wife's family rather than a recipient

of

Customs and Institutions

such benefits himself.

157

And if we assume that the granting of burial

rights to in-laws rather than to one's own natural family reflected a

close affiliation between a husband and his wife's family, we are still
left with the question of what incentives there were for the husband to
enter into such an affiliation.
One possible answer is to be found in several inscriptions in which
the tomb owner who provided for the burial of his parents-in-law is
identified as a freedman or a slave (e.g. TAH II 845,

1005,

1044), In

such cases a matrilocal-type marriage with a free woman might be of

great advantage both to the husband as well as to the children of the
union/

Marriages between unfree males and free females were not

uncommon in the Roman period (see Rawson, 1966, 74-78), and in such
cases the offspring resulting from the union were classified as freeborn,
regardless

of

whether

their

birth

was

considered

legitimate

or

illegitimate (Rawson, 1966, 77). In such cases too, the children would
very likely be regarded as members of their mother's family, for all legal
and social purposes.

When we consider also that the father in such a

mixed union eventually gained his freedom (Rawson, 1966, 75), we can
see a further possible incentive for his entering into it.
It is interesting to note that this system, which had widespread
application in the Roman world, had apparently been operating in Lycia
long before the Roman imperial period, to judge from Herodotos (1.
173).

Herodotos claims that amongst the Lycians the child of an unfree

male was classified as freeborn provided his/her mother was of free

status.

The reverse, however, did not apply; the child of an unfree

female was of slave status regardless of the status of the father.

There is a further point we ought to note in considering the question
of whether or not some Lycian marriages in the Roman imperial period

78. The only possible

exception
to this is TAM II 244, in which
the owner provided
for the interment
of his father,
his
father-in-law,
his stepmother(?),
and his children(?)
(the
interpretation
is not altogether
clear).
Apparently
the
tomb owner did not make provision
for himself in the tomb.
At all
events,
the eligible
tomb occupants
are an odd
assortment
of family connections,
certainly
not typical
of
any of the more usual types of tomb
families.

158

The

were matrllocal.

Lyeians

Although an owner commonly made provision for the

burial of his wife's brothers and sisters, this never happened in cases
where he provided for the burial of his mother-/father~in-law.

There

may have been several reasons for this; his parents-in-law may have had
no other children, or alternatively their children may have married into
other families or built tombs of their own. Whatever the explanation, it
is clear that in this instance at least the son-in-law had assumed an
important filial responsibility.

And if in fact his wife's parents had no

other children, there would obviously be some incentive on their part to

obtain through their daughter's marriage a male who could act In
filll

loco

and perhaps ensure the continuance of the family line.

The composition of the Lycian population
In view of the fact that from the late 6th century onwards Lycia

was subject to a range of cultural and political influences, both Persian

and Greek, we might ask to what extent our sources indicate foreign
settlement

in the

country in the wake

of

the

Persian

conquest.

Herodotos' account of the conquest (1.176) may have some bearing on

this question .
almost

entirely

According to this account, the city of Xanthos was

repopulated

after

its

destruction

by

"newcomers"

(nXues). Who were these newcomers? Where did they originate?

It has been claimed, by Bernard (1964), that the destruction of the
city must have been followed by an influx of Persians into Lycia, and
that

the

Persians

assumed

a number of

important

administrative

functions in the country. In support of this claim, Bernard refers to the

appearance of three Persian names in the ephichoric inscriptions Harpagos and the "dynasts" Mithrapata and Arttumpara. He refers also
to a Mardonios, son of Aristomachos, attested in a decree of Apollonia in
Lycia at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., and to a number of
persons with Persian names in the inscriptions of the Roman imperial
period

Pharnakes.

Arsakes,
These

Arsames,
persons,

he

Artapates,
claims,

Datamos,

must

have

Mithrodates,
been

distant

descendants of Persians who had arrived in Lycia at the time of the

Achaemenid

empire,

and

who

were

assimilated

into

the

Lycian

community, and played an influential role in Lycian administrative and

Customs and Institutions

159

political affairs (1964, 210-11; cf. Cook, 1983, 148, 177).

If Bernard's proposition has any substance, then we might expect to
find a significant number of

Persian names amongst the 30 or so

dynasts/regional administrators who issued coins bearing their names,

and amongst the hundreds of Lycian names known from the inscriptions
of the epichoric period, both Lycian and Greek. To what extent is this
the case?
Thanks to the

comprehensive

investigations which Schmitt has

recently made of the Iranian names and words in the Lycian texts and
coin legends (1982a and b), we are in a position to answer this question.
Schmitt has collected all the Iranian examples, both certain and
doubtful, and divided them into three categories: (1) those for which the
old Persian form is attested in the Achaemenid cuneiform texts;

(2)

those which can on other grounds be accepted as Iranian in origin; (3)

those whose alleged Iranian origin is doubtful or hypothetical.

For the

purpose of our present investigation, it will be convenient to consider

categories (1) and (2) together.
On the basis of Schmitt's investigations, we end up with a list of 24
names, hardly an impressive total if this is a reflection of the Persian
element in Lycia during the epichoric period.

But we

significantly

reduce this total if we take from it the names .falling into the "Doubtful"
category - i.e. those which may not be Iranian in origin. And from the
names which are left we should then take those which belong to Persians
or Persian officials who are obviously not resident in Lycia. This leaves
us with a very small residue; and even in the case of the last remaining
names, we cannot be sure that they belong in all cases to Persians
resident in Lycia, or to Lycians with a Persian family background.
We must of course allow that there may have been a number of
persons with Persian names living in Lycia who are not represented in
our extant sources. Even so, we may reasonably assume that if there had
been a substantial Persian presence in Lycia during the epichoric period
Persian names would have

figured much more prominently in the

inscriptions and coin legends.

The overall situation can be summarised as follows:

160

The

A.

Names of doubtful

1.

Apnnatama - TL 81. 2; Schmitt, 1982a, no. 1.

2.

Iranian

Lycians
origin

Aruwatiyesi- TL 44 b 18,

41,

M 137,

239\ Schmitt, 1982a, 19,

no. 7, 1982b, 385.

3.

Ddenewele - H 232\ Schmitt, 1982a, 19-20, nos. 8-9, 1982b, 385-86.

4.

Sppntaza - TL 3.

2,

M 128,

214-, Schmitt, 1982a, 25, no. 21,

1982b, 386-87.
5.

Urssme - TL 113.

1\ Schmitt, 1982a, 25, no. 23; see also Schmitt,

6.

Wedewi - M 148\ Schmitt, 1982a, 27, no. 27, 1982b, 387.

7.

Zakhabaha - M 134\ Schmitt, 1982a, 28, no. 31, 1982b, 387.

B.

Persians/Persian

1.

Eriyamana - TL 44 c 12\ Schmitt, 1982a, 21, no. 11, 1982b, 379.

2.

Ertakhssiraza - TL 44 b

1982b, 375, under Arssama.

officials

outside

59-60]

Lycia

Schmitt, 1982a, 21-22, no. 12,

1982b, 375.
3.

Humrkhkha (= Lye. B. Umrgga, Gk. 'Apopyns; son of the satrap

JluooouSns

4.

- TL 44 a 55, 44 c 4.9 \ Schmitt, 1982b, 379-80.

Kizzaprnna/Zisaprnna (= Gk. TuaooKppvris)- TL 44 c 1, 11-12,

14,

1S\ Schmitt, 1982a, 22-23, no. 14, 28, no. 32, 1982b, 380-81.
5.

Ntariyeus- (= Gk. AapeCos) - TL 44

59;

Schmitt, 1982a, 24,

no. 19, 1982b, 376.

6.

Utana (= Gk. 'OTctvns) - TL 44 c 5; Schmitt, 1982a, 25-26, no. 24,

1982b, 376.

7.

Wataprddate (= Gk.'A\JTO(ppa6aTns) - TL 61.

2\

Schmitt,

1982a,

8.

Widrnna (father of Tissaphemes) - TL 44 c 11-12j and perhaps TL

26-27, no. 26, 1982b, 382.

44

([Widrnna] he

tideimi

1982a, 27-28, no. 29, 1982b, 376.

"son

of

W.");

Schmitt,

Customs and Institutions

C.
1.

Persons

with

Iranian

names probably

161

living

in

Lycia

Arppakhu (= Gk. "ApTiayos) - TL 44 a 30, 44 c 57-58,

310.

2.

Arssama - N 318a\ Schmitt, 1982a, 18, no. 3, 1982b, 375.

3.

Arttumpara (= Gk. 'Apxeiiapns)- TL 11.

(?) , M 231,

4.

3,

29.

7,

40 c

2-3

302; Schmitt, 1982a, 18-19, nos. 4-6, 1982b, 378.

Erbbina (= Lye. B. Rbbine, Gk.'Apuvas) - TL 44 a 25,

53,

77. 2b, M

4\ Schmitt, 1982a, 17-18, no. 2, 1982b, 377-78.

ff 311.

1, Arbinas

I and II;

TL 44 d

Schmitt, 1982a, 20-21, no. 10,

24, no. 20, 1982b, 378-79.

5.

Magabata - N 310.

6.

Mede - TL

7.

Mithrapata/Mizrppata - TL 44 b 16,

29.

7,

2\ Schmitt, 1982a, 23, no. 15, 1982b, 381.

79
29.

11,

37.

3-4\

Schmitt, 1982a, 23, no.

16, 1982b, 375-76.

64.

2,

N 315.

2,

M 138,

139] Schmitt, 1982a, 23-24, no. 17, 18, 1982b, 381-82.

8.

Wekhssere/Wakhssere - M 132,

207,

208,

237\ Schmitt, 1982a, 26,

no. 25, 27. no. 28, 1982b, 381-82.

9.

Wizttasppa (Lye. B. form) - TL 44 c 48; Schmitt, 1982a, 28, no. 30,

1982b, 376-77.
We thus have a total of 9 clearly authentic Iranian names belonging

to persons living in Lycia and attested in the inscriptions, the coin

legends, or both.

Of course the number of persons so named might be

slightly larger than the number of names, since the same name may have
been borne by more than one person. This applies, for example, to the

79. In TL 29. 7 the collocation

arttumpara
medese occurs.
In
this context
mede(se) is generally
interpreted
as an ethnic
- "Arttumpara the Mede" (thus Schmitt).
Yet in TL 37. 3-4
Mede is clearly
a personal
name, the name of the tomb
owner, as Schmitt notes.
There is certainly
no
difficulty
in accepting
that an ethnic
could sometimes be used as a
personal
name. I suggest
that Mede in TL 29. 7 should
also
be construed
as a personal
name, particularly
as it
recurs
without Arttumpara,
in line 11 of the same inscription.
If
so, then the -se which is attached
to medese in line 7 is
perhaps
to be construed
as an enclitic
"and";
thus
arttumpara
medese could
be interpreted
as two
personal
names (Arttumpara
and Mede) joined
by "and".
I have to
admit,
however,
that
there
is no other
clear
evidence
indicating
that -se was in fact used enclitically
in Lycian.

162

The

Lyeians

name Wekhssere, since almost certainly there was more than one coin
issuer so called (to be dealt with in vol. II). On the other hand, some of
the persons whose names appear in list C may not in fact have been
permanent residents in Lycia. We can be reasonably sure that they were
only if they appear to have had personal ties in the country. This applies
to Arppakhu and Erbbina who were members of the ruling Xanthian
dynasty, to Mede, a tomb owner, to Magabata, father of a tomb owner,
and to the two persons called Wekhssere who were presumably family
connections holding authority in Lycia at different periods. Yet even in
the case of Arppakhu and Erbbina we cannot be entirely certain that
they actually had a Persian family background. It is possible, that the
Xanthian dynasty was partly of Persian descent, given the appearance of
a Harpagos in the genealogy of the dynasty (see above, p. 46); but the
dynasty may simply have adopted Persian names as a political gesture
towards their Persian overlords.

We cannot assume as a matter of

course that they had blood-links with the conqueror of Xanthos.

As for the other names appearing in list C, Arttumpara may have
spent no more than a limited period in the country, perhaps as a Persian
official

temporarily installed there

around the time of the satrap

rebellion, and Mithrapata may also have been no more than a temporary
resident in Lycia, an official of the Persian government.

Arssama is
80
and

known only as the author of a brief dedicatory inscription,

Wizttasppa appears only in an obscure passage of Lycian B.

The obvious conclusion to be derived from the above survey is that

the epigraphic and numismatic evidence do not support the proposition of
a significant Persian presence in Lycia following Harpagos' conquest of
the country.

One can hardly maintain that the Persian names which

surface in the Roman imperial period belonged to distant descendants of

Persians who settled in Lycia some centuries earlier when there is

80. Admittedly
the name Arsames
inscriptions
of Lycia,
as we
the
name does
indicate
a
connections
or of
Persian
eplchoric
period.
But in the
earlier
and later
occurrences
purely
coincidental.

occurs
in the later
Greek
noted above.
Possibly,
then,
family
line
with
Persian
origin
going
back
to
the
absence of other evidence
the
of the name in Lycia may be

Customs and

163

Institutions

virtually no trace of such persons in the records of that time.

Bernard

claims, the

Persians belonged to families of

If, as

longstanding

influence and distinction, the records of the earlier period would surely
give us a clearer indication of their existence.
It is interesting, and instructive, to compare with the above the
evidence we have for Greeks in Lycia during the epichoric period. The
following

table

indicates

references

to persons with Greek names

81

appearing in either the epigraphic or the numismatic sources, or both.

No.

Greek name

Lye. name

Ref.

R emarks

Group A: Tomb owners or members of tomb owners'

1.

'AnoXAwvuns

Pulenyda

TL 6. 4, 5

families

tomb owner; father

& son have Lye.
names.

2.*

'ITITPOHXTIS

Iyetrukhle

3.*

KaLva

Kheliyanakh- TL 116. 2

TL 38. 3

head of the house-

tomb owner.

ssa

hold of which the

tomb owner (name
fragmentary) a
member.

4.*

Khupriya

KuTiptas

TL 78. 1

tomb owner, other

family members
have Lye. names.

5.*

82

Auaavpo

Lusantra

TL 103. 2

member

of

tomb

family?
6.*

Auaavpos

Lusatra

TL 90. 2

member of tomb
family?

81.
82.

This list
Incorporates
Houwink ten Ca te' s list
of Greek
names and their transliterated
Lycian forms, 1965, 105.
The three inscriptions
containing
Lycianised
forms of the
Greek name Lysander are all sepulchral,
although
in each
case the context
in which the name occurs is unclear.
It
is possible
that the same person is referred
to in all
three
inscriptions.

The

1*4

No.
7.*

Greek name

Lye. name

Auaavpo

Lusntre

Lycians

Ref.

Remarks

TL 104a 2-3 member of tomb

family?

8.*

Moaxas

Muskhkha

TL 93. 1

father of tomb
owner with Lye.
name.

9.*

SavOuas

Khssenziya

TL 91. 1

father of tomb
owner with Lye.
name.

10.*

Eavuas

Khssenziya

TL 150. 1, 8 tomb owner; father

H.

Tlapyvuiv

Parm[enaJ

TL 117. 2

has Lye. name.

father

of Etapuos;

see below.
12.

ZLpLOs

Sideriya

TL 117. 2

tomb owner;
father has Gk.
name, son has
Lye. name.

13.*

Exopas

St[a]maha

TL 127. 1

tomb owner;
father has Lye.
name.

14.*

ETOUS

Sttuli

TL 88. 1

father of tomb
owner with Lye.
name.

15.*

Tep^LKXfjs

Terssikhle

TL 149. 2

father of tomb
owner with Lye.

name.
Group B: Persons

named In family

16.

9pu<J>Ls

Kruppsi

TL 25a. 2

17.*

Mey^crTfjs

Mekhistte

TL 27. 1

monuments
father of riopTua;
see below,
author of
monument; father,
wife, son have
Lye. names.

Customs and

No.

Greek name

18.

Jlopa

Institutions

Lye. name

Khssbeze

165

Ref.

83

Remarks

TL 25a. 2

author of
monument; father
has Gk. name,
uncle & wife Lye.
names.

Group C: Citizen
19.

AnyoMeLns

Ntemukhlida
Group D:

20.*

'ASrivayopas

of Lycian

town

N 312. 1

citizen of Limyra.

Coin-Issuers

Tenegure

M 217

coin-issues to be
dated c. mid-5th
C.

21.

nepuxXris

Perikle

M 148-50

Lye.

khntawata.

TL 67 etc.
Group E: Officials
t

22.

AKOXXOOTOS

appointed

by

Pixodaros

- 8 4

Natrbbiyemi

N 320. 3-4

archon

23.

'ApxeynXus

Erttimeli

N 320. 5

epimeletes

24.

'iepwv

Iyera

N 320. 3

archon

(E)seimiya

N 320. 8,

priest of newly

25.

Septets

9-10
Group F: "Foreign
26.*

'AXeavpo

Alakhssa[n]tra

established cult.

Greeks"
TL 29. 9

Alexander the
Great?

83.

Khssbeze
is probably
a "translation"
of the Greek
see Chapter 3 , n< 111.
84. Again a translation of the Greek name; see below, p. 1&7.

name;

166

The

No.

Greek name

Lye. name

27.*

MeAnaavpos

Milasantra

Lycians

Ref.
TL 44 a 45

Remarks
Athenian
commander.

Group G:
28.

Meaos

Mizu

Uncertain
TL 32 d & s

The asterisked names appear in the texts only in their Lycianised

versions.
The majority of the names in this list clearly belong to persons who
were permanently settled in Lycia.

This is particularly evident in the

largest group (A) which consists of tomb owners and members of tomb
owners' families.

But we can also include in the resident category the

persons in Group B, who had set up family monuments in Lycia,

Demokleides in Group C, who identifies himself as a citizen of Limyra,
and the coin-issuers Tenegure and Perikle in Group D. In Group E I have
listed the officials whom the Carian satrap Pixodaros appointed in Lycia
at the time the cult referred to in the Letoon trilingual was established.
We cannot be certain whether the first three persons mentioned Apollodotos, Artemelis, and Hieron - were already inhabitants of Lycia
before their appointment, or whether they were .outsiders introduced by
Pixodaros into the country's administrative hierarchy. However Simias,
the priest appointed to oversee the cult, almost certainly belonged to a
local Lycian family since his father bore a Lycian name (Qnturaha-).
And we note that Simias' appointment was to be an hereditary one, to be
passed on through his family line - a further indication that his family
were, or were to become, settled inhabitants of the country.
Even so, the name Simias very likely indicates that the Lycian
priest's family was Greek in origin, or at least had Greek elements in its
background. And a similar situation may well have applied to a number
of the persons with Greek names listed in Groups A and Bj in several
cases we find fathers with Greek names whose sons have Lycian names

Customs and Institutions

167

(nos. 8, 9, 14, 15), in several others, sons with Greek names whose
fathers have Lycian names (nos. 1, 13, 17). In one of these cases, no. 17,
the son and the wife as well as the father of the person in question
(Mekhistte) have Lycian names, the son being called Skhkhuliye after his
grandfather. We might also note two cases in which both father and son
have Greek names - no. 11, Parmenon, son of Sidarios, and no. 18,
porpax, son of Thrupsis. In both these cases, however, other members of
the family have Lycian names - Sidarios has a son called Pubiele, Porpax
an uncle called Purihimeti.
Clearly,

then,

there

was

an admixture

of

Greek

and

Lycian

family-names in a number of family-groups. What conclusions can we

draw from this? While it is possible that Greek names were occasionally
85
assumed by Lycians of purely indigenous stock,
we might reasonably
suppose that most if not all of the families referred to above were in
part at least of Greek origin.

And quite conceivably some of these

families had already been settled in Lycia for several generations before
their appearance in the epichoric inscriptions.
When comparing the lists of Persian and Greek names appearing in
our Lycian sources, the significant point to emerge is that not only are
the Greek names more numerous than the Persian, but in contrast to the
Persian clearly belong in the majority of cases to settled inhabitants of
Lycia. On this basis, it would seem likely that the Greek element in the
Lycian population was rather more substantial than the Persian element
during the epichoric period.
Even so, the Greek names represent only a small proportion of the
total number of personal names attested in our sources for this period.
The overwhelming majority of these names are of indigenous origin, and
as such provide a strong argument against any suggestion that Greeks or Persians - settled in Lycia in significant numbers during the epichoric
period.
What credence, then, can we attach to Herodotos* statement that
Xanthos was largely repopulated by 'newcomers' after its destruction in

85. The Lycian Perikle may well fall into this

category.
86. Very likely
the admixture
of names in a number of
families
was the result
of marriage unions between
of Greek and persons of indigenous
origin.

Lycian
persons

168

The

Lycians

the 6th century? The newcomers are certainly not distinguishable in our
epigraphic, numismatic, or literary sources. This could well mean that if
new settlers did come to the city they were of local or relatively local
origin; and if so they probably came from areas which had close cultural
affinities with the old Xanthian population (cf. Treuber, 1887, 93-94).
I have suggested in chapter 4 that at the time of the Persian
conquest the territory recognised as Lycia was confined essentially to
the Xanthos valley. Communities lying outside this area, even within the
confines of the region we generally refer to as Lycia, might well have
been

regarded

as

'foreign'

communities

at this

stage

in

Lycia's

development. Perhaps Telmessos was a case in point. We know from the

Athenian Tribute Lists that in the middle of the 5th century Telmessos
was

still

reckoned

as politically

separate

from

Lycia, though its

population, as indeed the populations of the nearby Carian communities,

may well have had close ethnic and cultural connections with the
population of the Xanthos valley - connections going back to the original
settlement of the Termilae in the south-west corner of Asia Minor. If
we can accept Herodotos' statement at face value, communities like
these, along with other local communities which may later have been
incorporated into Lycian territory, were in my view the most likely
source of the new settlers in Lycia. Had the city been resettled by a
large alien population, we would certainly expect to find evidence of this
in our sources.
I have concluded above that the majority of persons of foreign
background living in Lycia during the epichoric period were probably
Greek in origin. It is possible, however, that there was a small influx of
Persians into the country in the wake of the satrap rebellion, when the
old system of regional administrators was abandoned and a new and more
tightly controlled administrative

system was established, under the

immediate control of the Carian satraps of the Hekatomnid line; in this

period Lycia probably lost much of the de facto

independence it had

previously enjoyed under Persian rule.

Unfortunately

the

post-rebellion

inscriptions

give

no

explicit

evidence of Persian names (except for Arttumpara who appears to have

been reinstated in the country after having previously been driven from
it by Perikle before or during the rebellion) (see above, pp. 112-13). The

Customs and Institutions

169

only explicit evidence we have for a person of Persian background living

in Lycia at this time occurs in the literary references to a man called
pharnakes whom Alexander took to Persia as an interpreter.

Pharnakes

was a Lycian with a Persian name, he could speak Persian, and he had a
Persian mother.
We might also note here the references in the trilingual to a group
of persons living within the district of Xanthos but apparently without
full citizenship status. In the Lycian text these persons are designated
as epewetlmmeit

and are clearly distinguished from the arus, the citizen

oo

body of Xanthos.
The distinction occurs also in the Greek text, where
the epewetlmmei
are designated as perioikoi
and the arus as
89
Kanthioi.
And a similar distinction between perioikoi
and citizen
body is

also

attested

both

at

inscriptions of the 3rd century B.C.

Limyra
90

What is the basis of the distinction?

epewetlmmei /perioikoi

and Telmessos

in

several

It has been suggested that

may in these contexts refer to a resident alien

population living within the district of the city in question but lacking
91
full citizenship rights.
And if so the term may indicate a relatively
new social phenomenon in Lycia, reflecting the growth of

foreign

settlement in the country during the 4th and early 3rd centuries B.C. On
this assumption the perioikoi

were newcomers to the country who had

yet to be absorbed within the fabric of Lycian society as fully fledged

citizens.
87. See Diodoros 17. 68. 4-7, Plutarch,
Alex. 37. 1-2,
Quintus
Curtius 5. 4. 10-13, Arrian 4. 3. 7.
88. arus'.seyepewetlmmel
(line
6);
cf.
lines
13-14 and
31-31,
where the term arus is replaced
by te ter1
("townspeople").
On arus, see Carruba, 1979, 89-91, Laroche, 1979b,
62-63.
89. Lines 5-6, 27-28.
On line 12 of the Greek text,
see Hahn,
1981, 53-54, with n. 15.
90. From Limyra, an inscription
dating
to 288/87 B.C. in the
reign of Ptolemy I (see Wrrle,
1977);
from Telmessos,
an
inscription
dating
to 279 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy
II
(see Wrrle,
1978).
Wrrle cites
also a second
possible
example from Telmessos,
a fragmentary
inscription
dating
to
258/56 B.C. and honouring Leimon, son of Antipater
(1978,
237, with n. 189).
Metzger suggests
that the
distinction
disappeared
towards the middle of the 3rd century,
since
there is no reference
to perioikoi
in the inscriptions
of
later date (1979,
37).
91. Cf. Bryce, 1978-79, 121-22, Childs,
1981, 57.

170

The

Lyclans

However, a more plausible explanation of the distinction is that it

differentiated between an urban citizen-body and a peripheral rural
population, as proposed by both Wrrle and Hahn. In Wrrle's view the
term perioikoi

in a Lycian context refers to a non-urban population,

living in the district attached to a particular city, but outside the city
proper; but while the occupants of the city and the perioikoi

were two

distinct groups, they nonetheless had constitutional and legal equality,

and together they formed the polis (Wrrle,

1978, 236-46).

More

recently, Hahn has argued that the differences between the p e r i o i k o i

and the city population were rather more marked. Basically, he argues,
the perioikoi

were a native, non-urban, non-Hellenised population,

distinguishable from a city population which was also partly Lycian in

language and culture but had become more or less Hellenised.
perioikoi

The

were not members of the polis, they lacked the property

qualifications and the political and legal status of full citizens, and they
had no inalienable rights over the land they occupied. Nevertheless they
were free and independent, and took part in any decision-making which
concerned the land where they were settled.

(Hahn, 1981, 55-56 in

particular.)
We are still left with the question of when and how the distinction
between citizen body and perlolkoif
implications, came about

with its various legal and practical

Although the Letoon trilingual is the first

document that makes mention of it, the distinction may have been a
longstanding one, and was perhaps originally associated with the rise of a
powerful new aristocracy at Xanthos in the 6th century, following in the
wake of the rebuilding of Xanthos after its destruction by the Persians
(cf. Hahn, 1981, 61, n. 49). On the other hand, the precise formal status
which the distinction seems to have had in the inscriptions referred to
above may have been,, in part at least, the outcome of administrative
developments and the growth of urban institutions in Lycia during the
4th and 3rd centuries B.C. - to a large extent, perhaps, under Hellenic
92

influence.

92. This is particularly

likely
population
of the cities
Hellenised
during the 4th

if, as Hahn suggests,

the urban
in question
had become
largely
century.

Customs and Institutions

Whatever
perioikoi

the

precise

distinction

between

171
citizen

body

and

may have been, and whenever the distinction originated, we

cannot exclude the possibility that from at least the 4th century onwards
the perioikoi

included a number of persons of foreign as well as of

indigenous origin. However, I think it unlikely that foreigners, whether

Greek or Persian, settled in Lycia in substantial numbers until the
post-Alexander period, from the late 4th century B.C. onwards, when the
Lycian urban centres, especially the coastal cities, developed a more
cosmopolitan character. This may have been due in part to Alexander's
policy of racial fusion, but in any case Lycia became increasingly subject
to the political, military, and commercial interests of a range of foreign
powers, both Near Eastern and Greek, from this time onwards. This, I
believe, provides the most appropriate setting for a substantial increase
in the population of Lycia. And foreign settlers may well have included
some

Persians who involved

themselves

in the administrative

and

burgeoning commercial affairs of the country.

But the most substantial numbers of new settlers were Greek. As
the Greek inscriptions of Lycia indicate, the Greek population of the
country increased markedly in the centuries following the epichoric
period, the thousands of Greek names in the inscriptions far outweighing
the small number of Lycian, Persian, and other foreign names. And it is
noteworthy that in the 1st century B.C. Cicero, who had some direct
knowledge of the Lycians - there were Lycians in his army during his
governorship of Cilicia - refers to them as a Greek people (Verr.
10.

21).

4.

On the other hand, elements of the indigenous civilisation

persisted in the country throughout the Roman imperial period. And the
overwhelming continuity that we see in Lycian burial customs very likely
points to the continuation of a native population even if under heavy
Greek influence.

6 GODS AND ORACLES

By the 4th century B.C. the Lycians had established cults and
centres of worship for a wide range of deities who had come to be
associated with their country at different

times, and for different

reasons. The majority of these deities seem to have had their roots in
Bronze Age Anatolia.

Yet under the growing influence of Hellenism,

from the late 5th century onwards, the Anatolian origin of many of them
was gradually obscured as they came to be equated and merged with
Greek

counterparts.

In addition,

the

list

of

gods

and

goddesses

worshipped in the country was increased by the introduction of a number

of new deities, again mainly Greek in origin, who as far as we know had
no counterparts among the indigenous deities.
We are unable to determine from our sources whether the Lycians
thought of the deities they worshipped as members of an organised
pantheon in which each deity had his or her special place and was
endowed with specific functions and attributes. This is of course largely
due to the limitations of the surviving evidence. In fact our knowledge
of the roles and functions of the various deities is confined largely to the
information provided by the sepulchral inscriptions in which gods and/or
goddesses are commonly assigned a role as tomb protectors called upon
by the tomb owner to punish anyone guilty of violating his instructions
(see above, pp. 123-25).
We can, however, identify with reasonable certainty the deities
who appear to have been most prominent in Lycia, on the basis of the
frequency with which their names occur in the inscriptions, the extent of
the distribution of their cult centres throughout the country, and perhaps
also their identification

with prominent

Bronze

Age

Anatolian or

Classical Greek deities. Various examples will be given in the discussion

below.
But there is little indication in our sources of any overall national
organisation of Lycian cults and religious practices. While the Letoon
may have served as a type of religious focal point for the country as a
whole (cf. Bryce, 1983a, 12), the worship of most deities was closely tied
to the local cult centres. A particular deity may have been worshipped
in several different centres, but in each centre he or she was regarded as
belonging specifically to that centre or to the district in which the

Gods and Oracles

173

centre was located..

On the

other hand, we do find references in several of the

sepulchral inscriptions to a group of deities whose sphere of interest and

influence may have been somewhat more wide-ranging - namely the
mahai

huwedri,

who

are

called

upon

to

punish

Unfortunately the precise meaning of matiai

huwedri

tomb

violators.

has yet to be

established; out of context mahai, the Lycian word for "god" or "gods",
2
can be either a nominative or genitive form, singular or plural, and we
can only guess at the meaning of huwedri.

The translations generally

favoured for the phrase are "the confederate gods", "the assembly of the
gods", "all the gods".

If any of these translations are correct, then the

expression may indicate that there was in fact a Lycian council of gods,
4
or that on some occasions at least the Lycian gods did act in concert.
Alternatively, the mahai huwedri

may have been a particular group of

deities concerned primarily with matters of death and burial, like

the 3eoc (xotTa)x^vuoL of the Greek inscriptions of Lycia.

Perhaps

this was one category of Lycian deities who did have a specific function.
But

all

interpretations

of

mahai

huwedri

are

at

present

purely

conjectural.

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

This is indicated
by such expressions
as eni qlahi
ebiyehi
- "the mother (goddess)
of this sanctuary(?)H
(TL 26. 24
etc.),
maliyahi
wedrennehi
akhtaza
- "priest
of
the
regional
Maliya" (TL 149. 2).
See Houwink ten Gate, 1965, 94, n. g on TL 57.
Cf.
Houwink ten Cate,
Ibid.,
Laroche,
1967,
56.
The
suggestion,
referred
to by Houwink ten Cate, that mahai is
in this context
to be construed
as gen. plur.
dependent on
huwedri (construed
as a substantive)
was made originally
by
Meriggi
(e.g.
1928, 446, 1963, 11), followed
by Carruba
(e.g.
1969, 79).
It is much more likely,
however,
that
huwedri is an adjective
qualifying
mahai (construed
as a
nom. plur.),
as Heubeck has recently
demonstrated
(1982,
109) .
We sometimes
find
deities
associated
with each other
as
disciplinary
agents
in
the
penalty
clauses
of
the
sepulchral
inscriptions;
e.g.
TL 80. 3:
me ne
[trqjas
tubldi
se maliya erlyupama - 'Trqqas and erlyupama
Maliya
will punish him (i.e.
the offender
against
the tomb owner's
instructions)'.
E.g. TAH II 51, 55, 218, 228, 451, 452, 521, 613, 637, 692,
927, 1028, 1081, SEG I 467.
See also Carruba, 1970, 37, n.
24.

174

The

Lyeians

The deities worshipped in Lycia and attested in the inscriptions of

the

epichoric

period can for convenience' sake be grouped in the

following five categories:

Category
(a)

eni

1:

Deities

of Bronze Age Anatolian

origin

mahanahi ("mother of the gods")/ehi qlahi

ebiyehi

of this sanctuary(?)") = Bronze Age Luwian annis

subsequently equated with Leto (TL 26.
94. 3, 102. 3, 110.

5, 112.

(b) Trqqas (Lycian B Trqqiz)

24,

56.

6, 131. 3, 145.

(c)

4,

3, 83.

15-16,

44 a 43,

44 c 5

3).

Maliya-y later equated with Athene (TL 26.

the

tesetiy

the

llnkilantes
Category
(a)

2:

12,

'oath

gods',

(TL 135. 2, 149.

Deities

comparable

6).

with

the

Hittite

10).

of possible

Bronze Age Anatolian

origin

Qeli (N 322).

(b) Trzzubi

(TL 111. 1 and 4).

(c)

The Eliyana

(d)

The Twelve

(e)

Kakasbos (e.g. TAM II 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,

Category
(a)

24(7),

4).

and 7, 75. 5, 76. 5, 80. 3, 149. 2 and 12, 150.

(d)

and

65.

= Bronze Age Tarhunt (the Storm God);

perhaps later equated with Zeus (Solymeus) (TL 80.

88. 6, 93.

("mother

massanassis,

3:

(N 320.

40).

Gods (TL 44 c.

Deities

of Greek

22).
13).

origin

LetOy identified with the eni mahanahi (la above).

(b) Atheney identified with Maliya (lc above).

(c)

Artemis

(Lycian form Ertemi) (TL 44 c 8).

(d) Aphrodite

(Lycian form Pedrita/Padrita) (TL 44 b 33, N 307).

(e)

Apollo, implicitly

/f)

Zeusy attested in the poetical form 7,r\\> (TL 44 c 30).

Category

4:

Deities

(a) Khntawat7-8,

17-18,

attested

in N 320. 39.

of Carian

Khbidenn-

origin

= BaatXEUs Kauvtos (TL 44 c 8-9,

23-24).

(b) Arkazuma = 'Apxeaupas (tf 320.

8, 18, 24,

25).

N 320.

Gods and
Category
(a) tfatri-

5:

Other possible

Oracles

Lycian

deities

(TL 44 c 33, 44 c 48).

(b) Hppnterus (TL 58. 8, 139.

4).

(c) Eheti (TL 44 b 48).

(d) Ddewezi (TL 65.
(e) (E)heledi
(t)

24).

(N 306. 4, 309c.

Khba(TL 44 a 44,

4-5).

102. 4, 106. 2, N 309c.

6).

(g) Tesmmi (N 309c. 7).

(h) Rmma- (see, e.g., TL 121.
(i)

1).

la- (see, e.g., TL 149.

2).

Discussion
Category 1: Deities of Bronze Age Anatolian origin
(a)

eni mahanahi - "mother of the gods'. The goddess can be directly

identified with the Late Bronze Age Luwian goddess annls

massanassls,

a name, which also means 'mother of the gods' and which as Laroche
points out actually represents letter for letter the Lycian eni

mahanahi

(1958, 190; cf. Laroche 1980, 1 and 3). The Luwian goddess may well
have been introduced into Lycia some time after the end of the Bronze
Age by the Lukka people who, I have suggested, were one of the major
population components of the Lycian people. At all events, the Lycian
goddess

clearly

reflects

the

continuation of the

Anatolian mother

goddess tradition whose roots almost certainly extend back before the
beginning of the Bronze Age.
The goddess is commonly referred to elsewhere in the epichoric
inscriptions as eni

qlahi

ebiyehi

- mother of this sanctuary(?)", and

under this title she is twice equated with the goddess Leto;
inscriptions in question are the bilingual TL 56
trilingual N 320 (line

(line

4)

the

and the

38 of the Lycian version, corresponding to

line

34 of the Greek).
It may also be that Leto is referred to under her own name in the
epichoric texts. Two possibilities have been suggested: (a) In TL 44 b
61 the words ade meileSSl

qla are translated by Laroche "et il a fait

l'enceinte de Lto" (1979b, 114, 1980, 3-4). Laroche analyses the form
le%% i as *let(aj-hi
N 309c.

> *lethi

4 the form atal

written as le

i\

(b) In N 306.

4 and

occurs, which Gusmani explains as the

176

The

Lycians

Lycian form of Leto's name (1963, 289ff., followed by Neumann, 1979b

25). If correct, these identifications may indicate that Leto originally
had a cult in Lycia separate from that of the mother goddess. But both
identifications must be regarded as highly conjectural, and in any case
they do not significantly alter our picture of Leto as a Greek goddess
who took over the cult of an indigenous mother goddess in Lycia by the
late 5th or early 4th century B.C.
Leto's initial link with Lycia may have arisen simply from an
observed resemblance between certain characteristics attributed to her
in the Greek world and those of the indigenous Anatolian mother goddess
represented by the Lycian ni mahanahi and enl qlahi

ebiyehi.

Yet in

Greco-Roman literary tradition she was given a firm place in Lycian

mythology and closely associated with the sanctuary near the city of
Xanthos now known as the Letoon.
sources is Ovid, met.

The best known of the literary

6. 316-81 which relates that Leto, in flight from

the wrath of Hera, came to rest by a lake in Lycia with her baby children
Apollo and Artemis.

A similar account is given by Servius in his

commentary on Vergil's Georgics

(1 378),

The tradition can be traced

back at least to the 4th century B.C. since Antoninus Liberalis (met.

35)

repeats the story in a succinct form and cites the 4th century Hellenistic
writer Menekrates of Xanthos and the 3rd century Nikander of Kolophon
as his sources. There can be little doubt however that Leto's cult centre
on the Xanthos river dates to a much earlier period than this.
Ovid is quite explicit in attributing the origin of the sanctuary to
the Greek newcomer, but it is more likely that the Letoon was first
associated with the cult of an early Anatolian goddess of Luwian origin
with whom Leto came to be identified under Greek influence. Perhaps a
faint reflection of this is to be found in the commentary of the 6th
century A.D. scholar Stephanus Byzantinus. In explaining the non-Greek
word Syessa

6.

(s.v.)

Steph. Byz. claims that it is a hut in Lycia that

Deposits
of ceramic ware datable
to the 6th century
B.C.
Indicate
that the sanctuary
already
existed
at this
time
(see most recently
Metzger,
1979, 26-28),
i.e.
at least
two
centuries
before
reference
is made to it in the
written
records,
and there may well be remains of earlier
buildings
yet to be unearthed on the
site.

Gods and Oracles

177

derives its name from an old woman Syesse who had given shelter to
Leto. It may be that Steph. Byz. is indirectly preserving an authentic
tradition whereby the Greek cult of Leto took over from an indigenous
cult already established in the area.
I have referred earlier to the statue base with four inscriptions
unearthed by the French at the Letoon in 1973, and datable to the early
4th century (see pp. 43-44).
designated as Erbbina

The inscription on face A, which I have

JJ, indicates that the statue was set up by

Erbbina in honour of Leto. This may be the earliest surviving reference

we have to the goddess in Lycia - unless of course she appears in the
epichoric texts as latai
(b) Trqqas

or le %% i.

(Lye. B Trqqiz).

The Lycian god Trqqas can be directly

equated with the Luwian Storm God Tarhunt, the chief god of the Late
Bronze Age Luwian pantheon.

In addition to figuring as a disciplinary

agent in several of the sepulchral inscriptions, the god also appears in

several passages in the Xanthos stele inscription, which probably reflect
his importance in Xanthos as well as in Lycia in general; for example,
TL 44 b

51-52:

se dde tuweteikumeziya:

T ere

tere

trqqntl.pddatahi

"and he has erected altars everywhere (?) to Trqqas of the pddt-"

Tarhunt/Trqqas is the basis of the personal name Trokondas which occurs

quite frequently in the Greek inscriptions of eastern Lycia, Pisidia, and
Lykaonia. According to Houwink ten Cate, Zeus Solymeus, the chief god
of this region in Greco-Roman times, is simply the old Anatolian deity
Tarhunt in another guise (1965, 202).
(c) Maliya.

The goddess Maliya, whose name provides the root of many

personal and place names in Hittite and other texts of the 2nd and 1st
millennia B.C.,

7'.

was apparently one of the most prominent of the

For a more detailed

discussion
of Leto in Lycia, see
Bryce,
1983a.
See also Laroche, 1980,
4.
8. See Laroche,
1958, 96-99,
1959, 127, 1979, 115, and 1980,
3.
See also Neumann, 1979, 261, and (on the form of the
name) Meriggi,
1980, 220-21, sec. 16.
9. For the Interpretation,
cf. Laroche,
1967, 58 and 61. On
the form pddat-,
see Laroche, 1979, 61.
10. See Barnett,
1974,
900-01,
and the
references
cited
therein,
and Neumann, 1967, 34-35,
1970, 16.
As Laroche

178

The

Lycians

Lycian deities, to judge from the frequency with which her name occurs
in the inscriptions (see Neumann, 1967, 34-38). A cult in her honour at
Xanthos is indicated in the Xanthos stele inscription where reference is
made to her temenos (TL 44 c 5), which she apparently shared with
Artemis and the "Lord of Kaunos" (Khnta.wa.ta. Khbidenni7
below) (TL 44 c 7-8).
Lycia (TL 149,

discussed

She is also mentioned in inscriptions from eastern

150) where the cult of Athene Polias flourished in later

times.
We can equate Maliya with the Greek goddess Athene on the basis of
an inscription and a scene appearing on a double-head silver vase dating
(probably) to the first half of the 4th century B.C. The scene depicts the
judgment of Paris, and features three figures - Aphrodite, Athene, and
Paris - with their names inscribed next to them in Lycian characters.
12

Athene is represented by the name Mal[iya].

We note too that Athene figures in the Greek epigram on the east
side of the Xanthos stele (translated above, pp. 97-98), where she is
associated with the military successes of the author of the inscription in
her role as "Sacker of Cities" (TL 44 c 26).
(d)

The teseti.

On two occasions the penalty clauses of the sepulchral

inscriptions make reference to the Lycian oath-gods - the

trmmili

(TL 135.

2 and 149.

10).

The interpretation of teseti

teseti
as

"oath-gods" was originally suggested by Houwink ten Gate who compared

13
them to the Hittite oath-gods, the llnkiiantes7
who are called upon
to punish vassal rulers guilty of violating treaties drawn up with their
Hittite overlords. In the Lycian inscriptions, the tomb owners invoke the
oath-gods to protect their tombs by the threat of retribution against
tomb violators.

points
out
(1980,
4),
the deity
Maliya
is
frequently
attested
in the 2nd millennium Hittite
texts,
but the
texts
give no precise
Information
about the characteristics
or
functions
of the deity at this
time.
11. Cf. TAM II 924, 1184, and 1200, and see Hawkins in the
appendix to Barnett,
1974, 902, and Laroche, 1979b, 115.
12. Details
of the vase have been published
by Strong,
1964,
95-102,
and more recently
by Barnett,
1974, 893-901.
The
inscription
now appears in Neumann, 1979b, as N 307.
13. Houwink ten Cate's suggestion
is cited by Bryce, 1976a, 186.

Gods and Oracles

179

Category 2: Deities of possible Bronze Age Anatolian origin

(a) Qell>

An inscription recently discovered in Pinara by Zahle has

produced the name of an otherwise unknown deity Qeli. The inscription,

now designated by Neumann as N 322, is sepulchral and refers to the
tomb owner as the priest (kumaza) of Qeli. Neumann suggests that the
name has a Bronze Age pedigree, observable in the personal name
14
Kila-muwa,
and considers the possibility of a link with Halki, the
Hittite name of the grain goddess.
(b) Trzzubl

appears in the sepulchral inscription TL 111 as the deity in

whose service the tomb owner Erzesinube acts as priest, and as recipient
of part of the fine payable by anyone who makes unauthorised use of
Erzesinube* s

tomb.

Almost

certainly

his

name

is

the

origin

of Tpwoouos (and its variants), attested as a divine name in the Greek

sources.

But whether or not he had a Bronze Age pedigree is

something we cannot at present determine.

Neumann suggests that the same name occurs in the variant form
Krzzubi in TL 83.

5, although here it appears not to have been used as

the name of a god.

(c)

The Ellyana

are known only from the trilingual, where they are

equated with the Greek Nuycpau.

Laroche suggests that they may be

Luwian in origin, their name being derived from a possible *allyana.

so, the root of the name is apparently the Luwian all(ya-)7

If

which

designates a liquid element - lake, pond, or river (Laroche, 1979b, 114).

This would indicate that the Eliyana were naiads or water nymphs, and as
such were appropriately associated with the water sources of the Letoon
(cf. Eichner, 1983, 63).

Their cult may have originated in the Bronze

Age, but if so it was very likely a purely local cult of western Anatolia,
since there is no known reference to it in any of the Hittite sources (cf.
Laroche, 1979, 114).
(d) The

Twelve

Gods.

The group of Lycian deities known as the

14. Neumann, 1979b, 49-50, citing

Laroche, 1966, 93, no. 575.
15. Notably Plutarch,
def. orac. C 21.
For the
Identification
of Tp)o3^6s with Trzzubl,
see Houwlnk ten Cate, 1965, 104
(with the references
cited
In n. 1), and Neumann, 1979a,
262.
16. See also Merlggl,
1980, 225, sec. 28.

180

The

Lycians

Twelve Gods are frequently attested in the reliefs and inscriptions of

Roman Lycia, as illustrated by the Gmbe plaques dating to the 3rd
century A.D.

However, there is only one known reference to them in

the inscriptions of the epichoric period.

This occurs in the Greek

epigram in the Xanthos stele inscription, which indicates that the stele
was set up in honour of the Twelve Gods (TL 44 c 21-22).

The fact that

such an important monument was dedicated to these deities might

suggest that they occupied a position of some prominence in Lycian
religion.

But to date we can find no clearly identifiable reference to

them in the epichoric texts.

It is just possible that they were one and

the same as the mahai huwedri, whom we have discussed above (p. 174).
But even if this proved to be so, it would not bring us much closer to
determining who these deities were, or whether they were in fact
distinct from the deities individually named in the inscriptions.
Quite possibly the concept of a group of twelve gods was one which
the Lycians inherited from their Bronze Age predecessors.

We can

compare them with the twelve 'running' gods depicted in relief in the
13th century B.C. rock sanctuary called Yazihkaya, situated a few
kilometres north-east of the Hittite capital Hattusa,

There is little

doubt that these are Underworld deities, and Gates sees in them the
ancestors of the figures appearing in the Gmbe plaques (1974, 166). If
so, then the Twelve Gods referred to in the Xanthos stele inscription can
perhaps be seen as part of a longstanding Anatolian religious tradition
which originates in the Bronze Age, is attested in the mid 1st millennium
B.C., and continues until late Roman times. And it may well be that the
deities in question were primarily chthonic in function and character,
(e)

Kakasbos.

The "rider god" Kakasbos (var. Kakathibos)

is well

attested in the later Greek inscriptions and reliefs of Lycia, which

indicate that his cult had a relatively wide distribution in south-west

17. See, e.g. Bean, 1968, 23, fig. 2, and 24, 1978, 81,
158-59,
and note also Weinreich,
1913.
18. Note, however,
Laroche,
who suggests
that a reference
to
them may occur in TL 44 a 12 which he tentatively
restores
nt[e mahjanaha:tusnti.
See also Asheri, 1983, 87-91.

Gods and Oracles

Asia Minor.

19

He makes no clearly

181

identifiable appearance in the

inscriptions of the epichoric period, although khakhakba which occurs in

tf 314b (line

2) may be the Lycian form of his name, as several scholars

20
Whether or not the equation is valid, it is

have recently proposed.

possible, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the god
Kakasbos is a native Anatolian deity, perhaps of Bronze Age origin (cf.
Neumann, 1979a, 266).
Category 3: Deities of Greek origin
(a) Leto and (b) Athene have been discussed in Category 1 above.
(c) Aphrodite.

From the vase depicting the judgment of Paris, referred

to above, we learn that the Lycian version of Aphrodite's name was

Pedrita.

The name appears also in the variant form Padrita in the

Xanthos stele inscription where reference is made to an altar of the

21
goddess (kumeziya Padritahi
- TL 44 b 53),
indicating that her cult
had been established in Lycia by the end of the 5th or the beginning of
the 4th century.
(d) Artemis

(Lycian

form

Ertemi)

figures

inscription in association with Maliya

in

the

and the

Xanthos

"Lord of

stele

Kaunos".

Neumann suggests that the temenos which the three deities apparently
shared is to be identified with temple C on the Xanthian acropolis, which
has three cellas (1979a, 260, referring to Metzger, 1963, 29-36). The
goddess seems to have been a purely Greek addition to the list of Lycian
deities, and as far as we know neither replaced nor was identified with
an indigenous deity (cf. Laroche, 1980, 5). In addition to her appearance
in the s|tele inscription, she is the subject of two dedicatory inscriptions
recently

discovered

Demokleides,

at

presumably

the
a

Letoon:
Greek

(a) N 312y

a dedication

living in or visiting

Lycia;

by
(b)

19. See Robert,

1946,
38-74,
1949,
50-58
(in
particular,
57-S8), and Neumann, 1979a,
265-66.
20. Cf. Carruba,
1979,
84, Heubeck,
1979,
80,
1982,
110,
Neumann, 1983, 139.
21. See Laroche,
1979b, 115.
More recently,
however,
Laroche
has suggested
that in this context
Padritahi
may not be the
name of the goddess,
but rather a theophoric
toponym based
on her name - a Lycian version of the city-name
Aphrodlslas
in Caria (1980,
5).

182

The

Erbbina

Lycians

JJ, the part-bilingual inscription which refers to Artemis as the

recipient of a bronze statue set up by Erbbina, some time during the

early decades of the 4th century.

Her name is also the basis of the

theophoric name Erttimeli (Greek 'ApTeun^s), the name of

appointed as asakhlaza

arrangements referred to in the trilingual (N 320.

It seems

the man

(TtoyeAnTris) At Xanthos in the administrative

clear that the

goddess

enjoyed

5).
a position of some

prominence In Lycia by the early 4th century, a position which perhaps

reflects increasing Greek cultural influence upon the country at this
time.
(e) Apollo.

Apart from the trilingual, there is no clearly identifiable

reference to Apollo in the epichoric inscriptions;

and even in the

trilingual he is not explicitly named in either the Greek or the Lycian

22
versions.
The only time his name appears at all in the epichoric texts
is as an element In a theophoric name - Pulenyda
to 'AoXXwvuoris in the bilingual TL 6 (line

corresponding

1). But the personal name

is obviously Greek to begin with, and certainly cannot be used as

evidence for the existence of a cult of the god In Lye la.
We do have

a reference

designated above as Erbbina

to

Apollo in the

Greek

inscription

II (pp. 43-44), but clearly the reference is

not to a god resident in Lycia.

The inscription indicates Erbbina's

dedication of a statue to Leto, on the advice of the Pythian oracle

(line

9) - advice clearly obtained from the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. The

very fact that Erbbina sought his advice so far afield may in itself be an
indication that Lycia was not at this time regarded as one of the
established haunts of Apollo - as it certainly became in later times.
In our literary sources, however, Apollo is associated with the
Lycians as early as the 8th century B.C. In the Iliad

he is called upon

by Zeus to rescue the corpse of the Lycian leader Sarpedon from the
battlefield at Troy (JJ.

16.

667-83)

and is credited with restoring to

full fighting vigour Sarpedon's second-in-command Glaukos (JJ.

16.

22. In the Lycian version he is referred

to indirectly
In the
expression
eni qlahl ebiyehl
pntrnnl
se tidelme - 'to the
pntrnnl
mother of this
sanctuaryf?)
and (her)
children'
(lines
38-39).
Similarly
in the Greek version
he
is
Included in the expression
Anjo^S Hott Eyyovwv (line
34).

Gods and Oracles

527-32).

183

He seems, also to be assigned the role of protecting deity of

Pandaros, the "Lycian" leader of another contingent in the battle (see

above,

pp.

13-14,

epithet AuHnyevris

35-36),
(1-* 4.

and

in this

101).

Yet

context

the

he

is

given

the

meaning of AuMnyeviis is

problematical, and although a number of scholars have interpreted it as

?3
'Lycian-born' " , other interpretations are possible
("wolf-born",
24
'born-of-light' ).
Moreover, Pandaros* role in the Iliad raises special
problems of its own, as we have already seen. We should also note that
in ancient literary sources Delos not Lycia was generally claimed to be
the birthplace of Apollo. It was probably not until late Roman times
25

that the tradition of a Lycian birthplace for Apollo gained currency.

The reason for the association between Apollo and Pandaros

in the

Iliad

may simply turn upon the epithet HAUTOTOOS applied to Apollo

in II.

4.

101. Pandaros' own proficiency with the bow, and the services

he is called upon to perform with it make it natural for him to render

homage to the divine archer, who had presented him with the bow in the
first place (II.

2.827).

More generally, it is not unlikely that Apollo's

association with the Lycian leaders at Troy is a purely personal one,

indicating no more than a kind of temporary divine patronage extended
to the foremost of Troy's allies.
The absence of references to Apollo in the epichoric source material
suggests that even if the god did have an early association with Lycia he
did not come into prominence in the country prior to the Hellenistic
period, except perhaps at Patara where the famous oracle was located.
Certainly Apollo figures prominently in the foundation legends of Patara,
as recorded in the Greco-Roman literary sources - for example, as the
father

of

the

eponymous

founder

Pataros

from the nymph

Lycia

(daughter of Xanthos) (Steph. Byz. s.v. ITccxapa), or alternatively as the

father of Lycadius (also from the nymph Lycia), designated in a tradition

23. E.g. Hesychius,

s.v. Auxnyevn; cfKretschmer,
1933,
22829, and 1940, 102, and Trltsch,
1950, 498.
24. "wolf-born"
- Aellan,
nat.
an. 10. 26;
cf.
Aristotle,
hist.
an. 6. 29. 2;
"born-of-light"
- Curtius,
G. Et. 5.
160.
See also the references
in Kruse, 1927, 2269,
s.v.
Lykeios.
25. Cf. Quintus Smyrnaeus, 11. 19-26, Schol. ad II. 4. 101.

184

The

Lycians

recorded by Servius as the founder of the city (Verg.

Aen. 3 . 332).2^ r

have referred also in Chapter 2 to the tradition recorded by Diodoros

which recounts the Telchines 1 migration to Lycia and their founding of a
temple of Apollo on the banks of the Xanthos river, which very likely is a
reference to Apollo's temple at Patara (p. 39). And we could add to the
list of Apolline associations with Patara the alleged derivation of the
city's name from patara.-, a box of sacrificial cakes intended as offerings
for Apollo-, the box was carried by sea to the Lycian shore to the site
where a sacrifice was made to Apollo, the site where the city was
27
subsequently built.
Yet all the sources which link Apollo with Patara are late, and we
should note that although the oracle is attested in Greek literature at
least as early as the 5th century B.C., we have no evidence that it was
associated with Apollo at this time. In Herodotos (2. 182), our earliest
source of information on the oracle, there is no explicit connection
between Apollo and the oracle.

In fact, the god associated with the

oracle is left unnamed.

Scholars have recently sought to identify Apollo with an alleged
native deity called Natri, discussed below in Category 5.

But even if

such a deity did exist, he can have played no more than a very minor role
in Lycian religion, and it would be surprising to find Apollo equated with
a local deity of such insignificance.
The establishment of a cult of Apollo in Lycia may have gone hand
in hand with, or followed in the wake of, the transformation of the
Lycian mother goddess into Leto. And the concept of a divine triad, in
which Leto is closely associated with Apollo and Artemis, seems also to

26. In another version,

he is the son of Lapeon and brother
of
Xanthos (Eustathius
ad Dionys. Perieg.
5. 129).
27. Alexander Polyhistor,
ap. Steph. Byz. s . v. JIctTapa. The
name
Patara may in fact have been derived
from a word meaning
basket
or receptacle
of some kind, but a word which was
Anatolian
not Greek in origin,
and probably associated
with
the Hittite
substantive
pattar
(see Neumann, 1961,
56-57).
Bean is not aware of this possibility
when he comments that
"the word patara
is not Greek nor yet Lycian,
but
is
apparently
the same as the Latin patera,
a plain
indication
that the tale is a comparatively
late invention"
(1978,
82).

Gods and Oracles

185

have been an innovation in Lycia, introduced under Greek influence,

prior to the 4th century, there is no indication of the triad in Lycia,
either in epichoric or in Greek sources.
The first explicit association of all three Letoids occurs in the
trilingual, in which Leto in association with her children and the nymphs
is called upon to punish anyone interfering with the regulations set out
on the stele. As we noted above, Apollo and Artemis are not explicitly
named in either the Lycian or the Greek versions of the inscription, but
the Aramaic version names Artemis and refers to Apollo under the guise
of the name Hsatrapati, an appellation used of Mithras, the Persian
equivalent of Apollo (see Dupont-Sommer, 1979, 155-56).
Under Greek influence, the cult of the Letoids gained progressively
in importance

through the

Hellenistic

period, as indicated

by

the

substantial archaeological remains of this and the Roman imperial

period at the Letoon, and also by the designation of the divine triad as
no

the naipuJoL OEOL , the

national

gods of Lycia.

It was essentially a

Hellenic triad and probably marked a significant divergence from the

religious traditions current in the period of the epichoric inscriptions.
(f)

Zeus.

I have noted above the suggestion t h a t Zeus Solymeus,

attested in the later Greek inscriptions of eastern Lycia and Pisidia, may
have been the

old Anatolian god Tarhunt/Trqqas in another guise.

However we also have a reference to Zeus in the epichoric period,

namely in the Greek epigram from the Xanthos stele inscription where
the god is named (in the formZnv) as the recipient of the trophies won
by the author of the inscription in battle (line

30). This suggests that

Zeus already had a position of some prominence in Lycian religion by the

end of the 5th century - or rather t h a t by this time he had already been
equated with Trqqas (who certainly does figure prominently in the
29
inscription ) and is referred to in the epigram as the closest Greek
equivalent to the native deity.

28. See,
e.g.
TAH IT 496,
and also
the reference
to
the
sanctuary
of the Letoids
in an inscription
on a stele
from
Telmessos
(c.
279 B.C.)
appearing
in Wrrle,
1978, 202
(lines
43-45).
29. TL 44 b 34, c 34, c 64, d 12, d 14, d 44.

186

The

Lycians

Category 4: Deities of Carian origin

(a) Khntawata

Khbidenni

- BaabAeus KauvLog - the "Lord of Kaunos"

one of the two deities in whose honour the cult referred to in the
trilingual is to be established.
to

this

deity

in

two

Very likely we have further references

Hellenistic

decrees

from

the

city of Kaunos which make mention of a aoLAeus %e6

dedicatory inscription from the island of

Carian
and in a

Kos in which the words

30
aauAews Kauvuou occur.

The deity is also referred to in the Xanthos stele inscription:

se

khbide

sttati

me:sttala:eti:qlahibiyehi:se

se [m]ertemehi:se

khntawatehi:khbidnhi

mal[l]yahi:
(TL 44 c

6-9)

and Kaunos will erect a stele in honour of (?) (the temenos?) of this
sanctuary, and of Maliya, and of Artemis, and of the Lord of
Kaunos {TL 44 c

6-9).

It is clear from this passage that the Lord of Kaunos was already
31
established in Xanthos by the end of the 5th century,
and the
trilingual may well indicate a revival of his cult in Lycia in the 4th
32
century,
along with a strengthening of cultural and political ties
between Caria and Lycia.
(b)
deity

Arkazuma = 'ApHeobpas.
Arkazuma/Arkesimas

The Lord of Kaunos is coupled with the

in

the

trilingual.

We

have

no

other

30. The decrees

were published
by Bean, 1954, 95, no. 37b, 6,
and 98, no. 38c. 16.
The dedicatory
inscription
appears in
Paton and Hicks, 1891, 109, no. 53. See Bean's
discussion,
1954, 96 and Metzger, 1974, 89 and 1979, 38.
Bean
suggests
that in these three inscriptions,
we have 'evidence
of a
cult of the legendary
eponymous founder and king Caunus,
the son of Miletus
(Arlstocritus
FGH HIB, no. 493, I = FHG
IV 334, 2) .
31. Neumann
suggests,
on
the
basis
of
his
proposed
Identification
of the temenos of Maliya,
Artemis,
and the
Lord of Kaunos with temple C on the acropolis
at
Xanthos,
that the cult of the Carian deity
may have gone back as
early as the 6th century in Xanthos (1979a, 260).
But note
the doubts expressed
by Frei as to the precise
location
of
the deity's
sanctuary
(1981,
369).
32. Cf. Heubeck, 1979, 251-52.
Heubeck comments:
"Es ist
zu
vermuten,
dass dieser
Gott in seinem Herkunftsort
sowohl
einen
karisehen
Namen sowie
ausserdem
die
(ebenfalls
karIsche)
Bezeichnung
'Herrscher
von Kaunos' besessen
hat
die
dann von Lyklern
und Griechen
je
die
quivalente
bersetzung in ihre Sprachen erfahren
hat."

Gods and

187

Oracles

information about this deity, and at this stage it is impossible to say

whether his/her association with the Kaunian god is of any particular
33
significance.
Category 5: Other possible Lycian deities
(a) Natri.

The suggestion that there was a Lycian god called Natri arises

out of the equation between the names Natrbbiyemi and Apollodotos in

the trilingual (line
-bbiyemi
verb piye-

(= -piyemi)

4 Lycian version, lines

3-4 Greek version). Since

seems to be a past participle form of the Lycian

"give", corresponding to the Greek -dotosy

Natr-, the first

element of the compound name, may be the Lycian equivalent of Apollo,

34
We do in fact have two occurrences of

or a Lycian epithet of Apollo.

n a t r i , both in the Xanthos stele inscription (TL 44 c 33 and 48), but in

contexts which are quite obscure. Indeed in the second case the reading
natri

is not altogether certain since na and tri

are separated by a word

divider (na:tri)

- although such "Irrational division" is not unknown in

35
the epichonc texts.
Gusmani and Neumann find support for the identification of Natri
as the Lycian counterpart of Apollo in the appearance of

turakhssali

immediately before na:trl

turakhssali

as an epithet of natri
Pausanias (2.21.13)

in TL 44 c 48. They construe

equating it with dupeOs which

according

to

was the epithet attached to Apollo in the oracular

shrine at Kyaneae. This leads Neumann to suggest that Turakhssi may be

the indigenous Lycian name for Kyaneae.

33. Laroche suggests

that he was an acolyte
of the Lord of
Kaunos, and probably
also Caunlan in origin
(1979b,
114).
According to Heubeck his name is of Greek origin
(1979, 2S2
with n. 16).
On the form of the name in Lycian,
see
Meriggi,
1980, 221-22, sec.
18.
34. See Tritsch,
1976,
165-66,
Gusmani,
1977,
S3,
Laroche,
1979b,
61-62,
Neumann, 1979a,
263, Meriggi,
1980,
222.
Laroche suggests
that (a)natr(a)
may be connected
with the
Greek vAMXiop,a rare variant of &\okE, which
is
one of
the
titles
associated
with Apollo.
But note Frei's
comments,
1981, 360.
35. Note, e.g.,
t:uhe (TL 48a, 3), pddeneh.mmi (TL 106. 1).
36. See Neumann, 1979a, 263, with n.15.
The word
turakhssi
occurs
earlier
in the inscription
in a context
which
apparently
deals
with
the revolt
of Amorges
(a
53).
Arkwrlght
long ago suggested
that the word might be the
origin of the Greek epithet
dupes (cited
by
Meriggi,

188

The

Lycians

The whole line of argument which seeks to establish Matri as a

Lycian god is plausible, although it is no more
conjectures built one upon the other.

than

a series of

And, as we noted above, if such a

god did exist, his role in Lycian religion seems to have been a very minor
one.
(b) Hpphterns

occurs twice

occasions

immediately

hppnterus

mahai miitehi,

in the

preceding

epichoric inscriptions, on both

mahai

and TL 139.

("god/gods"):

TL

4 - h[p]pnte[rus]

58.

S _

mahai.

On

the basis of the first of these phrases, Laroche has suggested that
hppnterus

was the name of a god - the god of the miiiti

("dieu de la

mindis") (1967, 54). This interpretation is, in my view, unlikely. I have

argued elsewhere that hppnterus
epithet

qualifying

mahai,

is not the name of a god, but rather an

and t h a t

hppnterus

mahai

may

parallel

(but is not necessarily equivalent to) expressions like OGOL ( NOLTCOXSOVLOL

in the Greek inscriptions (Bryce, 1981a, 85).
As Heubeck points out, however, it would be remarkable to find in
Lycian an adjective preceding the noun it qualifies (1982, 111-12;

cf.

Laroche, 1974, 129). For this reason he prefers to take up the suggestion
made by Meriggi and subsequently Carruba that mahai is to be construed
here

as

hppnterus
the

a gen. plur. dependent

on hppnterus.

Meriggi

translates

mahai as "il rappresentante degli Dei" (the representative of

god) (1979, 266),

Carruba

as "Opfergemeinschaft

der

Gtter",

"Tempel der Gtter" ("Sacrificial guild of the gods, temple of the gods")
(1970, 37, 1978, 169).

Heubeck favours the third of these proposals,

suggesting a parallel with eni

sanctuary") or qla

qlahi

ebiijehi

("the mother of this

ebi ("the sanctuary here"); as we have seen, both of

these expressions figure in the sepulchral inscriptions as the subjects of

penalty clauses.
(c)

- (i) I include below further possible additions to the list of Lycian

deities, as suggested by Neumann and based for the most p a r t either on

considerations of context or on the analysis of supposed theophoric
names.

Of course in the l a t t e r case even when Lycian personal names

1936, 280), although there is nothing

in the earlier
passage which suggests
with Apollo or Kyaneae.

of an explicit
nature
a possible
connection

Gods and Oracles

189

can be classified as theophoric, we cannot automatically assume that the

divine elements which they contain are the names of Lycian deities. If
in fact the divine element is of foreign or pre-Lycian origin, then it may
well refer to a deity who was not worshipped in Lycia,
The list that follows, then, is a very speculative one, and I shall
confine myself merely to indicating the various identifications proposed
by Neumann and referring the reader to his discussion of them.
Identifications based on contextual considerations:
(c)

Eheti (TL 44 b 48) - Neumann, 1979a, 261.

(d)

Ddewezi (TL 65. 24) - Neumann, 1979a, 260-61.

(e)

(E)heledi

(f)

Khba (TL 44 a 44,

(N306. 4, 309c.

Age Hepat?)
(g)

37

102.

4-5) - Neumann, 1979a, 262, 1979b, 25.

4,

106.

2, N 309c.

6) (= Late Bronze

- Neumann, 1974, 1979a, 262, 1979b, 25.

Tesmmi (N 309c.

7) (= Hattic Tasimmet(i)?) - Neumann, 1979a,

262, 1979b, 2 5 . 3 8
Identifications based on supposed theophoric names:
(h)

Rmma- (as in Ermmeneni in TL 121.

1) (= Late Bronze Age Arma,

the moon god?) - Neumann, 1979a, 263-65.

(i)

la- (as in Iyamara in TL 149.

2) (= Mesopotamian Ea?) - Neumann,

1979a, 265.
Kronos
I have referred in Chapter 2 (p. 20) to the tradition in Plutarch
which records that Kronos was a deity originally worshipped by the
Solymians,
archegetes.

37.
38.

who

abandoned

The appearance

his
of

cult

after

he

killed

their

three

Kronos in a tradition relating

to

Against this view see Laroche, 1979b, 115, n. 11.

(e),
(f), and (g) appear together
in N 309c. 4-7 in what
Neumann
regards
as
a
list
of
deities:
latai:seheledi:
se :trbbamara:
se:pddkhba
se
tesmmi.
He suggests
however
that
Trbbamara
is
a
personified
abstraction
'Anordnung gegen etwas = Verbot'
(1979a,
262,
1979b,
25),
and, as noted above,
he accepts
Gusmanl's
proposal
that latai,
the first
name on the list,
is the
Lycian name for Le to.

190

The

Lyclans

south-west Asia Minor is without precedent in the literary sources, and

this led the 19th century scholar Lobeck to suggest that the name should
be amended to Kragos (cited by Treuber, 1886, 31).

Yet Lobeck's

suggestion was long ago rejected (implicitly by Treuber, ibid.), and more
recently Robert argued that the passage in Plutarch does in fact
indicate, albeit in a very slight and obscure way, the establishment of a
cult of Kronos in Lycia (1949, 53).

Robert notes that such a cult is

reflected in several inscriptions of the Roman imperial period which

indicate that Kronos was held in special honour at Tlos at that time, and
39
was perhaps the city's most important deity (1949, 52-53).
He stresses
that the cult could not have come to Lycia from the Greek world, since
no cult of Kronos was known there; rather it was of a different foreign
origin, or else developed out of the cult of an indigenous Anatolian deity,
who later appeared under the name Kronos (1978, 43-44; cf. Robert in
REG 79, 1966, 746, n. 6).
Whatever the origin of the cult, I believe that the passage in
Plutarch must be regarded as very dubious evidence

for its early

establishment in Lycia. Certainly we have no known indications of such

a cult in the epichoric texts. Nor in fact does Plutarch's account suggest
that the cult of Kronos was adopted in Lycia after its abandonment by
the Solymians. Indeed it is Kronos' victims, the three archegetes,
who
40
are deified and honoured in Lycia.
For these reasons, I believe that we
can do no more with Kronos at present beyond noting (a) Plutarch's
statement that the Solymians had a cult in his honour which they

39.

40.

The Inscriptions
cited by Robert are TAM II 585, 554, and
581.
In the latter
two cases,
the reading
of the name
depends
on textual
restorations.
The first
of
the
inscriptions,
TAM II
585,
is
the
most
significant,
indicating
the celebration
of great festivals
in Kronos'
honour.
All
three
inscriptions
are late,
TAM II 585
dating
to the 3rd century A.D., and 554 and 581
probably
to the 2nd century
A.D.
Plutarch's
account also raises
the question
of why the
Lyclans decided
to honour the three victims
of Kronos if
in fact
they were Solymian.
Robert
suggests
that
the
archegetes
killed
by Kronos were those of the Lycians,
and
that the deed took place during the course of some combat
between Solymians
and Lycians
(1949, 53-54).
If this
is
so, it is difficult
to see why the Lycians
should
then
establish
a cult in honour of Kronos.

Gods and Oracles

subsequently abandoned;

191

(b) the three inscriptions which indicate the

existence of his cult at Tlos in the Roman imperial period; (c) the
suggestion that the tradition which Plutarch records may reflect, in a
very indirect way, the initial establishment of the cult of Kronos, or the
deity with whom he came to be identified, in Lycia.
The cult of the Lord of Kaunos and Arkazuma
Prior to the discovery of the trilingual, the epichoric inscriptions
of Lycia had provided us with very little useful information about Lycian
cult practices. In view of this fact alone the importance of the trilingual
inscription, which gives detailed instructions for the establishment of a
new cult at Xanthos, can scarcely be overestimated.

The cult is to be.

set up in honour of two deities, designated as the Lord of Kaunos and

Arkazuma, and the inscription provides for the appointment of a priest
to the cult, regulations for the cult's maintenance, and threats of divine
retribution

for violation of

these

regulations.

This information is

provided at length in the Lycian and Greek versions of the text, while
the Aramaic version is expressed in a terser, more concise form and is to
be understood as the official sanction for the cult given by the Carian
satrap Pixodaros.

For the Lycian text, along with a translation, see

above, pp. 91-93.

We note that responsibility for the establishment and maintenance
of the cult rests with the local population of the district of Xanthos.
The various provisions made for the cult include the appointment of a
priest, (E)seimiya (Greek Simias) (lines

9-10), whose chief responsibility

was probably to make sacrifice to the deities on behalf of the whole

community.

It would appear from the Greek version of the inscription

that the office was to be an hereditary one, to be held in perpetuity by

members of Simias' family line.

Whether or not the position was a

salaried one is unclear. But at all events its incumbent was apparently
entitled to exemption from property dues (line

12).

In connection with the cult, a certain area of land was to be set

aside - land worked by Khesntedi and Pigrei (line

15), and probably

situated somewhere in the low-lying plain outside the city of Xanthos.

Its purpose seems to have been essentially to provide revenue from its
produce to meet expenses connected with the cult.

Another source of

192

The

Lycians

revenue was a yearly tribute equivalent to 1 1/2 Greek minas from the
city of Xanthos along with a small payment to be made by newlv
enfranchised citizens, probably one shekel or two Greek drachmas apiece
(lines

18-22).

The revenue coming from these payments must have

been an almost insignificantly small amount - perhaps little more than a

token

gesture

to

formalise

the

responsibility

Xanthians in connection with the cult.

undertaken

by

the

In all probability the cult

involved no great monetary outlay, the major item of expense perhaps

being

the

recurring

sacrifices

referred

to in lines 25-30.

These

sacrificial rites, involving monthly and yearly animal sacrifices, may

have been similar to the rites which seem occasionally to have been
carried out in honour of the dead, as I have discussed above (pp. 126-27).
Lines 30-34 refer to the oaths taken by the Xanthians to uphold the
regulations inscribed on the stele.

Then follows a statement which

prohibits any alteration or erasure of the regulations appearing thereon.

This type of prohibition reflects a long-standing Anatolian practice of
investing formal documents with a sacrosanct character.

For instance,

the Hittite treaties which were drawn up by various Hittite kings with
their vassal rulers were ratified by the gods of the Hittite homeland as
well as by those of the vassal state. Consequently violation of the terms
of the treaty rendered the violator liable to punishment by the deities
who had been invoked. In the case of the trilingual, any person found
guilty of erasing/altering any of the regulations on the stele would be
liable to the wrath both of the deities to whom the cult was dedicated as
well as to Leto, her children, and the nymphs. We have already noted
that

Leto,

or

her

Lycian

counterpart,

figures

in the

sepulchral

inscriptions as a punitive agent called upon to protect a tomb against

violation of the owner's instructions.

Here again she appears in a

disciplinary role, but this time in association with her children.

The information contained in the trilingual makes it incontestably
the most important inscription, apart from the Xanthos stele inscription,
41
so far discovered from the epichoric period of Lycian history.

41.

See also Asheri's

discussion
by the trilingual
on the
Xanthos, 1983,
107-23.

of the Information
provided
society
and institutions
of

Gods and

193

Oracles

Without doubt it sheds valuable light on cult practice in Lycla during this
period, especially with regard to practical matters involved in the
administration of a cult in honour of a particular deity or deities.
Admittedly the cult of the Lord of Kaunos and Arkazuma may have been
part of the

'new deal' imposed on Lycia in the wake of the satrap

rebellion, and it is possible that it contained certain features which were

without precedent in Lycian religious practice.

Yet it is unlikely that

the cult marked too radical a departure from the standard practices of
Lycian religion. And indeed from the Persian point of view it would have
been

politically

desirable

to

avoid

especially in the area of religion.

offending

Lycian

sensitivities,

We are probably safe in assuming,

then, that the arrangements and regulations contained in the trilingual

reflect

religious practice in general in Lycia, at least up to the

Hellenistic period, and that similar provisions already operated with

existing Lycian cults in honour of the various Lycian deities. If this is a
valid assumption, then the trilingual is clearly a most important source
of information on Lycian religion during the period of the epichoric
language.
The Lycian

oracles

In our brief examination of Lycian religion, we have noted the

various local deities of the country and their Bronze Age pedigrees, the
local cults associated with them, their role as protectors of tombs, and
various practical matters associated with their cult. Our Greco-Roman
literary sources provide information about another aspect of Lycian
religious practice which seems to have been widespread in the country,
and for which the country was quite famous; yet as far as we can at
present determine, the epichoric inscriptions contain no evidence of this
practice - namely, the practice of divination.

To what extent was

divination an indigenous feature of the Lycian civilisation, and to what

extent did it develop under Greek influence?
The earliest attested reference to the practice in Lycia occurs in
Herodotos (1. 182), who refers to the temple at Patara where a priestess
'of the god' (unnamed) enclosed herself during the night in order to

194

The

Lyclans

gain prophetic inspiration.

The c o m m o n assumption is that the god in

question was Apollo, for Patara c a m e to be regarded as one of the most

important oracular seats of the god, rivalling that of Delphi (see
Pomponius Mela. 1. IS.

82).

Yet all the sources which provide this information are late, and I
have suggested above that an actual cult of Apollo m a y not have been
established in Lycia before the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th
43
century B.C.
W e should recall that in Herodotos* reference to the
oracle at Patara no mention is m a d e of Apollo. In just the same w a y as
Leto seems to have absorbed or taken over the cult of an indigenous
mother goddess in Lycia in the 4th century, Apollo m a y likewise have
taken over the oracular seat at Patara from an indigenous deity during
the 4th century, and this m a y have been the starting point of the
44
traditions associating Apollo with the site.

42. Farnell
observes
a certain
resemblance
between
this
practice
and the prophetic
ritual
at Argos (1907, 122 and
229).
43. There may well have been a literary
assumption
of a link
between Apollo
and Lycia before
this,
to judge from the
Implicit
association
between Apollo,
Artemis,
and Lycia in
Sophocles,
Oed.
203-08,
and
Apollo
and
Lycia
in
Bacchylides,
12.
147-48,
referring
to
Apollo
Loxias
as Auxtwv avcxf;. But the assumed link was almost
certainly
based on the spurious etymology
which gives the name Lycia
a
Greek
derivation,
cognate
with
the
epithet
Oed.
commonly applied
to Apollo - AUHELOS as in Sophocles,
203 - and has little
weight as evidence
for the
existence
of a cult of Apollo in the country prior to the end of the
5 th century
B.C.
It
is
of course
possible
that
the
eventual
establishment
of the Apolline
cult
in Lycia was
facilitated
by the false
etymology
which may well
have
paved the way for the absorption
of an indigenous
deity
by
a Greek newcomer.
He might perhaps note here the
reference
in the play Rhesus to a temple of Apollo in Lycia
(line
224).
However although
the play is commonly assigned
to
Euripides,
its authorship
and date are much in doubt;
it
may in fact have been written
In the 4th century - and for
this reason cannot be used in support
of an earlier
date
for the establishment
of a cult of Apollo in Lycia.
44. Bean, however, would argue for a much earlier
association,
claiming
that it was Apollo's
oracle at Patara that
advised
the Trojan hero Telephos,
wounded by Achilles,
that
the
wound could only be healed
by the wounder - which was
eventually
accomplished
by rust from Achilles'
spear.
The

Gods and Oracles

Up to this time the Pataran oracle may have been purely a loca]

1e

of no great prominence. It is worth noting that no mention of it is r Lde

by Herodotos amongst the oracles consulted by Kroisos, a signiff

nt

omission given that Kroisos seems to have sent to all the most important
oracular seats in Greece, Asia Minor, and Libya for responses to his
question concerning Persia (see Herodotos

1.

46).

However, from the 4th century onwards, the Pataran oracle gained
in importance, an Importance which seems to have peaked in the 1st
century B.C. when it clearly enjoyed a status equivalent to that of
Delphi and Delos. This is made clear by the Augustan writers. Horace
(carm.

3. 4.

61-64),

for example, refers to Apollo as "he....who haunts

the thickets of Lycia and his native forest, Apollo of Delos and of
Patara." And Vergil makes several references to the Pataran oracle in
Book 4 of the Aeneid

(4.

143,

346,

377).

In the first of these

references, Vergil indicates that Apollo divides his time between Patara
and Delos, spending the winter months in Patara and the summer in
Delos - a reasonable division in view of the mildness of the Lycian
45
winters, as Servius notes (Verg. Aen. 4. 143),
and the severity of the
46
Lycian summers.
This enabled the god to maintain two chief places of
residence, and also accords to some extent with the earlier tradition
recorded by Herodotos that the oracular seat at Patara was not occupied
for the whole of the year.
The importance of the Pataran oracle is made clear in Aeneas'
claim that it was the Lyciae

sortes

that bade him seek out Italy, thus

attributing to the oracle an extremely significant role in the founding of

the Roman civilisation (Vergil,

Aen.

4.

345-46).

We might note,

grounds for
this
claim are several
associations
between
Telephos
and Apollo's
oracle
at Patara
recorded
in the
literary
sources,
discussed
by Bean (1978, 82-83).
I would
simply make the point
that none of these sources
can be
traced back before the 4th century B.C. (Menaechmus,
cited
by Steph.
Byz. on Telephos,
wrote in the mid-4th
century)
and cannot be used as evidence
of an association
between
Apollo and Patara prior to the 4th
century.
45. hlbernam Lyciam non asperam, sed aptam hiemare
cupientibus,
sic enim se habet natura regionls
(cf. Treuber, 1887, 85).
46. Regularly
90 F ( = c. 32.5 C), according
to Bean (1978,
19).

196

The Lye1 ans

incidentally, that if we can interpret sortes

literally, then the use of the

word here suggests that the oracular utterances were given on tablets.
In the 1st century A.D., however, the oracle apparently declined in
importance, to Judge from a statement by Pomponius Mela (chor.
15.

82) who refers to the oracle as having formerly

i4

rivalled Delphi,

although it is still listed by Statius in the Thebaid (8.200) among Apollo's

cult places which include Tenedos, Chrysa, Delos, Claros, Miletos, and
Dldyma. If such a decline did occur, there may have been a revival in
the 2nd century A.D., according to Bean who refers to an inscription
recording Opramoas' benefactions under Antoninus Pius. These included
a gift of 20,000 denarii to the Pataran oracle of Apollo, which had begun
47

to give prophecy again after a long period of silence.

By the 4th century A.D. the oracle ,had apparently become defunct,
if such can be inferred from Servius' commentary on the Aeneid (4. 377)
where Servius speaks of the oracle in the past tense (lines

34-36 of his

commentary). Bean explains this by noting that Servius was writing soon
after the famous edict of Theodosius in 385 A.D. which put an end to all
oracles (Bean, 1978, 84; cf. Bean, 1979, 238).
The high prominence of the oracle in Roman times was probably
due in no small measure to Patara's prominence in general in this period
when it had assumed the status of one of Lycia's largest and most
important cities, an importance due to its harbour facilities and its
commercially and militarily strategic position on the south coast of Asia
Minor.

The location of the oracle in one of Lycia's chief cities, and

above all its accessibility to travellers and merchants from all parts of
the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world were in themselves factors
which must have promoted the oracle's importance and ensured its status
as a leading oracular centre.
To the east of the Xanthos valley oracular seats of Apollo are
attested at Sura, Myra, and Kyaneae. In these "provincial" centres, the

47. Bean, 1978, 84, quoting from TAH II 90S XVII E 10-13.
Note
also the reference
to the oracle in Lucian, bis accus.
1.
Treuber
suggests
that
from
the mid-2nd
century
A.D.
onwards, it was, like many other oracles,
galvanised
as a
weapon against Christianity
(1887,
83-84).

Gods and Oracles

197

most common form of divination was the interpretation of the behaviour

of fish. According to Plutarch (sol.

an.

976C), the procedure was very

similar to augury. The diviners would observe the movements of fish,

their twists and turns, their movements towards or away from each
other, and interpret these movements in accordance with fixed rules, or
commonsense.
Aelian (nat.

A different explanation, however, is offered by Aelian.

an.

12.

1) claims that a sacrifice of calves is made to the

god and the flesh is then thrown to the fish in the bay of Myra where the
oracle of the god is situated.

If the fish eat the flesh the omens are

good, but if they discard it and cast it upon the shore with their tails,
this signifies.that the god is angry.
A similar procedure is reported by Pliny (nat.

31.

18.

22) at

Limyra where the river often crosses into neighbouring districts, in itself
48
indicative of some portent,
and also at Myra where the fish in the
spring of Apollo called Curius are summoned three times by a pipe
(Pliny,

nat.

32.

8.

17). Polycharmus, however, states that the priest

of Apollo practised divination by observing not the behaviour but the

species of fish that appeared.

In his account (ap.

Athenaeus,

delp.

8. 333D-E), the enquirer approached the pool holding two wooden spits,
on each of which was ten pieces of roast meat. The meat was thrown
into the pool, which then filled with sea water, and a great number of
fish came forth, some of very large size.

The priest identified the

species of fish, and used this as the basis for his response to the
enquirer. Artemidoros' reference to the oracle (ap.

Athenaeus,

delp.

8. 333F) seems to be on similar lines, though Artemidoros states that

the spring of water which appears is fresh, and that the offerings are
thrown into the pool after the fish have appeared, and include cakes or
bread as well as flesh.
Tangible remains of the oracular seat at Sura are still to be seen.
Most notable is the small temple near the marshy inlet which was once
the harbour at Sura. Bean refers to a number of inscriptions carved on
the

interior walls of the temple

recording devotions paid by the

48.

An oracle
at Limyra is also
attested
by coins
of
the
Roman imperial period which bear the legend
A^pupeGv XPnoy6s
(von Aulock, 1974, nos.
109-13J.

198

The

Lycians

suppliants, although the offerings are not to Apollo but to the god Sozon
(Bean, 1978, 131), apparently a local Anatolian deity in origin whose cult
is attested in Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic period in various parts
of south-west

Asia Minor (see Weinreich, 1927).

In some of these

inscriptions, Sozon's name is simply attached as an epithet to that of

Apollo (or in some cases Zeus), which seems to indicate that his cult may
have been largely superseded or absorbed by the cult of the Greek god.
And perhaps at Sura, where his name survives without any reference to
Apollo, he may have been thought of essentially as a regional version of
the Greek god in the cult centre there.
The references to the spring or whirlpool in which the fish
appeared at Sura seem to be borne out by the natural phenomena still
evident on the site.

Bean comments as follows:

"Just in front of the

temple a number of springs well up in the stream - that is, the sea in
antiquity - giving a swirling effect to the surface of the water; this
agrees exactly with the local inhabitants' account of the 'whirlpool1, and
explains

the

curious

expression

'a well

of

sea-water'.

Even the

mysterious filling of the pool could be managed easily enough by the

priest by means of some apparatus to control the fountain of Apollo."
(1978, 132).
A different method of divination was attested for the oracular
shrine of Apollo Thyrxeus at Kyaneae.

Here the procedure was for the

enquirer to gaze into the sacred pool, to see there "everything he wants
to behold", as recorded by Pausanias (7. 21.

13).

It may be that several of the oracular seats associated with Apollo

in Lycia were established initially under Greek influence and date back
no earlier than the 4th century B.C.

However we certainly cannot

discount the possibility that the practice of divination in Lycia arose

first within a native Anatolian context.

Divination and omen-taking

figure prominently in our Hittite religious texts, and some elements of

these practices may well have filtered down into the 1st millennium
civilisations of Anatolia. In Lycia, the Pataran oracle in particular may
have been an indigenous foundation in origin, which only later came to be
associated with a Hellenic deity.

We have noted above Herodotos'

statement that the priestess of the god enclosed herself within the
temple at night in order to gain prophetic inspiration.

If this can be

Gods and Oracles

199

taken to mean that oracular wisdom came to the priestess while she
slept, in the form of dreams, it reminds us quite closely of Hittite
religious experience in which dreams were a fundamental means of
communication between deities and human beings (see Archi, 1971, 190).
But whether in this respect there was a connection, direct or indirect,
between Lycian and Hittite religious practice is something which at
present we are unable to claim with any degree of confidence.
The apparent absence of references to oracles or to divination in
our epichoric sources may seem somewhat at odds with the notion that
divination was a longstanding element of Lycian religious practice. But
we should remember that the surviving epichoric inscriptions are for the
most part not of the kind likely to contain references to oracular
practices; or alternatively there may be references to such practices in
passages which have so far defied translation - notably in the Xanthos
stele inscription.
But even if the oracular practices attested in the Greco-Roman
sources did arise from native origins, they had doubtless undergone
substantial modification along Hellenic lines by the time they received
literary mention. It may be that the Pataran oracle, probably one of the
earliest oracular foundations in the country, inspired the development of
other oracular seats during the process of Hellenisation of Lycia. The
situation then may have been that of a country with a longstanding if
limited oracular tradition upon which were grafted Greek oracular
procedures leading to the development and branching out of oracular
seats on essentially Hellenic lines.
In addition to the oracular seats referred to above, divination is
frequently

mentioned

Telmessos.

But there was a Carian Telmessos (near Halikarnassos) as

in

the

literary

sources

in

association

with

well as the Telmessos which was eventually incorporated into Lycian

territory, and both seem to have had oracular seats of the god Apollo.
Unfortunately the literary sources seldom make it clear which city is
being

referred

to

when

Telmessian

oracular

practices

are

being

described, or when advice is sought from Telmessian seers. Very likely

the Greco-Roman writers were themselves often unclear as to which of
the two cities specific oracular responses, or responses arising from
divination, ought to be attributed, or else were unaware that divination

200

The

Lyeians

was practised in two cities with identical names.

In all probability divination proceeded along similar lines in both
places, which may well have had close links with each other. I have
referred in chapter 2 to the possibility that the Termilae, one of the
basic elements of the Lycian population, had originally settled in Caria,
as indicated by the Carian place names Telmessos, Terme ros etc.,
whence they subsequently drifted eastwards into Lycia.

It is quite

conceivable that Lycian Telmessos was founded by a group of settlers

from Carian Telmessos who retained a number of their original traditions
and customs along with the name of their earlier settlement. This may
well account for the establishment of the practice of divination in
Lycian Telmessos and explain how it came about that the practice was
associated with two places of the same name.
If this explanation is valid, then the practices and procedures of
divination as attested in the literary sources may, in some instances at
least, be applicable to both places, even thQugh we are often unable to
make specific attributions in the cases that are recorded.

Divination

was in the hands of a priestly caste, the prophetic gift being regarded as
an inherited one, and possessed by women and children as well as by
men.

As Arrian reports (anab.

2.

3.

3), the particular skill of the

Telmessian priests lay in the interpretation of prodigies, as illustrated by

Arrian's account of the Phrygian Gordius1 journey to Telmessos to seek
from the seers an interpretation of the omen of an eagle settling on the
yoke of his oxen as he ploughed (anab.

2. 3 . 3-4). It was this journey

which, incidentally, led to the origin of the Gordion knot.

The story suggests a tradition of considerable antiquity for the
oracular practices associated with the name Telmessos, and they were
certainly widely known by the 6th century B.C. when the Telmessian
seers were consulted by two of the Lydian monarchs, as recorded by
Herodotos (1.84).

The first of these was Meles, predecessor of Kroisos,

who was advised on consulting the seers of Telmessos to have the lion
(which allegedly was born to him by his concubine) carried around the
walls of Sardis to ensure that the city would be invulnerable to enemy
attack.

Meles followed the seers' advice, except for one part of the

citadel which was so precipitous that it was regarded as impossible to

mount a successful attack on it.

This proved to be the weak point

Gods and Oracles

201

in the city's defences, which were breached by the enemy forces, and
Sardis was captured and sacked.
Herodotos

(1.78)

also

reports

that

Kroisos

consulted

the

Telmessian seers, seeking an explanation for the fact that prior to Cyrus'
advance on Sardis snakes swarmed in the outer part of the city and were
devoured by the horses in preference to their pasturage.

The seers

interpreted this omen as a warning to Kroisos that he must expect a

foreign army to attack his country and subdue its inhabitants, for the
snake was the child of the earth and the horse was a foe and a foreigner.
Herodotos

further reports that before

Kroisos' messengers reached

Sardis on the -return sea voyage with the explanation provided by the
Telmessian seers, Kroisos had been taken prisoner. The reference to a
sea voyage in this context suggests that the Telmessos in question in this
instance was the Lycian Telmessos which lay on the coast rather than
49
the Carian Telmessos which lay inland in the mountains.
The
Hellenistic

reputation

of

the

Telmessian

and Roman times.

seers

For example,

persisted

through

Alexander the

Great

consulted a Telmessian seer Aristander while he was laying siege to

Halikarnassos

and

subsequently

took

expedition to the Indus river (Arrian,

4.

3).

Aristander
anab.

And in Roman times Cicero (divin.

Telmessians as in
Elder Pliny (nat.

ostentis

animadvertendis

1,

1.

him on his

8, 4.

94)

3.

7, 4.

refers to the

diligentes,

30. 2. 6) describes the city as urbs

While in Hellenistic

with

25.

and the

religisissima.

and Roman times the Telmessian oracle,

whether Lycian or Carian, seems never to have achieved the prominence

of the Pataran oracle, it may well in earlier times have influenced the
procedures and practices associated with the latter, especially if, as

49.

50.

51.

Cf. Ruge, 1934, 414, who also points

out that the
greater
distance
between
Sardis
and Lycian
Telmessos
fits
in
better
with this episode
(than would the shorter
distance
between Sardis and Carian
Telmessos).
Bean prefers
to assign Aristander
to Carian Telmessos
on
the grounds of the proximity
of the latter
(c. 12 fans.) to
Halikarnassos
which Alexander was besieging
at the time of
the prodigy
which he experienced
and which led him to
consult Aristander
(1978, 40J.
See also Cicero,
div.
1. 25 and 1. 41 where reference
is
made to the Lyeil
augures.

202

The

Lijciaiis

seems likely, its oracular traditions were older than those of Patara.
The Telmessian seers were concerned essentially with the interpretation
of omens and dreams experienced by their consultants, and it may well
be that the priestess or the seers at Patara performed much the same
function.

If this is so, then the oracular traditions of Patara and

Telmessos might justly be regarded as an integral, longstanding element

of the indigenous civilisation of south-west Asia Minor rather than an
intrusive foreign element introduced into an area that had no oracular
traditions of its own. Even if the oracular procedures of Lycia did for
the most part have a distinctly Greco- Roman character, this need not
indicate that they were Greek or Roman in origin. They may well have
been

indigenous

foundations

whose

procedures

were

transformed,

originally under Greek influence, to bring them in line with practices

associated with oracular seats elsewhere in the Greek world.

7. LYCIA - THE GRECO-ROMAN VIEW

In spite of the variety of our literary and epigraphic sources of
information on ancient Lycia, there are still many gaps in our knowledge
of the Lycian people.

While we can draw a number of broad, often

tentative conclusions about their political structures, their family units,

their religious practices, their material achievements, their ethnic
origins, and their cultural affinities, the information we have is very
selective and very incomplete - and would continue to be so even if their
language

was

more

intelligible

to

us.

The

surviving

epigraphic

material was intended to serve very limited purposes, and is far from
comprehensive in the light it throws on Lycian society and lifestyles at
large.

And the

susceptibility of the Lycian civilisation to

foreign

influences, especially towards the end of the epichoric period, further

obscures many of the distinctive social and cultural traits which we may
suppose were inherent in the civilisation. This is particularly so from the
beginning of the 4th century B.C. when the progress of Hellenisatlon in
the

country

disappearance

caused

the

of many of the country's indigenous elements.

increasingly

absorbed

and

ultimately

The

epichoric language gradually gave way to Greek during the 4th century,
and by the end of the century had probably ceased to be either written or
spoken, at least in the major urban centres and especially when they
were situated on the coast.
Up to the time of Harpagos' campaign in the second half of the 6th
century, Lycia had been largely isolated from outside influences, with
the likely exception of some contacts and conflicts with Rhodes, its
nearest

significant

mountainous

1.

terrain

offshore
of

the

neighbour.
country

On the
afforded

landward
very

few

side

the

means of

Cf.
Zahle's
comment:
'Our
knowledge
of
the
Lycian
culture. . . .and In fact of all extinct
societies,
is based
on the preserved
archaeological
and textual
evidence,
which
only to a small degree reflects
the thinking and behaviour
in a given
society.
A further
drawback for
a
proper
understanding
is the fact that the evidence
we do have may
be totally
random or at least
^e?ry biased.
The
preserved
evidence
is often
likely
to make us consider
certain
aspects
of the past to be much more important
than they
appeared to the ancients.'
(1980,
39).

204

The

Lyeians

communication with the interior of Asia Minor. Even with neighbouring

countries - Caria to the north west, Pisidia to the north, and Pamphylla
2
to the north east - landward communications were very limited.
And
on the seaward side the Lycian harbours seem not to have attracted any
significant sea traffic before the period of the Persian domination. As
far as our evidence permits us to judge, it was only in the 5th century,
when the major powers of both east and west began seeking to gain
control of

the waterways of the

eastern Mediterranean, that the

strategic potential of Lycia, in particular the Lycian coast, began to

come into focus.
The growth of foreign interest in Lycia was, I believe, closely
associated with the increasing use that was made of the harbours with
which, as Strabo comments (14.3.2),
Harbour towns

like Telmessos,

the country was well supplied.

Patara, and Antiphellos provided a

number of points of contact along the south-west coast of Asia Minor

between the Lycian communities and the sea-going peoples of the other
Mediterranean lands. The increasing strategic importance of the harbour
towns promoted Lycia's natural seaward orientation and led it to adopt a
culturally mixed, cosmopolitan character much more readily than many
of the countries of Asia Minor which were not accessible by sea.
We have also noted that the Lyclans themselves had a significant
sea-going capacity at least as early as the first decades of the 5th
century when they supplied Xerxes with 50 triremes for his invasion of
Greece. In all likelihood this fleet was provided by the Persian-backed
dynasty at Xanthos and was based at Patara at the mouth of the Xanthos
river.

But it seems that it was only under Greek (and later, Roman)

influence that the potential of the Lycian harbours began to be fully

realised and exploited. Childs has demonstrated, for example, the likely
strategic importance which both Athens and Sparta attached to the
south-west corner of Asia Minor in the last decade of the Peloponnesian
War (1981, 68). And early in the war the importance of gaining control
of the area was reflected in the ill-fated Athenian expedition to Lycia

2.

Cf. Treuher,
1887, 10-11, and note Pliny's
comments on
Taurus range with regard to Lycia (nat. 5. 27. 97).

the

Lycia

- The Greco-Roman View

205

and Caria under the command of Melesander (Thucydides

2. 69). The

Athenian commander was sent to the area partly to collect tribute from
the Carians and Lycians, but also to secure the harbours against possible
use by the Peloponnesians for attacking merchant ships sailing from
ports further east.
From the early 4th century onwards, several of the Lycian harbour
towns grew rapidly in size, importance, and prosperity, in some cases
completely eclipsing the inland cities of which they had originally been
the ports.

Notable amongst these was the city of Antiphellos which

became one of the chief cities of Roman Lycia, far outstripping in

importance its mother city Phellos. Another of the great harbour towns
was Patara. Originally simply a port for Xanthos (Appian,
4.

10.

bell.

civ.

81)} Patara may have become at the time of Rome's war with

Antiochos III in the early 2nd century B.C. Lycia's chief city. This at
4
least is the impression given by Livy (37. 15. 6), although elsewhere
(27.17.10)

Livy indicates that its harbour was not large enough to hold

the combined Roman and Lycian fleets.

On the question of strategically important harbour towns, mention
might also be made of the city of Phaselis which, as we have earlier
noted (chapter 2, n. 47), was a Rhodian colony in origin founded in 690
B.C. For much of its existence Phaselis was not reckoned part of Lycia.
In fact it is mentioned only once in connection with Lycia during the
epichoric period, namely when the Lycian Perikle blockaded its harbours
in order to regain custody of Charimenes of Miletos who had sought
refuge there from Lycian authority (Polyaenus,
was

clearly distinguished

from

Lycia

campaigns in the winter of 334/33 B.C.

3.

4.
5.

s trat.

at the time

5.42).
of

And it

Alexander's

For the next 166 years, Lycia

Thucydides
2.69.
Note too that according
to Arrian
the
prime
object
of
Alexander's
campaigns
in
Lycia
and
Pamphylia was to secure the southern coastline
against
use
by the ships
of
the enemy (1.
24.
4).
This
again
highlights
the strategic
importance of the harbour-towns
in
this
region.
Where Patara is referred
to as 'caput
gentis'.
This is Implied
by Arrian
(1. 24. 5J who is careful
to
distinguish
two separate
groups of envoys from Lycia and
Phaselis
who were bidden by Alexander
to hand over
their
cities
to him.

206

The

Lyeians

was subject in turn to Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Rhodian control, until in

167 B.C. Rome granted it independence from Rhodes. While Phaselis
may have been incorporated into Lycia and was perhaps a member of the
Lycian League at this time, its attachment to Lycia was a sporadic and
tenuous one.
For a short time in the first century B.C., Phaselis, along with
Olympos, another eastern Lycian city, fell into the hands of the Cillcian
pirate Zeniketes. It became a pirate stronghold in the region until in 78
B.C. the Roman general P. Servillus Isauricus regained control of the
area

for

the

Romans.

After

Pompey's

final

suppression of

the

pirates, Phaselis was no doubt politically attached once more to Lycia,

though at the time when Strabo wrote (late 1st century B.C. - early 1st
century A.D.) it was clearly not a member of the Lycian League (see
Strabo

14.3.9)*

even if, as Bean claims, it was under the Roman

Empire 'in every way a wholly Lycian city' (1979b, 156).

At all events Phaselis was typical of the harbour towns on Asia
Minor's south-west coast, whose importance and prosperity derived from
their strategically significant location - a consideration which in the
case

of

Phaselis, with its three harbours, outweighed the natural

disadvantages of the area - notably, as Livy reports (37.23.2), an

unhealthy summer climate and disease-bearing marshes.

Thucydides

(2.69) refers to it as a merchant base in the 5th century B.C., and Livy
(37.23.1)

comments on its military value because of its position on a

projecting headland which provided an excellent vantage point for

sighting a fleet approaching from afar; for this reason it was chosen by
the Rhodians as a base against Antiochus and Hannibal in 190 B.C.
Cicero (Verr.

4.10.21)

also refers to the strategic Importance of

Phaselis' location which attracted the Cilician pirates because of its

value as a way-station on their outward and return journeys, and led
them to establish a trade alliance with the city.
But in addition to their strategic significance in times of military
confrontation, the sheltered harbours of Lycia provided a number of

6.

Cicero,
l^err. 4.
Eutroplus 6. 3.

10.

21,

Strabo

14.

S. 7, Floras

1. 41.

S,

Lycia
convenient

ports

of

- The Greco-Roman View

call

for

commercial

207

shipping in the

eastern

Mediterranean, particularly Greek shipping in a world of expanding

Greek

commercial

Mediterranean.

enterprise

along

the

coastlines

of

the

eastern

And no doubt Greek commercial contacts with Lycia

greatly facilitated the spread of Greek culture in the country and the
reception

into

Greeks.

Lycian

society

of

increasing

numbers

of

resident

Greco-Roman Literary Interest in Lycia^,

In view of the range of political and cultural influences to which
Lycia became increasingly subject from the 5th century B.C. onwards,
we might ask to what extent the indigenous civilisation retained a
distinctiveness and integrity of its own under the impact of these
influences.

The question is an important one, for very few of our

literary sources of information about the country can be traced back

before the epichoric period, when Persian and Greek influences had
already begun making their mark.

How far can we identify from these

sources what can be regarded as indigenous features of Lycian society

and civilisation?

And to what extent can we assume that such features

when mentioned in a specific context or related to a specific Lycian

community are typical of the Lycian people as a whole?
We must always reckon with the fact that our literary information
about Lycia is based on the observations or second-hand information of
foreigners.

This in itself presupposes an element of bias, whether

intentional

or

7.

not,

and

the

likelihood

of

some

distortion

and

Note this within

the more general context
of the
eastward
spread of Greek cultural
Influences
referred
to by
Starr:
'The stabilisation
of political
rule and the growth of
economic activity
must indeed have provided
avenues for the
transmission
of
powerful
influences
from
the
dynamic
civilisation
of Greece;
by the 4th century
B.C.
this
culture
was exerting
a fascination
on parts
of
Phoenicia
and even in conservative
Egypt.
In Asia Minor
Hellenism
had spread
tentatively
inland
into
Phrygia
and
Pisidia
before
Alexander;
thereafter
its
hold deepened
In
these
areas...'
(1977,
105-06).

208

The

misunderstanding.

Lycians

Lycia did produce several writers of its own, but

nothing of their work has survived, and we know of them only through
references

in the

Greek

and

Roman

sources.

There

are

several

references, for example, to a poet Olen, little more than a mythical

figure to whom is attributed either a Lycian or a Hyperborean origin, and
o

who was noted as a prophet and a composer of hymns sung on Delos.

The

most

notable

writer

of

Lycian

attribution

was

undoubtedly

Menekrates of Xanthos, a 4th century B.C. author who wrote a history of

9
Lycia entitled Lykiaka.
At the time he wrote it, Lycia was already
strongly Hellenised, and it is not unlikely that Menekrates was either a
Greek immigrant to Lycia or a first generation Lycian of Greek origin.
His work was one of the sources used by Antoninus Liberalis in his
account of the goddess Le to's arrival in Lycia; and as far as we can judge
from this, the Lykiaka

may have contained a significant amount of

mythological material, and was almost certainly written from a Greek

rather than a Lycian standpoint.
How great was Greco-Roman interest in Lycia, and how intimate
was the Greco-Roman understanding of the Lycians, their origins, their
customs, and their civilisation in general?

As we have seen, Lycia was

associated with several legendary and mythological traditions which go

back at least to the beginnings of Greek literature. The most notable of
these is the Greek tradition of Lycian participation in the Trojan War, as
first recorded by Homer; the Lycians figure in this conflict under the
leadership of Sarpedon and Glaukos as the Trojans' most important allies,
and are noted for their aggressiveness and fighting qualities - a matter
of some significance, since unlike the Trojans they apparently had no

8.

9.

E.g. Kallimachos,
hym. 304-05, Herodotos 4. 35,
Pausanias
1. 18. 5, 2. 13. 3, 5. 7. 8-9,
8. 21. 3,
Alexander
Polyhistor
ap. Suldas s.v.
Anv.
Note Treuber's
comment
that In Olen 'sehen wir keine einzelne
Person, sondern
die
Hypos tas ierung
von Einwirkungen
und Entwickelungen
einer
Reihe von Generation,
welche in eine Zeit fielen,
wo das
homerische Epos im ganzen schon ausgebot war' (1887,
76-77).
Referred
to by Antonius
Liberalis,
met.
35 and
Steph.
A
Byz. s.v.
'ApT^yvncros *
detailed
discussion
of
Menekrates appears in Asheri, 1983,
125-66.

Lycia

- The Greco-Roman View

209

personal stake in the outcome of the conflict.

I have suggested that the tradition of Lycian participation in the
Trojan War originated from

Late Bronze Age conflicts in western

Anatolia in which Lukka people were involved, and that memories of

such conflicts were taken to Lycia by Lukka immigrants who settled the
country some time after the end of the Bronze Age. The tradition of
aggressive, warlike behaviour seems certainly to fit what we know of the
Lukka people from the Bronze Age texts, and there may have been some
carry-over

of

this into 1st millennium Lycia,

especially in early

conflicts between Lycians and Rhodians. It is to this period that Treuber

refers the. statement by Herakleides that the early Lycians engaged
constantly in acts of plunder, probably piracy (Muller, FHG

2.217.15),

and there is also the tradition, referred to in Chapter 2, that Pataros and
Xanthos, allegedly the founders of the Lycian towns which bore their
names, were originally pirates before settling in Lycia and establishing
their cities there (p. 35). This recalls the Late Bronze Age text that
refers

to

piratical

enterprises

by

Lukka

people

in

the

eastern

Mediterranean.
Greek literary interest in legendary and mythological traditions
associated with Lycia was almost certainly due to the Greek assumption
that the Lycians were, in part at least, of Greek or Cretan origin. This
is first illustrated by the elaborate genealogical account given by
Glaukos in the IIlad

in which Sarpedon and Glaukos are linked with

Greece through their grandfather Bellerophon, originally a Greek from

Argos.

And a further link between Lycia and pre-Classical Greece is

alleged in the tradition which makes the

Lycian king Iobates (or

Amphianax) father-in-law of the Argive king Proitos, thus providing part

of the rationale for the mission on which Proitos sent Bellerophon to
Lycia.

As we have noted, the Greco-Roman sources were in no doubt

that the name Lycia was Greek in origin, a name which allegedly
supplanted

the

original

explanations were

10. The letter

Akhenaton,

name

offered

Trmmisa.

Although quite

for the name change, the

from
the king
of Alasiya
translated
in Chapter 1, p. 5).

to

different

Greco-Roman

the

pharaoh

210

The

Lyeians

sources unequivocally associated it with Greek influence or a Greek

newcomer.
Other

traditions,

while

less

He Ueno centric

in

character,

still

attribute early elements in the Lycian civilisation to an Aegean origin.

Most notable is the tradition recorded first by Herodotos which relates
that Sarpedon came originally to Lycia with a band of refugees from
Crete. Furthermore the foundation legends of several Lycian cities also
contain associations, explicit or implicit, with Crete.

For example,

Xanthos, the eponymous founder of the city of Xanthos, is given a

Cretan or Egyptian origin by Hekataios of Miletos (ap. steph.
s.v.

Byz.

H a v S o s ) and there is a late reference in St. Augustine to a

Xanthos as the king of Crete and the abductor of Europa who became by
Zeus the

mother

Daedala,

attested

of

Minos,

as the

Rhadamanthys,

name

of

and Sarpedon.

a mountain

and

city

And
in the

Carian-Lycian borderland, was allegedly named after Daedalos, the

Cretan master-craftsman who died as the result of a tortoise bite at the
site

where

Polyhistor,

the

city

ap. Steph.

bearing
Byz.

his

s.v.

name

was

founded

(Alexander

Aauacc).

I have referred in Chapter 2 to the possibility that there were in

fact Cretan elements in the Lycian population during its formative
stages (pp. 29-30). And almost certainly there was contact in the Middle
Minoan

IH

period

Millawanda/Miletos,

between

Cretans

and

the

Lukka

which I have suggested lay close

people

via

and perhaps

adjacent to the Lukka communities in western Anatolia.

Similarly

Millawanda/Miletos may have been a chief point of contact between the

Lukka people and the Mycenaean world.
Yet even admitting the possibility, or indeed the probability, of
western influences upon the Lycian civilisation in its formative stages,

11. St. Augustine,

civ.
D. 18. 12.
Arnos is also named by
Steph. Byz. as eponymous founder of Xanthos (s.v.
"Apva
cf.
Eustathlus,
Dion. Per leg.
S. 129.
While Bean comments
that such foundation
legends
can be discounted
because of
the lateness
of the sources
(1978, 49), the v^ry
survival
of the name Arnos in late
times,
obviously
reflecting
the
epichorlc
name of
the
city,
is
a matter
of
some
significance.

Lycia. - The Greco-Roman View

211

we must still make the point that Greco-Roman tradition either largely
ignored, or was unaware of, the developments within Anatolia itself at
the end of the Bronze Age which almost certainly produced the core of
the Lycian civilisation. Hence the attempt to explain the name Lycia, in
reality

carry-over

from

the

Bronze

Age

Lukka

people,

in

Hellenocentric terms.
We cannot of course assume that the Hellenic view of Lycia was one
which the Lycians themselves shared.

There is certainly no indication

that the Lycians thought of themselves as Greek or even part Greek in

origin, or that the Lycian civilisation was significantly influenced by
Greece prior to the 5th century B.C. This is reflected in part by the
persistence of indigenous place names and personal names throughout the
period of the epichoric inscriptions. The Lycians invariably referred to
themselves as Trmmili, never as Lykioi, their personal names are with
few exceptions patently Anatolian, not Greek, and have in many cases
long Anatolian pedigrees, and their place names are predominantly
Anatolian, even in cases where their cities are better known by their
Greek names; for example, Xanthos is always called Arnna in the
epichoric inscriptions, Phellos Wehnta, and Limyra Zemuri. Limyra may
in fact be a Hellenised form of Zemuri, as Tlos is of Tlawa (which
12
derives from the Bronze Age place name Dalawa).
We note also from the Greek sources that the Xanthos river had an
13
alternative name - the Sirbis.
The name Xanthos, appropriate for
the tawny colour of the river, may well have been assigned to the river
under Greek literary influence.

This was the alternative 'divine' name

attributed to the Scamander river in the Troad (Homer, II.

20.74),

and the Lycians' close association with the Troad in the earliest literary
sources

may

well have

led,

directly

or indirectly,

to the

Greek

12. Note also Antiphellos

which was, according
to Pliny
(nat.
5. 28. 100), originally
called
Habesos.
Habesos may be a
name with an Anatolian
Bronze Age pedigree.
It brings
to
mind the Late Bronze Age place-name Apasa, the name of the
town or city
where the royal
residence
of the king of
Arzawa was located In the mid-14th century
B.C.
13. The variant
forms
Sibros
(Panyasis,
ap.
Steph.
Byz.
s.v.
TpeyLr) ; and Sirmis (Eustathlus
ad Horn. II.
12.
313J also
occur.

212

The

Lijcians

attribution of the name Xanthos to Lycia's chief river, the river along
whose banks, according to Homer, lay the kingdom of Sarpedon and
Glaukos

(e.g. Homer,

II.

12.313).

According to Strabo

(14.3.6),

the Sirbis was the original name of the river, [f in fact it was the Lycian
name, it very likely remained in use amongst the Lycians themselves although the origin of the name is quite uncertain, and it never occurs in
the eplchoric Inscriptions.
Our literary sources contribute very little to our knowledge of
Lycian society in general. The few references we have in Greco- Roman
literature to Lycian social traditions, customs, and characteristics are
for the most part merely incidental or anecodotal, and in at least some
cases misleading or distorted in the information they provide - as
illustrated by our discussion of Lycian , matrilineality in Chapter 5. We
have no surviving comprehensive literary account of Lycia and its
people, merely passing references to Lycian customs which are generally
used to illustrate a particular point an author is making, usually in an
altogether different context - as illustrated by the Lycian funerary
customs

alleged

pp. 127-29).

by

Plutarch

and

Valerius

Maximus

(see

above,

And since a number of our sources of information were

composed long after the eplchoric period, we have to be careful not to

assume too readily that what may have been true at the time of writing
was also true in the period with which we are primarily concerned.
Occasionally, however, we do come

across information in the

literature which almost certainly does reflect a custom or fashion

current in the epichoric period (as well, perhaps, as in later times). A
case in point is an anecodote recorded in the pseudo-Aristotle
2.2.14

(oecon.

= 1348a) which illustrates an apparent predilection the Lycians

had for wearing their hair long.

The anecodote relates that during

Mausolos' overlordship of Lycia in the 4th century B.C. the king's

14
hyparchos
Kondalos
proclaimed that Mausolos had ordered his
deputy to send him human hair to make forelocks for his horses.

To

avoid submitting to the indignity of being shorn of their long hair, the

14. The name Kondalos is perhaps to be equated

name Khntla-,
which appears in the genitive
in the inscription
on the Merehl sarcophagos

with the Lycian

case
(Khntlah)
(TL 43. 1).

Lycia

- The Greco-Roman View

213

Lycians were obliged to pay a fixed sum of money (per head!) so that the
hair could be obtained from Greece. The Lycians willingly complied with
this condition, and a large amount of tribute was collected from them.
A further, though less direct, reference to the Lycian fashion of wearing
the hair long occurs in the episode in which Charimenes of Miletos
attempted to escape through the land of Lycia during the time of the
Lycian Perikle.

In order to disguise himself, Charimenes wore a wig,

presumably so that he would be indistinguishable from the native Lycians

(Polyaenus,

s trat.

5.42).

And we might also note that the literary

evidence for the Lycian fashion of wearing the hair long receives
additional support from the portrayal of Lycians in the relief sculptures
of the country (see Borchhardt, 1975, 117).
In general the Lycians seem to have had a reputation as a decent,
well-ordered,

law-abiding people.

Pontikos (Mller, FUG 2.217.15),

This is indicated by Herakleides

who notes the emphasis which they

placed on integrity before the courts, as reflected in the severity of the

penalty for giving false evidence. The person so offending was sold into
slavery and his property was confiscated.

And we might note Nikolaos

Damaskenos' claim that slavery was also the penalty for theft (ap.
Stobaeus,
In

flor.
Roman

adxppovEs

an

4.2.25

= Jac.

90 F 103k).

times,

Strabo

(14.3.5)

described

the

Lycians

as

further comments that in spite of their excellent

harbours which might have encouraged them to engage in piracy, they

held aloof from the se a-plundering enterprises of the neighbouring cities
on the southern coast.
In this respect they were quite different from their near neighbours
the inhabitants of Phaselis, who are singled out for special treatment in
the literary sources.

For a long time the name Phaselis seems to

have been synonymous with treachery and unprincipled behaviour. The

Phaselitans were extremely active in mercantile ventures, as indicated
in Demosthenes' prosecution of a Phaselitan Lakritos (35.

1-2), and

15. Vie have noted earlier

that while Phaselis
was from time to
time politically
attached
to Lycia, its cultural
and ethnic
ties
with
the rest
of the country
were tenuous
in the
extreme.

214

The Lye1 ans

developed a reputation for mendacity, breach of faith in commercial

contracts, extreme litigiousness in the courts in actions covered by
commercial laws, commercial fraud, and sharp practices.

During the

late Roman Republic, Phaselis established an alliance with the Cilician

pirates, an alliance with led Cicero to use the term Phaselis
byword for plunder and extortion.

as a

With reference to Messina during

Verres' governorship of Sicily, Cicero (Verr.

4.10.23)

describes the

city as 'the Phaselis of this brigand and pirate of Sicily.' There is little
doubt

that

the

Phaselitans

had

Joined

willingly

in the

piratical

enterprises of the Cilicians, and compensated themselves for living

in

an insalubrious

natural

environment

(see

Livy

37.23.1-2)

by

exploiting to the full the strategic advantages of their situation and

capacious harbour facilities.

And as we have seen, their notorious

reputation goes back at least to the 4th century B.C. when it drew
scathing comment from Demosthenes.
The Lyclan city of Arykanda, which lay adjacent to the territory of
Limyra, seems to have had a reputation similar to that of Phaselis, if we
can so Judge from the one surviving literary source which refers to the
city. According to Agatharchides (cited by Athenaeus), the Arykandians
were noted for their prodigality and extravagance; and Agatharchides
(ap.

Athenaeus,

delp.

12.527F)

claims that in the 2nd century B.C.

they threw their support behind Mithridates (probably the son of

Antiochos m who was attempting to wrest Lycia from Ptolemaic control)
in the hope that in return he would grant them absolution from all their
debts, (c. 197 B.C.).

It is unfortunate, though understandable, that increasing

Greek

awareness of and contact with Lycia occurred simultaneously with and

was no doubt largely responsible for the gradual disappearance of many
local traditions and customs, or their absorption by the burgeoning Greek
civilisation in the area. Thus much of our information from Greek and
Roman

sources

refers

to

civilisation

that

had

already

been

Lycia
substantially Hellenised.

- The Greco-Roman View

215

And even though Strabo (14.3.3)

claims that

because of their good government the Lycians remained free under the
Romans, retaining their ancestral customs (-a

&TPLCX

VEIJOUCTL),

these customs were probably for the most part Greek in origin. As we
have noted, in Roman times the Lycians were explicitly referred to as a
Greek people - Lyci1,

Graeci

homines (Cicero,

Verr.

4.10.21).

Already by the end of the 4th century B.C. Lycia had become in
many respects an extension of the Greek world, and by this time many
features of the Indigenous civilisation may already have disappeared,
along perhaps with the epichoric language.

Hence the majority of our

Greek and Roman writers knew only of a Hellenised Lycia, or a

Helleno-Romanised

Lycia, and apparently believed that the Lycian

people had never been any more than a refugee offshoot of the early
Greek or Aegean civilisations. Even the fact that the Lycians originally
had a distinctive language of their own seems to have aroused little or no
interest, to judge from the absence of any reference to it in our literary
sources.
Nevertheless we have seen that a few traces of what might have
been long-standing indigenous Lycian customs do appear in the literary
sources, if in a somewhat distorted form. And we should not too readily
assume that the indigenous civilisation throughout the country uniformly
gave way to the influences of

Greek and Roman civilisation.

The

progress of these western civilisations in Lycia was probably most

marked in the major urban centres and especially the important harbour
towns, which would have been far more susceptible to outside influences
than the smaller communities more remote from contact with the sea.
In these
persistence

communities
of

local

there
customs

may well have been a much greater

and

traditions.

Yet

by

their

very

remoteness they were less likely to come under the notice of Greek and
Roman writers, whose interest in Lycia was generally incidental, and
who knew little of the country beyond the major centres, most of which
had already absorbed much of the spirit and substance of the Classical
civilisations by the time they make their first appearance in the literary
sources.

REGISTERS OP LITERARY REFERENCES TO LYCIA

The registers which follow contain lists of references to Lycia in
Greek and Roman literary sources. These lists cover the Hellenistic and
Roman periods as well as the period to the end of the epichoric
inscriptions.
A list of the abbreviations used in the literary references appears on
pp. x-xi.
REGISTER I - AUTHORS
Aelian (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.)
nat. an. 8. 5, 12. 1: fish oracle, shrine of Apollo at Sura
11. 28: Phaselitans driven from city by wasps
16. 30: Lycian goat's fleece, used in rope making (citing Kallisthenes)
var. 1. 25. 11-12: Patara, emporium for Alexander
Agatharchides (2nd cent. B.C.)
See Athenaeus, deip. 12. 527F
Alkraan (7th cent. B.C.)
1. 100-01: ref. to the (Lycian?) Xanthos river
Alexander Polyhistor (1st cent. B.C.)
ap. Steph. Byz. , passim: towns, rivers, and mountains of Lycia
(see Jac. FGH 273F 48-67)
Antoninus Liberalis (2nd cent. A.D.)
met. 35: Leto's arrival in Lycia (citing Menekrates of Xanthos &
Nikander of Kolophon)
Apollodoros (pseudo-) (1st cent. A.D.?)
*bib. 2. 2. 1: legend of Proitos
2. 3. 1-2: legend of Bellerophon
3. 1. 2: Sarpedon's flight from Crete to Cilicia; appointed king of
Lycia
eplt.
3. 35: Sarpedon and Glaukos, allies of Troy
(*the Bibliotheca is probably a 1st cent. A.D. compilation)
Apollonius Mys (1st cent. B.C.)
see Athenaeus, deip. IS. 688E
Appian (2nd cent. A.D.)
bell. civ. 4. 7. 52, 4 . 8. 60-61, 4. 9. 65, 4. 10. 76-82:
Lycia's involvement in the civil war; subjugation by Brutus
5. 1. 7: Antony releases Lycia from taxes; urges rebuilding of
Xanthos
Mith. 12. 3. 20-21: subjugation of Lycia by Mithridates
12. 4. 24: Telmessos separate from Lycia, and Lycia allied with
Rhodes during Mithridatic war
12. 4. 27: Mithridates' siege of Patara
12. 9. 61: Sulla liberates Lycia from Mithridates
12. 9. 62: ref. to the liberation of Lycia from Rhodes

Register

217

Syr. 11. 6. 32: Lycian participation in the battle of SipylosH . 7. 44: Lycia assigned to Rhodes after battle of Magnesia
11. 9. 53: Antigonos becomes satrap of Phrygia, Lycia, and
Pamphylia after Alexander's death
Aristotle (4th cent. B.C.)
hist.
an. 5. 16 (= 548b): Lycian sponges
8. 28 (= 605b): shearing of goats in Lycia
oecon. 2. 2. 14 (=1348a) (pseudo-Arist.):
the Lycians' long hair
See Photius,
bib. 161

Mausolos' demand for

Arrian (2nd cent. A.D.)

anab. 1. 24. 3-6: Alexander's conquest of Lycia
1. 25. 7-10, 4. 3. 7, 4. 4. 3: Alexander consults Arlstander, seer
of Telmessos
1. 26. 1: Alexander's route from Lycia to Pamphylia
2. 3. 3: Gordios consults seers of Telmessos
2. 20. 2: Lycian fleet supports Alexander against Dareios
3. 6. 6: Alexander appoints Nearchos satrap of Lycia and
neighbouring territories
4. 3. 7: Alexander employs a Lycian, Phamuches, as his interpreter
in Persia
Artemidoros (2nd-1st cent. B.C.)
See Athenaeus, deip. 8. 333F
See Strabo 14. 3. 3
Athenaeus (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.)
d e i p . 1. 13F: honours paid to Sarpedon at Lycian banquets
5. 185B-C: hospitality accorded t o Bellerophon by Lycian king (cf.
Iliad 6. 174)
7. 297E-98A: Phaselis founded by Lakios (citing Heropythos and
Philostephanos)
8. 333D-F: fish oracle at Sura (citing Polycharmos and Artemidoros).
8. 347 A-B: Lycians participate in cooking fish of prodigious size
(citing Ephippos)
8. 350A: Phaselis reckoned as part of Pamphylia; villainous character
of population (citing Stratonikos)
12. 527F: prodigality of inhabitants of Arykanda (citing
Agatharchides)
14. 657E: fine quality of Lycian hams (citing Strabo)
15. 688E: attar of roses produced in Phaselis (citing Apollonius Mys)
Augustine (4th - 5th cent. A.D.)
civ. D. 18. 12: Xanthos, king of Crete, abductor of Europa
Bacchylides (5th cent. B.C.)
10. 64-70: conflict between Proitos and Akrisios
10. 77-81: walls of Tiryns built by the Cyclopes
12. 147-48: Apollo Loxias, designated as Auxuwv ava

218

The

Lyclans

Celsus (1st cent. A.D.)

5. 26. 30, 6. 7. 2, 8. 6. 2: use of I y c i urn (boxthorn juice) for
medicinal purposes
Cicero
Att. 6. 5: Lycians in army of Cicero during his governorship of
Cilicia
fam. 12. 4. 1, 12. IS. 2 & 5: Dolabella's fleet near the Lycian
coast
dlv. 1. 41: seers of Carian Telmessos, which is noted for its
haruspicy
leg. agr. 1. 5, 2. SO: Lycian territory converted into ager
publiais
Verr. 1. 38. 95: Verres'dealings with Lycia
4. 10. 21 & 23: Phaselis inhabited by Lycians, 'a Greek people';
Phaselis partnered with Cilician pirates, and noted for its rapacity
Clement (of Alexandria) (2nd - 3rd cent. A.D.)
protr.
41: statues of Zeus and Apollo at Patara
Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th cent. A.D.)
them. 1. 14: Phoenike, name of town and neighbouring river in Lycia
14. 37 : Myra, the 'myrrh-breathing' city, seat of Nikolaos
Curtius (Quintus C. Rufus) (1st cent. A.D.)
5. 4. 10-13: Alexander uses Lycian as quide in Persia
10.10. 2: Antigonos becomes satrap of Lycia and Pamphylia
Demosthenes (4th cent. B.C.)
35. 1-5: unsavoury character of the inhabitants of Phaselis.
Dio Cassius (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.)
47. 33. 1-2, 47. 34. 1-6, 47. 36. 3-4: Lycia's involvement in
the civil war; subjugation of Lycia by Brutus
55. 10. 9: death of Gaius Caesar at Limyra (3 A.D.)
60. 17. 3-4: Lycia becomes a Roman province
63. 26. 5: flood in Lycia during reign of Nero
65. 9. 2: Lycia on Vespasian's route from Palestine to Italy
68. 17. 3: Lycia on Trajan's route to Antioch
Dio Cocceianus (Chrysostomus) (lst-2nd cent. A.D.)
31. 101: revenue drawn by Rhodes from Caria and part of Lycia
Diodoros Sikulos (1st cent. B.C.)
5. 56. 1: Telchines flee from Rhodes to Lycia
5. 79. 3: Sarpedon's conquest of Lycia (grandfather of the
Sarpedon who participated in the Trojan War)
5. 81. 2: Xanthos, son of Triopas, king of Pelasgians of
Argos, seizes part of Lycia
6. 9. 1: the legend of Bellerophon
22. 2. 2: Xerxes' shipbuilding programme; includes Lycian
fleet

Register

219

11.
11.
12.
15.
17.
17.
18.
19.

3. 7: Lycians contribute 40 ships to Xerxes' fleet

60. 4: Kimon wins over the Lycians 'by persuasion*
4. 5: Phaselis established as limit of Persian territory
90. 3; Lycia's participation in the satrap rebellion
28. 1: siege of Marmares people (near Lycia)
68. 4-7 : Alexander uses Lycian as guide in Persia
61. 4-5: Lycian mercenaries secured for service of Eumenes
29. 3, 19. 69. 1, 19. 82. 4: Lycian contingents in army of
Antigonos
19. 64. 5: Antigonos uses Patara as a naval base
20. 27. 1: Ptolemy I captures Phaselis and Xanthos
20. 93. 3: Patara under control of Demetrios, son of Antigonos
Dioscorides Pedanius (1st cent. A.D.)
mat. med. 1.. 100: use of lycium (boxthorn juice) for
medicinal purposes
Bphippos (5th-4th cent. B.C.)
See Athenaeus, deip. 8. 347A-B
Ephoros (c. 4th cent. B.C.)
See Strabo 14. 1. 6
Bratosthenes (3rd - 2nd cent. B.C.)
See Pliny, nat. 5. 33. 127
Etymologic on Magnum
219 s.v. rayau; Gagae founded by Rhodians; two versions of foundation
legend given
Euripides (5th cent. B.C.)
Alk. 114: implicit ref. to Lycian oracle?
Rhes. 224 (pseudo-Euripides?J
: ref. to temple of Apollo in Lycia
S then, frags.
661-72 (Trag. Graec. Frag., ed. Nauck2) :
Bellerophon's mission to Lycia
Eustathius (12th cent. A.D.)
Dion. Perieg.
129: the role of Pataros and Xanthos as brigands
Eutropius (4th cent. A.D.)
6. 3: P. Servilius Isauricus' attack on Lycian cities
Floras (lst-2nd cent. A.D.)
epit.
1. 41. 5: P. Servilius Isauricus' conquest of Cilician pirate
strongholds at Phaselis and Olympos
Hekataios (6th-5th cent. B.C.)
ap. Steph. Byz. s. v\S&vos: eponymous hero Xanthos of
Cretan or Egyptian origin
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. KopiCaAAa: Korydalla a Rhodian
foundation
Herodotos (5th cent. B.C.)
1. 28: Lycians and Cilicians not subdued by Kroisos

220

The

Lyeians

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

78: Telmessian seers consulted by Kroisos

84: Telmessian seers consulted by Meles
147 : Lycian descendants of Glaukos chosen as kings by Ionians
171: Harpagos' expedition into s.w. Asia Minor
173, 7. 92: Cretan origin of Lycians; Sarpedon*s migration to
Lycia with the Termilae; Lycia subsequently named after Lykos, son
of Pandion; Lycian customs (espec. the use of matronyrnics)
1. 176: Harpagos' conquest of Xanthos
1. 182: the oracle at Patara
2. 178: Phaselis of Dorian origin
3 . 4: capture of Phanes (Halikarnassian in military service
of Amasis) in Lycia after flight from Egypt
3 .90: Lycia included in first Persian nomos
4. 35: Olen of Lycia, composer of songs sung on Delos
4. 45: Europa's travels from Phoenicia to Crete, and thence to Lycia
7.77 : Milyans' war equipment
7 . 9 2 : Lycians contribute 50 ships to Xerxes' fleet; war equipment of
Lycians
7.98: Kybernis, commander of Lycian fleet
Heropythos (date uncertain)
See Athenaeus, deip. 297E-F
Heslod (8th/7th
cent.
B.C.)
theog. 319-25: birth of Chimaera; its destruction by
Bellerophon
Hesychios (of Alexandria) (5th cent. A.D.?)
s.v. naxap(ri)bs : Patara, city and mountain of Lycia
Hierokles (6th cent. A.D.)
synecd. 683-85: list of towns of Lycia
Hieronymus (St. Jerome) (c. 4th-5th cent. A.D.)
comm. in Daniel 11. 15: Antiochos Ill's conquest of Lycia and
capture of Myra, Phaselis, Limyra, Patara, and Andriake
(197 B.C.)
Homer (8th-7th cent. B.C.)
II. 2. 826-27: Pandaros, son of Lykaon, leader of a contingent of
Trojans; associated with Apollo
2. 876-77 : Sarpedon and Glaukos, leaders of the Lycian contingent at
Troy
4. 86-140: Pandaros' unsuccessful attempt to kill Menelaos
5. 95-105: Pandaros wounds Diomedes
5. 166-240: Aeneas and Pandaros prepare for onslaught on Diomedes
5. 471-93: Sarpedon rebukes Hektor for the Trojans' lack of
aggression
5. 628-98: duel between Sarpedon and Tlepolemos; slaughter of
Lycians by Odysseus
6. 119-236: Glaukos' meeting with Diomedes; the legend of
Bellerophon
7. 13-16: Glaukos strikes down Iphinoos, son of Dexios

Register

8. 173-83, 11. 286, 13. 150-54. 425-28, 15. 484-99,

17.
183-87 : Hektor urges on the allies of Troy (incl. the Lycians)
12. 101-04: Sarpedon chooses Glaukos and Asteropaeus as his
companions in arms.
12. 310-471: Sarpedon and Glaukos lead the Lycians in battle
16. 328 : the Chimaera (bred by Amisodaros)
16. 419-526: Sarpedon wounded in conflict with Patroklos; his final
address to Glaukos, and his death
16. 513-31: Glaukos' wound healed by Apollo
16. 532-683: the battle for the body of Sarpedon
27. 140-82: Glaukos rebukes Hektor and threatens to withdraw the
Lycian contingent; Hektor's reply
Horace (1st cent. B.C.)
carm. 1. .21. 5-8: Leto associated with Mt. Kragos (in Lycia)
3. 4. 61-64: Apollo associated both with Delos and Patara
Hyginus (2nd cent. A.D.?)
fab. 57: the legend of Bellerophon
106. 2: Sarpedon, son of Jupiter and Europa, killed by Patroklos
178. 1: the legend of Europa
Isocrates (436-338 B.C.)
paneg. 153: Agesilaos captures Kisthene (= Megiste)
161: Lycia unsubdued by any Persian
Justin (3rd cent. A.D.?)
hist.
phil. 13. 4. 15: Alexander assigns Lycia (and Pamphylla) to
Nearchos
13 . 6. 14: Eumenes obtains possession of Lycia (along with
Paphlagonia, Caria, and Phrygia)
Kallimachos (c. 3rd cent. B.C.)
hym. 4. 304-05: Olen, epic poet, of Lycian or Hyperborean origin
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Aotxn : island near Lycia.
Kallinos (7th cent. B.C.)
See Strabo 13. 5. 8
Kallisthenes (4th cent. B.C.)
See Aelian, nat. an. 16. 30.
See Strabo 13. 4. 8.
Kleanthes (4th - 3rd cent. B.C.)
See Macrobius, sat. 1. 17. 36
Ktesias (5th cent. B.C.)
See Pliny, nat. 2. 110. 236
Livy (1st cent. B.C. - 1st cent. A.D.)
33. 19.11: Lycia under Ptolemaic rule (197 B.C.)

221

222

The

Lycians

33. 41. 5, 37. 15. 6-8, 37. 16. 1-14, 37, 17. 1 & 10, 37. 22.
3 & S, 37. 23. 1-2, 37. 24. 9 & 11-13, 37. 40. 14, 37. 45.
2, 38. 39. 2-4: Lycia's involvement in Rome's war with
Antiochos in (190 B.C.)
37. 23. 1: Phaselis'strategic location and unhealthy climate
37. 55. 5, 37. 56. 5, 38. 39. 13: Roman senate assigns Lycia
(and Caria) to Rhodes (except for Telmessos)
37. 56. 2, 38. 39. 16: Milyas one of the territories taken from
Eumenes by Prusias and restored to Eumenes by Romans (189 B.C.)
41. 6. 8-12: Lycian envoys complain to Roman senate of Rhodian
brutality towards Lycia (178 B.C.)
41. 25. 8: Lycia at war with Rhodes (178 B.C.)
42. 14. 8: Perseus accuses Eumenes before Roman senate of stirring
the Lycians against Rhodes
44. 15. 1: Roman senate grants Lycia (and Caria) independence
from Rhodes (169 B.C. - but Polybius 30. 5. 12 shows date
should be 167 B.C.)
Lucan (1st cent. A.D.)
bell. civ. 8. 249-54: Phaselis, a city of Pamphylia ( s i c ) ,
occupied by Pompey, greatly reduced population at the time
Lucian (1st cent. A.D.)
bis accus. 1: implicit ref. to oracle of Apollo at Xanthos (sic)
dial, mer 14. 2 & 3: gilded sandals from Patara
dial. mort. 24: Mausolos ruler of part of Lycia (or Lydia? see
Houwlnk ten Cate, 1965, 13, n. 4)
Macrobius (4th - 5th cent. A.D.)
sat. 1. 17. 36: discussion of epithet Lijkios applied to Apollo
(citing also Kleanthes who derives name Lycia from lupus
(Greek
Auxos )
Makarios (4th cent. A.D.)
8. 26: trafficking in offices in Phaselis
Marinos (late antiquity)
vita Prodi
6-8: in praise of education received by Proems at
grammaticians' school at Xanthos
Maximus Tyrius (1st cent. A.D.)
diss.
8. 8: the fire phenomenon and temple on Lycian Mt. Olympos
Mela, Pomponius (1st cent. A.D.)
chor. 1. 14. 79: Phaselis founded by Mopsos on Pamphylian border
1. 15. 80: Lycia named after Lykos, son of Pandion; haunted by
Chimaera
1. 15. 82: ref. to Apollo's oracle at Patara, to Xanthos, Kragos,
Telmessos
Menander (4th - 3rd cent. B.C.)
Asp. 23-114: Greek freebooting expedition to Lycia and battle by the
Xanthos river

Register

223

Menekrates (of Xanthos) (4th cent. B.C.)

ap. steph. Byz. s.v. 'ApTuyvnao : colonisation of Pinara by elders
from Xanthos; derivation of name Pinara
See Antoninus Liberalis, met. 35
Nikander (of Kolophon) (2nd cent. B.C.?)
See Antoninus Liberalis, met. 35
Nikolaos Damaskenos (1st cent. B.C.)
ap. Stobaeus,
flor.
4. 2. 25 (Jac.
incl. the use of matronymics

90F 103k):

Lye ian customs,

Nymphis (of Heraklea in Bithynia) (3rd cent. B.C.?)

See Plutarch, mul. virt.
248D.
Orosius (4th-5th cent. A.D.)
5. 23. 21-22: P. Servilius Isauricus' conquests in s.w. Asia Minor,
including Lycia
Ovid (1st cent B.C. - 1st cent. A.D.)
met. 6. 317-81: Leto's arrival in Lycia
9. 644-48: the wanderings of Byblis (daughter of Miletos) through
Caria and Lycia.
Panyasis (5th cent. B.C.)
ap. Steph. Byz. s. v. TpejJuXn

Lycian foundation legend

Parthenius (1st cent. B.C.)

erot.
5: the legend of Leukippos, son of Xanthios, descendant of
Bellerophon
Pausanlas (2nd cent. A.D.)
1. 18. 5, 2. 13. 3, 5. 7. 8-9, 8. 21. 3, 9. 27. 2: the poet
Olen
1. 19. 3: name change of Termllae to Lyklol due to Lykos, son
of Pandlon
2 . 4. 1: Pegasus presented to Bellerophon by Athene
2. 4. 2: Bellerophon's journey to Lycia
2. 7. 1: earthquake affecting Lycia, Caria, and Rhodes
2 . 2 5 . 7: conflict between Proitos and Akrisios
2. 25. 8: walls of Tiryns built by the Cyclopes
3. 3. 8: spear of Achilles in temple of Athene at Phaselis
5 . 8. 11: Lycian Tlepolemos a victor in the 131st Olympiad
(265 B.C.)
7. 3 . 7: Lycians' kinship with Cretans; Sarpedon's flight to Lycia;
Lycians included in the population of Erythrae
7. 21. 13: divination at Kyaneae (seat of Apollo Thyrxeus)
8. 43. 4: cities of Lycia, Caria, Kos, and Rhodes destroyed by
earthquake; restored by Antoninus Pius
9. 41. 1: bronze bowl made by Hephaestus and dedicated by
Telephos in temple of Apollo at Patara
10. 27. 2: Hecuba brought to Lycia by Apollo (citing Stesischoros,
Illupersls)

224

The

Lyeians

Philostephanos (3rd cent. B.C.)

See Athenaeus, deip. 7. 297F-98A
Photius (9th cent. A.D.)
bib. 161: ref. to a politeia
176: see Theopompos

of the Lycians written by Aristotle

Pindar (6th - 5th cent, B.C.)

Isthm. 7. 44-47: the laming of Bellerophon
01. 13. 60-92: legend of Bellerophon
Pliny (Elder) (1st cent. A.D.)
nat. 2. 97. 211: earthquakes in Lycia always followed by 40 days of
fine weather
2. 110. 236, 5. 28. 100: the fire phenomenon of Mt. Chimaera and
the mts. of Hephaestos in e. Lycia
5. 26. 96: Phaselis located in Pamphylia
5. 26. 97: Taurus range in relation to Lycia
5. 28. 100-01: the towns and rivers of Lycia
5. 33. 127 : the Solymians listed by Eratosthenes among extinct
Asiatic tribes
9. 69. 149, 31. 47. 131: therapeutic powers of sponges found
around walls of Antiphellos (2nd ref. cites Polybius and Trogus)
12. 5. 9: plane tree of prodigious size in Lycia
12. 61. 132, 13. 11. 52, 16. 59. 137: Lycian cedars
13. 27. 88: claim by Mucianus (when governor of Lycia) to have read
in a certain temple a letter written by Sarpedon at Troy; ref. to the
wooden tablets given to Bellerophon
14. 9. 74: Telmessos noted for its wine
21. 11. 24: the lUies of Phaselis
21. 17. 31 & 33: (Lycian) Mt. Olympos noted for saffron
25. 30. 67: lycium (boxthrn juice) obtained from centaury plant
30. 2. 6: Telmessos designated as'urbs religiosissima'
31. 18. 22: divination at Limyra
32. 8. 17: fish divination at Myra
35. 57. 197 : clay found in vicinity of Bubon
36. 34. 141: jet (gagates l a p i s ) derives name from Gages
(sic), district and river in Lycia
Plutarch (lst-2nd cent. A.D.)
Alex. 17. 4. 5: bronze tablet (found at Letoon?), allegedly
foretelling destruction of Persian empire, spurs Alexander in his
conquest of s. coast of Asia Minor
37. 1-2: Alexander uses Lycian as guide in Persia
Brut. 30-32: Brutus' conquest of Xanthos and Patara
consol. Apoll. 112F-113A: Lycians assume female garb in mourning
to indicate that grief is unmanly
def. orac. 421D-E: the cult of Kronos amongst the Solymians and
the Lycians
Kim. 12. 3-4: Kimon's siege and capture of Phaselis
mul. virt.
247F-48A: pirate fleet from Lycian colony near Zeleia,
under command of Chimarrhus
248A-C: Bellerophon' exploits

Register

225

248B-D: explanations of the Chimaera tradition

sol. an. 97 6C: fish divination at Sura
Polyaenus (2nd cent. A.D.)
strat.
5. 42: Charimenes' attempt to escape from Lycia i n t i m e of
Lycian Perikle
Polybius (2nd cent. B.C.)
5. 27. 5: city in the Milyas called 'the city of Cretans'
21. 24. 7-8, 21. 45. 8, 22. 5, 25. 4-5; dispute between Lycians
and Rhodians over assignation of Lycia to Rhodes after the battle of
Magnesia
21. 45. 10: Telmessos and Milyas amongst the territories reassigned
to Eumenes by Roman senate
27. 7. 6: dispute between Rhodians and Eumenes over forts
and territory on borders of Rhodian Peraea
30. 5. 12 & 16: Roman senate grants Lycia independence from
Rhodes (167 B.C.)
30. 9. 1-12: Polyaratos' unsuccessful attempt to gain sanctuary in
Phaselis (3rd Macedonian War)
30. 31. 4-5: Rhodians complain of loss of Lycia (and Caria)
31. 4. 1-3: Rhodians ask Roman senate to allow Rhodian citizens to
continue holding property in Lycia and Caria
ap. Pliny, nat. 31. 47. 131: curative properties of Lycian sponges
Polycharmos (2nd cent. B.C.?)
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
Eoupa-. oracular seat at Sura (Jac. 770 F 3)
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. "iXctpus: city of Lycia (Jac. 770 F 4)
See Athenaeus, delp. 8. 333D-E (Jac. 770 F 1)
Polyzelos (4th-3rd cent. B.C.)
See Timachidas, Lind. Chron. C XXIII
Probus
(1st cent. A.D.J
Verg. Georg 1. 378: spring in Lycia called Melas, and associated with
arrival of Leto.
Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) (2nd cent. A.D.)
5. 3: the towns, rivers, and mountains of Lycia
Quintus Smymaeus (4th cent. A.D.)
3. 214-85, 14. 135-36: Glaukos' conflict in Trojan War with Aias,
son of Aeacusi Glaukos' death
4. 1-12: burial of Glaukos beneath Mt. Telandros
4. 289-90: Sarpedon slain by Patroklos
8. 84: the heights of Lycia
8. 101-07 : the death in the Trojan War of Lycians from Limyra,
Phoenike, Massicytus, and the Chimaera region
10. 147-66: Skylakeus' flight from Trojan War, and his death at
hands of women of Tlos; his burial in Tlos beside Bellerophon's tomb
11. 20-21 : Lycian Laodamas slain by Neoptolemos in Trojan War
11. 22-26: Leto gives birth to Apollo and Artemis in Lycia; creates
Xanthos river in her birth pangs

226

The

Lyeians

S chol. ad Homer
ad II. 4. 101: birth of Apollo in Lycia; Auxriyevris, eptth e t of Apollo
6. 155: Casandra, alternative name of Philonoe (daughter of Lycian
king Iobates)
Seneca (1st cent. A.D,)
nat. quaes t. 3. 25. 11: alleged fertility-inducing qualities of the
waters of Lycia
Servius (4th cent. A.D.)
Verg. Aen. 3. 332: Patara founded by Lykadius, son of Apollo and
nymph Lycia
4. 143: mildness of Lycian winter; Apollo spends 6 winter months at
Patara, 6 summer months at Delos
4. 377: various explanations of Apollo's epithet AUKUOS and the
name Lycia} suggested conflict with Telchines
6. 288: the legend of Bellerophon and the Chimaera; Mt. Chimaera
located in Cilicia
Verg. Georg. 1. 378: Leto's arrival in Lycia
Skylax (4th cent. B.C.)
100: the towns and physical features of Lycia
Solinus (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.)
39. 1: Mt. Chimaera and the town Hephaestia
39. 2: decline of Olympos until merely a fortress
Sophokles (5th cent. B.C.)
El. 7-8: Apollo Identified as the 'wolf-slayer' (popular explanation
of epithet

Oed. 205-08:

AUMELSOS)

Apollo and Artemis associated with Lycia

Statius (1st cent. A.D.)

Theb. 8. 200: ref. to Apollo's oracle at Patara
Stephanus Byzantinus (6th cent. A.D.)
passim: towns, rivers, and mountains of Lycia
Stesichoros (7th-6th cent. B.C.?)
See Pausanias 10. 27. 2
Stobaeus (5th cent. A.D.)
flor.
4. 2. 25: Lycian customs (citing Nikolaos Dam.)
Strabo
I. 2. 10: Solymians occupied peaks of Taurus around Lycia
8. 6. 11: Walls of Tiryns built by the Cyclopes who were Lycian in
origin
II. 12. 2: Taurus range begins in Caria and Lycia
12. 4. 6, 13. 1. 7: the 'northern Lycia'where Zeleia was located;
subject to Pandaros
12. 8. 4: discussion of Homer's 'two groups of Lycians'

Register

227

12. 8. 5, 14. 3. 10: Sarpedon (from Cretan Miletos) founds Miletos

in Asia Minor; Termilae, Solymians, and Milyans identical according
to one account, but Solymians and Lycians to be distinguished
according to Homer
12. 8. 5-6: Lycia named after Lykos, son of Pandion; Bellerophon's
conflict with the Solymians and the Amazons
13. 4. 8: tradition that Lycians participated in the capture of Sardis
13. 4. 16: association between the Solymians and Termessos
13 . 4. 17: the nature and extent of Kibyra; Murena's suppression of
the Moagetid tyranny there
14. 1. 6: Miletos founded by Sarpedon with colonists from Crete;
formerly inhabited by the Leleges (citing Ephoros)
14. 2. 1: topography of Lycia and neighbouring districts
14. 2. 2, 14. 3. 1-2: Daedala, boundary of Rhodian Peraea and
mt. in Lycia
14. 3. 2: nature and extent of Lycian coastline; character of Lycians
14. 3. 3: the Lycian League; general comments on the Lycians
14. 3. 4: capture of Telmessos and Telmessls by Eumenes; recovered
by Lycians after fall of Eumenes' kingdom
14. 3. 4-9: cities, mountains, and rivers of Lycia
14. 5. 23: Lycians in Trojan Catalogue
14. 5. 7: P. Servilius Isauricus' capture of Zeniketes' stronghold at
Olympos
Stratonikos (5th-4th cent. B.C.)
See Athenaeus, delp. 8. 349F
Suetonius (1st-2nd cent. A.D.)
Claud. 25: establishment of Lycia as a Roman province
Ves. 8: Vespasian re-establishes Lycia-Pamphylia as a Roman
province after a period of independence under Nero and Galba
Suldas (lexicon) (10th cent. A.D.)
s.v.
'ftArivithe poet Olen (citing Alex. Polyhist.)
Theodoretus (5th cent. A.D.)
Graec. aff. cur. 3. 57: cites Plutarch, def.

Orac.

421 D-E

Theokritos (4th - 3rd cent. B.C.)

17.89: Lycia under control of Ptolemy (II)
Timachidas (1st cent. B.C. - 1st cent. A.D.)
Lind. Chron. C XXIII: campaign of Kleoboulos of Lindos against
Lycia (citing Timokritos and Polyzelos)
C XXIV: Phaselis founded by Lakios (citing Xenagoras)
Theophrastos (4th-3rd cent. B.C.)
hist,
plant.
3. 12. 3: the Lycian cedar
4. 5. 2: the cypress in Lycia
Theopompos (4th cent. B.C.)
ap. Photius,
bib. 176, p. 120 a 14. 15 (Jac. II B 115,
no. 113) Rhodiapolis, named after Rhode, daughter of Mopsos

226

The
p. 120a
ref. as

14.17:
above)

Lyclans

Lycian Perikle's conquest of Telmessos (Jac.

Thucydides (5th cent. B.C.)

2. 69: Melesander's Lycian expedition
8. 41. 4: Athenian ships off Lycian coast to keep watch for
approaching Peloponnesian fleet
Timagenes (1st cent. B.C.)
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
MuXuat; Mily ans formerly called S olymians
Timokritos (3rd cent. B.C. ?)
See Timachidas, Lind. Chron. c XXI11
Trogus (1st cent. B.C. - 1st cent. A.D.)
See Pliny, nat. 31. 47. 131
Valerius Maximus (1st cent. A.D.)
2. 6. 13: Lycians assume female garb when in mourning
Vergil (1st cent.)
Aen. 2. 113: Lycian ship in A e n e a s ' f l e e t
4. 143-44, 4. 346, 4. 377: implicit refs. to Apollo's oracle at
Patara
6. 288: the Chlmaera
7. 816, 8. 166, 11. 773: archery associated with Lyeia
Xenagoras (3rd cent. B.C.)
See Timachidas, Lind. Chron. C XXIV
Zenobius (2nd cent. A.D.)
cent. 2. 87: Bellerophon's flight to Proitos
6. 36: inhabitants of Phaselis honour hero Kylabras with offering of
pickled fish

REGISTER H - PLAGE NAMES

(A list
literary
order.)

of Lycian
sources.

place names attested

in the Greek and Roman
Multiple
sources are given in
chronological

Aedesa r.
river In Lycia which flows past Chma: Pliny,

nat.

5. 28.

101

Aesepos r.
river in Troad on which Zeleia, home of Pandaros, located: Homer,
2. 825, Strabo 12. 4. 6, 13. 1. 7
Amelas
town in Lycia: Piiny,
161-69)

nat.

5. 28.

II.

101 (but see Robert, 1962,

Andriake
town in Lycia: Ptolemy 5. 3. 3.
seaport of Myra-, harbour closed by chain (in 1st cent. B.C.): Applan,
bell.
civ. 4. 10. 82
captured by Antiochos III in conquest of Lycla (197 B.C.): Hieronymus,
comm. in Daniel 11. IS.
= Andria?: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100
Antikragos mt.
steep mt. in Lycia: Strabo

14. 3. 5

Antiphellos
town in Lycia: Alexander Polyhistor
ap. steph
Byz.
s.v. 'AvT&peAAos : Strabo 14. 3. 7, Ptolemy 5. 3. 3.
formerly called Habesos: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100.
noted for the sponges found around its walls: Pliny, nat. 9. 69.
149, 31. 47. 131 (citing also Polybius and Trogus)
Aperiae
town in Lycia: Pliny,

nat.

5. 28.

Araxa
town in Lycia: Alex. Polyhlst.
Ptolemy 5.3.
5

ap.

100, Ptolemy
Steph.

Arna
former name of city of Xanthos: Steph.

Byz.

Byz.

s.v.

5. 3. 3
s.v.

"Apaa,

'Apva

Arsinoe
name given to Patara by Ptolemy Philadelphias: Strabo

14. 3.

Arykanda
town in Lycla, adjacent to territory of Limyra, noted for its
prodigality: Athenaeus,
deip. 12. 527F
(citing
Agatharchides)
Arykandos r.
river in Lycia, tributary of the Limyros r.: Pliny,
100

nat.

5.

28.

6.

The

230

Ascandiandalis
town in Lycia: Pliny,
161-69)

nat.

5. 28.

Lyeians

101 (but see Robert, 1962,

Balbura
town in Lycia, part of district of Kabalia: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28.
101, Ptolemy
5.3.8
p a r t of district of Kibyra, but assigned t o Lycia by Muxena a t end of
Moagetid tyranny: Strabo 13. 4. 17
Bubon
town in Lycia, part of district of Kabalia: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28.
101, Ptolemy
5.3.8
part of district of Kibyra, but assigned to Lycia by Muxena: Strabo
13. 4. 17
clay found in its vicinity; Pliny,
nat. 35. 57. 196
Canas
town in Lycia: Pliny,

nat.

5. 28.

101

Chelidonian islands
situated off coast of Lycia and Pamphylia: Sky lax 100,
strabo
14. 2. 1, Ptolemy 5.3.9
Quintus Smyrn. 3. 234-35
c. 6 stades from shore and 5 from one another; 3 in number; f
starting point, ace. to most w r i t e r s , of Taurus m t s (which Strabo
believes begin in Rhodian Peraea): Strabo 14. 3. 8
Chimaera (mt. and natural phenomenon)
(in e. Lycia) unquenchable nature of fire: Pliny,
nat. 2. 110.
236 (citing Ktesias of Knidos; cf. comments on m t s . of
Hephaestos, nat. 5. 28. 100), Solinus 39. 1
ravine near the Kragos range (w. Lycia); associated with the
Chimaera myth: Strabo 14. 3. 5
near Massicytus range: Quintus Smyrn. 8. 107.
m t . in Cilicia with burning peak; origin of the myth:
Servius,
Very. Aen. 6. 288
Chma
town in Lycia: Pliny,

nat.

5. 28.

101,

Ptolemy

5. 3. 7

Daedala
town and m t . in Lycia, named after C r e t a n Daedalos: Alex.
Polyhlst.
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. AccuaXa, Strabo 14. 3. 2,
14. 3. 4.
Ptolemy
5.3.2
beginning of Rhodian Peraea: Strabo 14. 2. 2, 14. 3. 1
one of the fortresses of the Peraea; Rhodian fleet relieves blockade in
war with Antiochos III (190 B.C.): Livy 37. 22. 3
town in Caria (sic): Pliny,
nat 5. 29. 103
Doliche/Dolichiste
island near Lycia: Alex. Polyhist,
Kallimachos
s.v. AoXbxrtj.Ptolemy
5.3.9

ap. Steph.

Byz.

Register

II

231

Eleutherai
town in Lycia: steph.

Byz.

s.v.

'EAeu^epau.

Ereuates
town in Lycia: Steph.

Byz.

s.v.

'EpEuains

Erymnai
town in Lycia: Alex Polyhlst.

ap. Steph.

Eunia
grove in Lycia on site of Kandyba: Pliny,

Byz.
nat.

s.v.

'Epuyvau

5. 28.

101

Gagae
town in Lycia: Skylax 100, Alex. Polyhist.
ap. Steph.
Byz.
s.v. .raycxL
mt. settlement in e. Lycia, grouped with Korydalla and
Rhodiapolis: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100
foundation legend (2 versions): Etym. Hagn. 219
s.v.Tayat
Gages r.
river in Lycia from which the name Gages lapis
P l i n y , nat. 36. 34. 141
Habesos
former name of Antiphellos: Pliny,

nat.

(jet) derives:

5. 28.

100

Hephaestium
associated with the fire phenomenon of e. Lycia: Skylax
Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100, Solinus 39. 1
Hephaestos range
range in e. Lycia; flare up when touched with torch:
nat. 2. 110. 236
Hylami
town in Lycia: Alex.
s.v.
"YAayou
Idyros
town In Lycia: Skylax

Polyhist.

ap. Steph.

100,

Pliny,

Byz.

100

Kabalia
district in Lycia comprising 3 cities - Oenoanda, Balbura,
Bubon: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 101, Ptolemy
5.3.8
population alleged to be Solymian: Stcabo 13. 4. 16
Kalynda
named as town of Lycia by Ptolemy
Caria, e.g. Herodotos 1. 172,

5.3.2
(otherwise assigned to
8. 87, Pliny, nat. 5. 29 103)

Kandyba
town in Lycia: Pliny nat. 5. 28. 101
assigned (wrongly) to Milyas district: Ptolemy

5.3.7

232

The

Lye1ans

Karmylessos
town in Lycia in the Antikragos range: Strabo

14. 3. 5

Kibyra
in Phrygian territory: Pliny,
nat. 5. 29. 105
separated from Lycia by Taurus range: strabo 14. 2. 1
accessible by pass from Lycia: Strabo 14. 3. 3
Kisthene (= Megiste?)
ref. in Strabo 14. 3 . 7
captured by Agesilaos: Isocrates,

paneg.

Klimax mt.
mt. in Lycia near Phaselis: Strabo

14. 3. 9

Kochliousa
island near Lycia: Alex Polyhist.

ap. steph

Komba
town in Lycia: Ptolemy

153

Byz.

s. v. KoxAtouaa

5. 3. 5

Korydalla
town in Lycia: Ptolemy
5.3.6
mt. town in e. Lycia} grouped with Gagae and Rhodiapolis: Pliny,
nat.
5. 28. 100.
Rhodian foundation: Hekatalos ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
KopuaAXa
Korykos
tract of Lyclan sea-coast: Strabo

14. 3. 8

Kragos mt.
mt. in Lycia, named after Kragos, son of Tremilos and the nymph
Praxidike: Ptolemy 5. 3. 4, Alex. Polyhist.
ap.
Steph.
Byz.
s.v.
Kpayos
promontory in Lycia: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100
has 8 promontories and city of same name; scene of Chimaera
myth: Strabo 14. 3. 5
ref. in Pomponius Mela, chor. 1. 15. 82
haunt of wild beasts and brigands: Euripides,
S then. , Nauck2,
frag.
669
associated with Leto: Horace, carm. 1. 21. 5-8
on route of Byblis in her wanderings through Lycia: Ovid, met. 9.
Kyaneae
town in Lycia: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 101.
oracular seat of Apollo Thyrxeus: Pausanias
Kydna
town in Lycia: Ptolemy

5.3.

7. 21.

13

646

Register

LI

233

Letoon
likely site of Le to's encounter with the herdsmen on her
arrival in Lycia: Antoninus Liberalis,
met. 35, Ovid, met. 6.
317-81
sanctuary of Leto; 10 stades along Xanthos river, 60 stades
(sic) from Xanthos city: Strabo 14. 2. 2., 14. 3. 6
Mithridates deterred by dream from cutting down trees there: Appian,
Kith. 12. 4. 27
likely site of bronze tablet allegedly foretelling destruction of the
Persian empire: Plutarch,
Alex. 17. 4
Lycia (general)
A. Historical
references
(in chronological order)
Rhodian expedition against Lycia, led by Kleoboulos: Tlmachidas, Lind.
Chron. C XXIII (citing Timokritos and Polyzelos)
Lycia and Cilicia unsubdued by Kroisos: Herodotos 1. 28
conquest by Harpagos: Herodotos 1. 176
included in first Persian nomos: Herodotos 1. 173
tradition of Lycian participation in the Persian conquest of Sardis:
Strabo 13. 4. 8
contribution to Xerxes' fleet - 50 ships: Herodotos 7. 92\ 40 ships:
Dlodoros 11. 3. 7
Kimon wins over the Lycians'by persuasion': Diodoros 11. 60. 5
Melesander's expedition into Lycia: Thucydides 2. 69
Lycian participation in the satrap rebellion: Diodoros 15. 90. 4
under control of Mausolos: Luclan, dial. mort. 24 (but see Houwink
ten Cate, 1965, 13, n. 4), (pseudo-) Aristotle, oecon. 2. 2. 14
(=1348a)
conquest by Alexander: Arrian, anab. 1. 14. 3-6
assigned by Alexander to Nearchos as part of his satrapy: Arrian 3.
6. 6, Justin,
hist,
phi I. 13. 4. IS
under control of satrap Antigonos after Alexander's death: Diodoros
18. 3. 1, 18. 39. 6, Quintus Curtius 10. 10, Appian,
Syr.
11. 9. 53
Lycian contingent in army of Antigonos: Diodoros 19. 29. 3, 19.
69. 1, 19. 82. 4
under Ptolemaic control: Theokritos,
id. 17. 89, Livy 33. 19. 11
attempt by Antiochos III to win over the whole shore of Cilicia,
Lycia, and Caria (197 B.C.): Livy 33. 19. 11,
Hieronymus,
comm. in Daniel,
11. 15
Lycian participation in the battle of Sipylos (190 B.C.): Livy
37. 40. 14, Appian, Syr. 11. 6. 32
Lycia's fierce but unsuccessful resistance to Roman forces
under Livius (at Phoenikos) in war with Antiochos (190 B.C.): Livy
37. 16. 8-12
Romans abandon campaign in Lycia: Livy 37. 16. 13-14, 37. 17. 1
assigned by Roman senate to Rhodes after battle of Magnesia, (189
B.C.): Polybius
21. 24. 7-8, 22. 5, 25. 4-5, Livy 37. 55.
5, 37. 56. 5, 38. 39. 13. Appian, Syr. 11. 7. 44
Lycian mercenaries secured for service of Eumenes: Diodoros
18. 61. 4-5
Lycia assigned to Eumenes: Justin,
hist.
phil. 13. 6. 14
Lycian envoys complain of harsh treatment by Rhodians (178 B.C.):
Livy 41. 6. 8-12

234

The

Lycians

conflict between Lycians and Rhodians (174 B.C.): Livy 41. 25. 8
Perseus accuses Eumenes (before Roman senate) of stirring the Lycians
against the Rhodians: Livy 42. 14. 6
Lycia granted independence of Rhodes by Roman senate (167 B.C.):
Polybius
30. 5. 12, 30. 31. 4-5.
Livy 44. 15. 1, Appian,
Kith. 12. 9. 62
the complaints and appeals of the Rhodians to the Roman senate
regarding the loss of Lycia: Polybius
30. 31. 4-5, 31. 4. 1-3
Lycians in Cicero's army during his governorship of Cilicia:
Cicero,
Att. 6. 5
Verres* dealings with Lycia: Cicero,
Verr. 1. 38. 95
Lycian territory converted into ager publicus:
Cicero,
leg.
agr.
1 frag. 3
Lycia's opposition to Brutus and Cassius; Brutus' conquest of Lycia:
Plutarch,
Brut. 30-32, Appian, bell.
civ. 4. 8. 60-61,
4.
9. 65, Dio Cassius 47. 33. 1-2, 41. 34. 1-6, 47. 36. 3-4
Antony releases Lycia from taxes: Appian, bell. civ. 5. 1. 7
Lycia becomes Roman province (43 A.D.): Suetonius,
Claud. 25
flood in Lycia during Nero's reign: Dio Cassius 63. 26. 5
Vespasian re-establishes Lycia, along with Pamphylia, as a Roman
province: Suetonius,
Vesp. 8
Lycia and Pamphylia still united in 313 A.D.: cod Theod. 13. 10. 2
Lycian League - account of composition: Strabo 14. 3. 3
Phaselis not a member of League: strabo 14. 3. 9
sends envoys to Brutus: Appian, bell.
civ.
4. 10. 82
B Geography, Vegetation,
and Products
nature and extent of coastline - length, 1720 stades, well supplied with
harbours: Strabo 14. 2. 1\ voyage along coast takes 1 day + 1
night (double this overland): Sky lax 100
interior rugged and hard to travel, separated from Kibyra by Taurus
mts.: Strabo 14. 2. 1
the heights of Lycia: Quintus Smyrn. 8, 84
formerly contained 70 towns, now 36 (in 1st cent. A.D.):
Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100
earthquakes in Lycia followed by 40 days of fine weather: Pliny,
nat.
2. 97. 211
specific earthquakes: Pausanias 2. 7. 1, 8. 43. 4
cedar trees: Theophrastos,
hist,
plant,
3. 12. 3, Pliny,
nat.
12. 61. 132, 13. 11. 52, 16. 59. 137
cypress trees: Theophrastos,
hist,
plant.
4. 5. 2.
plane trees: Pliny, nat. 12. 5. 9
lyclum (boxthorn juice) used for medicinal purposes: Celsus,
med.
5. 26. 30, 6 . 7 . 2 , 8 . 6 . 2 , Dioscorides,
mat. med. 1. 100,
Pliny, nat. 24. 76. 124, 24. 77. 125-26, 25. 30. 67
sponges (from Antiphellos): Pliny,
nat. 9. 69. 149, 31. 47. 131
saffron (from Mt. Olympos): Pliny,
nat. 21. 17. 31 & 33
attar of roses (from Phaselis); Pliny,
nat. 13. 2. 5,
Athenaeus,
deip. 15. 688E (citing
Apollonius
My s)
lilies (of Phaselis): Pliny,
nat. 21. 11. 24
fine quality of Lycian hams: Athenaeus,
deip. 14. 657E (citing
Strabo)

R e g i s t e r LI

235

wine (from Telmessos): Pliny, nat. 14. 9. 74

goat's fleece (used in rope-making): Aristotle,
hist.
an. 8. 28
C= 605b), Aelian, nat. an. 16. 30 (citing Kail is thenes)
gilded sandals (from Patara): Luclan, dial. mer. 14. 2 & 3
jet (Gagates lapis)* (from Gagae): Pliny,
nat. 35. 57. 196
according to Bean, the ancient authors speak of it more often as a
combustible substance resembling lignite (1978, 149)
Limyra
river and town in Lycia: Skylax,
100.
Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100,
Pomponius Mela, chor. 1. 15. 82, Ptolemy
5.3.6
small in size; 20 stades inland: strabo 14. 3. 7
adjacent to territory of Arykanda: Athenaeus,
delp. 12. 527F
(citing Agatharchides)
captured by Antiochos III in conquest of Lycia: Hieronymus,
comm. in Daniel 11. 15
site of death of Gaius Caesar: Dio Cassius 55. 10. 9
fish divination: Pliny,
nat. 31. 18. 22
on route of Byblis in her wanderings through Lycia: Ovid, met.
9. 646
Limyros r.
river on which Limyra stands: Strabo 14. 3. 7, Pomponius Mela,
chor. 1. 15. 82; Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100, Ptolemy 5. 3. 3
location of residence of Chlemos, Lycian warrior at Troy,
comrade and successor of Glaukos: Quintus Smyrn. 8. 103
Lyrnatia
peninsula and fortress in Lycia: Skylax
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
AupvaxLot
Makra
island off Lycian coast: Alex Polyhist.
s.v.
Mawpa

100, Alex.

Polyhist.

ap. Steph.

Massicytus range
mt. range in Lycia: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100, Ptolemy
Quintus Smyrn.
3. 234, 8. 107

Byz.

5. 3. 1 & 6,

Megiste (see also Kisthene)

town and island in Lycia: Alex Polyhist.
ap. steph.
Byz.
s.v. MeYtaxn
Strabo 14. 3. 7, Ptolemy 5. 3. 9
in possession of Rhodes: Skylax 100
its harbour the meeting place of the Rhodian fleet (190 B.C.):
37. 22. 5, 37. 24. 12, 37. 45. 2
Melaenae
town in Lycia: Alex.
s.v. MXauvau

Polyhist.

ap. Steph.

Livy

Byz.

Melite
spring in Lycia (ajt Letoon?), associated with Leto's arrival in Lycia:
Antoninus Liberalis,
met. 35. 2 (called Melas by Probus,
Verg. Georg. 1. 378)

236

The

Lyeians

Milyas
region adjacent to Kibyra: Strabo 13. 4. 17, Ptolemy 5. 3 . 7
original name of Lycia, inhabited by the Solymians before arrival of
Sarpedon and Termilae: Herodotos 1. 173, Strabo 12. 8. S,
14. 3. 10, Timagenes app. Stepb. Dyz. s.v.
MtX\W
war equipment of Milyans: Herodotos 7. 77
part of Lycia a t time of Alexander's conquests; l a t e r part of Phrygia:
Arrian, anab. 1. 24. 5
captured from Eumenes by Prusias and restored to Eumenes by Romans
(189 B.C.): Polyblus
21. 45. 10, Livy 37. 56. 2, 38. 39. 16
distinguished from Lycia in Roman period: Cicero,
Verr. 1. 38. 95,
Strabo 14. 5. 7
city in Milyas called 'the city of C r e t a n s ' : Polyblus
5. 72. 5
Molyndeia

town in Lycia: Alex. Polybist.

s.v. MoXveLa

app.

Steph.

Byz.

Myra
town in Lycia: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100, Ptolemy 5. 3. 6
located on hill 20 stades above the sea: Strabo 14. 3. 7
fish divination: Pliny,
nat. 32. 8. 17
one of six largest cities of the League: Artemidoros
ap.
Strabo 14. 3. 7
surrenders to Brutus in civil war: Appian, bell.
civ. 4. 10.
Dio Cassius 47. 34. 6
Ninos r.
river in Lycia; scene of d e a t h of Daedalos: Alex
Steph. Byz s.v. Aauaa
Nose opium
town in Lycia: Pliny,
161-69)

nat.

5. 28.

Polybist.

101 (but see Robert, 1962,

Oinoanda
town in Lycia: Alex. Polybist.
ap. Steph.
Byz.
s.v.
Ovoava
part of district of Kabalia: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 101,
5. 3. 8
part of district of Kibyra: S t r a b o 13. 4. 17
supported Brutus in siege of Xanthos: Appian, bell.
4. 10. 79
Oktapolis
town in Lycia: Ptolemy
Olbia
town in Lycia: skylax

5.3.5
100,

Strabo

ap.

14. 3. 8

Olympos
town and mt. in Lycia (mt. alternatively called
Phoenikos): Strabo 14. 3. 8

Ptolemy
civ.

82,

Register

II

237

commanding view of Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Milyas:

Strabo 14. 5. 7
in vicinity of Mt. Chimaera: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100
one of six largest cities of League: Artemidoros
ap.
Strabo
14. 3. 3
stronghold of Cilician pirate ZenLketes; captured by
P. Servilius Isauricus: Strabo 14. 5. 7, Florus 1. 41,
Eutropius
6. 3
territory converted into ager publiais
(1st cent. B.C.):
Cicero,
leg. agr. 2. 50
decline of city to mere fortress in 3rd cent. A.D.: Solinus 39. 2
Patara (see also Arsinoe)
town in Lycia: Sky lax 100, Ptolemy 5. 3. 3,
Hesychios
s.v.
JlaxapCnKs
named after Pataros, son of Apollo and nymph Lycia:
Alex. Polyhist.
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
laxapa
founded by Lycadius, son of Apollo and Lycia: Servius,
Verg.
Aen. 3. 332
formerly called Pataros: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 100
residence of Apollo for the 6 winter months: Vergil,
Aen.
4. 143-44, Servius,
Verg. Aen. 4. 143-44
Apollo associated equally with Delos and Patara: Horace,
carm. 3. 4. 61-64
harbour, temple of Apollo, founded by Pataros; town renamed
Arsinoe by Ptolemy Philadelphos: Strabo 14. 3. 6
bronze bowl made by Hephaestos dedicated by Telephos in
Apollo's temple: Pausanias 9. 41. 1
statues of Apollo and Zeus at Patara, allegedly by Pheidias:
Clement, protr.
41
the oracle: Herodotos 1. 182, Vergil,
Aen. 4. 143-44,
4.
346, 4. 377, Pomponius Mela, chor. 1. 15. 82,
Statius,
Theb. 8. 200, Oracula Sibyl Una 3. 441
surrender to Alexander: Arrian, anab. 1. 24. 4, Aelian,
var.
1. 25. 11-12
besieged by Mithridates: Appian, tilth.
12. 4. 27
naval base of Antigonos: Dlodoros 19. 64. 5
under control of Demetrios, son of Antigonos (315 B.C.?):
Diodoros 20. 93. 3
captured by Antiochos HI (197 B.C.): Hleronymus, comm.
in Daniel
11.15
under control of Antiochos (196 B.C.): Livy 33. 41. 5
role in Rome's war with Antiochos: Livy 37. 15. 6-8, 37.
16. 1-5, 37. 17. 10, 37. 24. 11-13, 37. 45. 2, 38. 39. 2-3
one of six largest cities of League: Artemidoros
ap.
Strabo
14. 3. 3
surrenders to Brutus: Plutarch,
Brut. 32,
Appian bell.
civ.
4. 10. 81-82, Dio Cassius 47. 34. 4-6
marriage ties with Xanthos: Dio Cassius 47. 34. 4
gilded sandals from Patara: Lucian, dial. mer. 14. 2 & 3
Peirana
town in Lycia, home of Bellerophon: Pindar,
13. 66-67

Ol.

238

The

Lycians

Peraea
beginning of the western seaboard: Strabo 14. 2. 1-2
beginning of Taurus range: Strabo 14. 3. 8
bordered on territory of Kibyra: Strabo 13. 4. 11
contained several fortresses, including Daedala:
Livy 31. 22. 3
dispute between Rhodians and Eumenes over forts and
t e r r i t o r y on borders of Rhodian Peraea: Polybius
21.

1. 6

Phaselis
town assigned to Pamphylia: stratonikos
ap.
Athenalos,
deip. 8. 349F, Lacan, bell.
civ. 8. 249-54, Pliny,
nat. 5.
26. 96, Pomponlus Mela, chor. 1. 14. 19, Eusebius,
chron.
ed Schne 2. 84f.
assigned to Lycia: Skylax 100, Strabo 14. 3. 9,
Ptolemy
5.3.3
region in which Mt. Chimaera located: Pliny,
nat.
2. 110. 236
founded by Mopsos: Pomponlus Mela, chor. 1. 14. 19
founded by Lakios; annual sacrifice of smoked fish to
Kylabras: Heropythos ap. Philostephanos
ap.
Athenalos,
deip. 1. 291-98, Zenobius, cent. 6. 36
Dorian in origin: fferodotos 2. 118
t h r e e harbours; nearby, the passes through which Alexander
led his troops: Strabo 14. 3. 9
strategic location, unhealthy climate: Livy 31. 23. 1-2
besieged and captured by Kimon: Plutarch,
Kim. 12. 3-4
established as limit of Persian t e r r i t o r y after b a t t l e of
Eurymedon: Dlodoros 12. 4. 5
base for merchant ships in Peloponnesian War:
Thucydides
2. 69
blockade of harbour by Lycian Perikle:
Polyaenus,
s trat.
5. 42
voluntary submission to Alexander; a t t a c k s on Phaselitan
farmers by Pisidians: Arrian, anab. 1. 24. 5-6
captured by Ptolemy I Soter: Diodoros 20. 21. 1
captured by Antiochos III: Hieronymus,
comm. in
Daniel 11. 15
Rhodian fleet bypasses city to avoid disease during war with
Antiochos: Livy 31. 23. 1-2
Polyaratos' unsuccessful a t t e m p t to gain sanctuary in Phaselis
(during 3rd Macedonian War): Polybius
30. 9. 1-12
not a member of Lycian League: Strabo 14. 3. 9
partnered with Cilician pirates: strabo 14. 5. 1, Cicero,
Vevr.
4. 10. 21
captured by P. Servilius Isauricus: Florus 1. 41. 5,
Eutropius
6. 3
occupied by Pompey; greatly reduced population then: Lucan,
bell.
civ. 8.
249-54.
t e r r i t o r y of Phaselis and Olympos converted into ager
publicus:
Cicero,
leg. agr. 2. 50
unsavoury c h a r a c t e r of Phaselitans: Stratonikos
ap.
Athenaeus,
deip. 8. 349F, Demosthenes,
35. 1-5,
Cicero,
f e r r . 4. 10. 23

Register

J.I

239

trafficking in offices: Makarios 8. 26

inhabited by Lycians, 'a Greek people': Cicero,
Verr.
4. 10. 21
inhabitants driven from city by wasps: Aelian,
nat.
an. 11. 28
the lilies of Phaselis: Pliny,
nat. 21. 11. 24
a t t a r of roses produced at Phaselis: Apollonius
Mys ap.
Athenaeus,
deip. 15. 688E, Pliny,
nat. 13. 2. 5
ref. t o bronze spear of Achilles in temple of Athene a t Phaselis:
Pausanlas
3.3.8
Phellos
town in Lye ia: Skylax 100, Alex. Polyhist.
s.v.
$Aos Strabo 14. 3. 7 , Pliny,
Ptolemy
5.3.6

ap. Steph.
nat. 5. 28.

Byz.
100,

Phoenike
town and river in Lycia: Quintus Smyrn. 8. 106, Constantine
Porphyr., them. 1. 14
destination of Roman-Rhodian fleet (190 B.C.); description of
harbour; Lycians* unsuccessful resistance to Roman commander
Livius there: Livy 37. 16. 8-12
Phoenikos mt.
alternative name of Mt. Olympos: strabo

14. 3. 8

Pinara
town in Lycia: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 101, Ptolemy 5. 3. 5
one of six largest cities of League: Artemi'doros
ap.
Strabo 14. 3. 3
at foot of Mt. Kragos; Pandaros honoured t h e r e : Strabo
14. 3. 5
colonised by elders from Xanthos; established on round peak,
and hence the name Pinara (Lycian for 'round'): Menekrates ap.
Steph. Byz. s.v.
* ApTUpvriaos
surrenders to Alexander: Arrlan,
anab. 1. 24. 4
Podalia
town in Lycia, belonging to Milyas district: Pliny,
5. 28. 101, Ptolemy
5.3.7
Pyrrha
town in Lycia: Pliny,
Rhodia
town in Lycia: Ptolemy

nat.

5. 28.

nat.

101

5. 3. 6

Rhodiapolis
mt. town in Lycia, grouped with Gagae and Korydalla:
Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 101.
named after Rhode, daughter of Mopsos: Theopompos ap.
Photius,
bib. 176, p. 129a 14. 15 (Jac. IIB 115 no.

103)

240

The

Lycians

Sarpedonion
temple in Xanthos at time of Brutus' siege: Applan,
civ. 4. 10. 78-71
Sebeda
harbour in Lycia: Alex.
s.v.
Ee3ea

Polyblst.

ap. Steph.

Sibros/Sirbis r.
alternative name of the Xanthos r.: Panyasis
s.v.
TpepuXri
Strabo 14. 3. 6
Sidyma
town in Lycia: Alex Polyhlst.
ap. steph.
Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100, Ptolemy
Simena
town in Lycia: Pliny,

nat.

5. 28.

bell,

Byz.

ap. Steph.

Byz. s.v.
5.3.5

Byz.

zCovya

100

Sura
fish divination, shrine of Apollo: Polycharmos and
Artemidoros
ap Athenaeus,
deip. 8. 333D-E, Aelian, nat. an. 8. 5,
1, Plutarch,
sol. an. 976C
Symbra
town in Lycia: Ptolemy

12.

5. 3. 5

Taurus range
in relation to Lycia: strabo 14. 2. 1, Pliny, nat. 5. 27. 97,
begins in Caria and Lycia, in Rhodian Peraea (not as most writers say
in Chelidonian islands): strabo 11. 12. 2, 14. 2. 1, 14. 3. 8
peaks around Lycia occupied by Solymians: s t r a b o 1. 2. 10
Telandros
town and promontory in Caria: Alex. Polyhlst.
Byz. s.v.
TnXavpos
town in Lycia: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 101
mountain, location of burial of Glaukos: Quintus

ap.
Smyrn.

Steph.
4.

7-9

Telmessis
promontory with harbour in Lycia; received by Eumenes from
Romans during war with Antiochosj recovered by Lycians after
dissolution of Eumenes'kingdom: Strabo 14. 3. 4
Telmessos
town in Lycia near Carian border: Skylax 100, Pliny,
nat.
5. 28. 101, Pomponius Mela, chor. 1. 15. 82, Ptolemy 5. 3.
2
conquered by Lycian Perikle: Theopompus ap. Photius,
bib.
176,
p. 120a
14. 17 (Jac. IIB 115 no. 103)
surrenders to Alexander: Arrian, anab. 1. 24. 4
Roman naval action against Antiochos in gulf of Telmessos;
destruction of 50 of Antiochos' ships ancored there: Livy 37. 16.
13, 38. 39. 3

Register

241

II

transferred by Romans from Ptolemy of Telmessos to

Eumenes (189 B.C.): Livy 37. 56. 4
reassigned by Roman senate to Eumenes after taken from him
by Prusias: Polybius 21. 45. 10
separate from Lycia at time of Mithridatic war (early 1st cent.
B.C.): Appian, Mitb. 12. 4. 24
prophets consulted by Gordios: Arrlan, anab. 2. 3. 3
prophets (priests of Apollo) consulted by Kroisos and Meles:
Herodotos 1. 78 and 1. 84
(respectively)
described as urbs religisissimai
Pliny,
nat. 30. 2. 6
noted for wine: Pliny, nat. 14. 9. 74
Tlos
town in Lycia: Pliny, nat. 5. 28. 101, Ptolemy 5. 3. 5
near pass giving access to Kibyra; one of six largest cities of the
League: Artemidoros
ap. Strabo 14. 3. 3
site of Bellerophon's tomb: Quintus Smyrn. 10. 162-63
Trebendai
town in Lycia: Ptolemy

5. 3. 6

Xanthos
town in Lycia: Sky lax 100, Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100, Pomponius
Mela, cbor. 1. 15. 82, Ptolemy
5.3.5
15 (Roman) miles from the sea: Pliny,
nat. 5. 28. 100
largest city in Lycia: strabo 14. 3. 6
one of six largest cities of League: Artemidoros
ap.
Strabo
14. 3. 3
conquered by Harpagos: Herodotos 1. 176, Appian,
bell.
civ. 4. 10. 80
1
foreign elements in population following Harpagos conquest:
Herodotos 1. 176
surrenders to Alexander: Arrlan, anab. 1. 24. 4
alleged destruction by Alexander: Appian, bell.
civ. 4. 10. 80
captured by Ptolemy I Soter from Antigonos: Dlodoros
20. 27. 1
siege and destruction by Brutus: Appian, bell. civ. 4. 10.
76-80, Dio Cassius 47. 34. 1-3, Plutarch,
Brut.
30-31
Antony urges rebuilding of city: Appian, bell.
civ. 5. I . 7
marriage ties with Pat ara: Dio Cassius 47. 34. 4
school of grammaticians there in late antiquity: Marines,
vita Prodi
6-8
Xanthos r.
river In Lycia: Skylax,
100, Pliny,
nat. 5. 28.
Pomponius Mela, chor. 1. 15. 82, Ptolemy
originally called the Sibros/Sirbis: Strabo 14. 3. 6
created by birth pangs of Le to: Quintus Smyrn. 11.
divine name for Scamander r. in Troad: Homer, II.
named in Sarpedon's kingdom: Homer, II. 5. 479,
associated with Leto's arrival in Lycia: Antoninus
met.
35.1
temple of Apollo founded by Telchines beside river:
5. 56. 1

100,
5.3.2
22-26
20. 73-74
12. 313-14
Liberalis,
Dlodoros

242

The Lye1 ans

on route of Byblis in her journey through Lycia: Ovid,

9. 646
referred to in poetic imagery: Alkman, 1. 100-01
(Lycian
Xanthos?)
site of battle between Lycians and Greeks: Menander,
Asp. 23-114

met.

Zeleia
homeland of the contingent led by Pandaros in the Trojan
War: Homer, II. 2. 824-27, 4. 121, Strabo 12. 4. 6, 13.
7
Lycian colony near Zeleia: Plutarch,
mul. virt.
247F

1.

REGISTER m - PERSONAL NAMES

(A list
of the names of persons and deities
associated
with
Lucia in the Greek and Roman literary
sources.
Multiple
references
are given in chronological
order.)
Alexander
conquest of Lycia (334-33 B.C.): Plutarch,
Alex. 17,
Arrian,
anab. 1. 24. 4-6
alleged destruction of Xanthos: Appian, bell.
civ. 4. 10. 80
uses Patara as one of his emporia: Aelian,
var. I . 25. 11-12
supported by Lycian fleet in war with Dareios:
Arrian,
anab. 2 . 20. 2
appoints Nearchos satrap of Lycia and neighbouring territories:
phil. 13. 4. 2 5
Arrian,
anab. 3. 6. 6, Justin,
hist.
siege of Marmares (near Lycia): Diodoros 17. 28. 1
discovery of bronze tablet (at the Letoon?) foretelling
destruction of Persian empire: Plutarch,
Alex. 17. 4-5
march from Lycia to Pamphylia: Strabo 14. 3. 9
uses a Lycian as interpreter/guide in Persia: Diodoros
17. 68. 4-7, Curtius 5. 4. 10-13, Plutarch,
Alex. 37.
Arrian, anab. 4. 3. 7

1-2,

Amazons
conflicts in western Asia Minor: Strabo 12. 8. 6
conflict with Bellerophon: Homer, II. 6. 186,
Pindar,
01. 13. 87-88, Plutarch,
mul. virt.
248A
Amisodaros (Isaras)
from Lycian colony near Zeleia; voyage to Lycia with
pirate fleet: Plutarch,
mul. virt.
247F
breeds the Chimaera: Homer, II. 16. 328.
Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 3. 1
Amphianax
alternative name of Iobates (s.v.)
Anteia
alternative name of Stheneboea, (s.v.)
Antigonos
satrap of Lycia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia after Alexander's
death (in settlement of 321 B.C.): Diodoros 18. 3. 1,
Curtius 10. 10, Appian, Syr. 11. 9. S3
Lycian contingents in army of Antigonos: Diodoros
19. 29. 3, 19. 69. 1, 19. 82. 4
uses Patara as a naval base: Diodoros 19. 64. 5
Antikleia
alternative name of Philonoe (s.v.)
Apollo
birth in plain of Xanthos: Quintus Smyrn. 11. 22-26
arrival in Lycia as infant: Antoninus Liberalis,
met.
father of Lycadius, founder of Patara: Servius, Verg.
Aen. 3. 332.

35

Quintus

244

The

Lyeians

father of Pataros: Steph. Byz. s.v.

naxapa
Lykios - epithet applied to Apollo: Servius,
Verg.
Aen. 4. 377, Marcrobius,
sat. 1. 17. 36
Lykegenes - epithet applied to Apollo: Homer, II. 4. 101
identified as 'wolf-slayer': Sophokles,
El. 7-8
Apollo Loxias, 'lord of the Lycians':
Bacchylides
12. 147-48
associated with Lycia: Sophokles,
Oed. 205-07
associated with Pandaros in Trojan War: Homer,
II. 2. 827
associated with Glaukos in Trojan War: Homer,
II.
16. 513-31, Quintus Smyrn. 4. 4-6
prepares Sarpedon's corpse for burial: Homer,
II.
16. 666-83
orders the Lycians to worship Skylakeus as a god:
Quintus Smyrn. 10. 164-66
oracular seat a t Sura: Polycharmos,
ap. Athenaeos,
deip.
8.
333,
Aelian,
nat. an. 12. 1
oracular seat of Apollo Thyrxeus at Kyaneae: Pausanias
7. 21.
13
oracular seat at Patara: Strabo 14. 3. 6, Pomponius Mela chor. 1.
15. 82, Statius,
Theb. 8. 200
bronze bowl dedicated by Telephus in temple at P a t a r a :
Pausanias
9. 41. 1
statues of Zeus and Apollo at Patara: Clement, protr.
41
spends six winter months at Patara: Vergil,
Aen. 4. 143-44
associated equally with Delos and Patara: Horace, carm. 3. 4.
61-64
temple founded by Teichines beside Xanthos river: Diodoros
5.
56. 1
Arist ander
seer of Telmessos, consulted by Alexander: Arrian,
25. 8, 4. 3. 7, 4. 4. 3
Artemis
arrival in Lycia as infant: Antoninus
Liberalis,
birth on plain of Xanthos: Quintus Smyrn. 11.
associated with Lycia: Sophokles,
Oed. 208

anab.

met.
22-26

1.

35

Asteropaios
chosen by Sarpedon as his comrade in arms (along with Glaukos)
at Troy: Homer, II. 12. 101-04
Athene
t a m e s and presents Pegasos to Bellerophon: Pausanias 2.4.
bronze spear of Achilles in temple of Athene at Phaselis:
Pausanias 3.3.
8

Bellerophon
the legend of Bellerophon, incl. his journey to & exploits in
Lycia: Homer, II. 6. 155-97, Hesiod, Theog.
319.25,
Pindar, Isthm. 7. 44-47, Ol. 13. 60-92, Euripides,
S then.

Register

245

III

Nauck2, frags.
660-72, Diodoros 6. 9. 1, Strabo 12. 8.
5-6, Pliny, nat. 13. 27. 88, Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 3. 1-2,
Plutarch,
mul. virt.
248A-D, Hyginus, fab. 57,
Zenobius,
cent. 2.87, Pausanias 2. 4. 2, Athenaeus,
delp. 5. 185,
Servius,
Verg. Aen. 6. 288
father of Deidameia who married Euandros, son of Sarpedon (I)
and became father of Sarpedon (II): Diodoros 5. 79. 3
ancestor of Lycian Leukippos who founded Cretinaeum in district
near Ephesos: Par then 1 us, erot.
5
credited with name change from Tremile to Lycia: Alex
Polyhlst.
ap Steph. Byz.
s.v.
tomb in Tlo s : Quintus Smyrn. 10. 162-63
Brutus
conquests in Lycia: Plutarch,
Brut. 30-32, Appian,
4. 10. 76-82, Dio Cassius 47. 34. 1-6
Casandra
alternative name of Philonoe (s.v.): Schol

Homer, II.

bell.

6.

civ.

155.

Chimaera
bred by Amisodaros: Homer, II. 16. 328, Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 3. 1
description: Homer, II. 6. 181-82, Ovid, met. 9.
647-48,
Hyginus, fab. 57, Servius,
ad Verg. Aen. 6. 288
conflict with Bellerophon: Homer, II. 6. 183, Hesiod,
theog.
319-25, Pindar, 01. 13. 90, Diodoros 6. 9. 1, Hyginus,
fab.
57
suggested explanations of the myth: Plutarch,
mul.
virt.
247F-248D
gen. association with Lycia: Ovid, met. 6. 339, Pomponius
Mela, chor.l.
15. 80
myth located in the Kragos district: strabo 14. 3. 5
ref. to the pwxpos of Chimaera: Quintus Smyrn. 8. 107
Chimarrhus
pirate chief from Lycian colony near Zeleia; slain by
Bellerophon: Plutarch,
mul. virt.
247F
C Memos
son of Peisenor, companion of Glaukos, assumed kingship of
Lycia after Glaukos' death, resided on Limyros r., killed in Trojan
War: Quintus Smyrn. 8. 101-05
Cyclopes
7 in number, Lycian in origin: Strabo 8. 6. 11
built the walls of Tiryns for Proitos: Bacchylides,
10.
Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 2. 1, Pausanias 2. 25. 8
Daedalos
died from tortoise bite while crossing the Ninos r. (in Lycia);
city of Daedala founded on the site: Alex. Polyhlst.
ap.
Byz. s.v.
AauaAa

77-78,

Steph.

246

The Lye1 ans

Epikles
companion of Sarpedon at Troy; slain by Aias, son of Telamon:
Homer, II. 12. 378-86
Eumenes
Lycian mercenaries secured for service of Eumenes: Diodoros
18. 61. 4-5
Lycia (along with Paphlagonia, Caria, and Phrygia) assigned to
Eumenes: Justin,
hist,
phil.
13. 6. 4
Europa
abduction by Jupiter; mother of Sarpedon: Hyginus, fab.
1
travels from Phoenicia to C r e t e , and thence to Lycia:
Herodotos 4. 45

178.

Glaukos (son of Hippolochos)

role in the Trojan War: Homer, II. 2. 876-77, 6. 119-236,
7.
13-16, 12. 101-04, 12. 310-471,
16. 492-501,
513-665,
17.
140-68, Apollodoros,
epit.
3. 35, Quintus Smyrn. 3.
214-85,
8. 105
descendant of Bellerophon: Pindar,
01. 60-62
burial beneath Mt. Telandros: Quintus Smyrn. 4. 1-12
Lycian descendants of Glaukos chosen as kings by Ionians:
Herodotos 1. 147
Glaukos (father of Bellerophon)
father of Bellerophon and son of Sisyphos: Homer, II.
Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 3. 1-2, Pausanias 2.4.

6.
2

Harpagos
expedition into s.w. Asia Minor: Herodotos 1. 171
conquest of Xanthos: Herodotos
1. 176, Appian, bell.
10. 80
Hippolochos
father of Glaukos: Homer, II. 6. 206, Apollodoros,
35
son of Bellerophon: Homer, II. 6. 196-97

155,

civ.

epit.

4.

3.

Iobates
Lycian king, alternatively named Amphianax, father-in-law of
Argive king Proitos; provides Proitos with Lycian army for his
return to Greece and occupation of Tiryns: Bacchylides,
10.
77-84, Strabo 8. 6. 11, Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 2. 1,
Pausanias 2. 25. 8
Isander (= Peisander: Strabo 12, 8. 5)
son of Bellerophon: Homer, II, 6. 196-97, Strabo
slain by Ares in b a t t l e with Solymians: Homer, Il.
tomb near Telmessos: Strabo 13. 4. 16
Isaras
alternative name of Amisodaros (s.v.)

12. 8. 5
203-04

Register

247

III

Isauricus, P. Servilius
conquest of pirate strongholds in and near Lycia: strabo
3. 3 & 5, Florus 1. 41. 5, Eutropius
6. 3

14.

Kimon
wins over Lycians 'by persuasion': Diodoros 11. 60. 5
siege of Phaselis: Plutarch,
Kim. 12. 3-4
Kragos
son of Tremilos and Praxidike, brother of Tloos, Xanthos, and
Pinaros: Panyasis ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. TpeyuXn
2nd husband of Milye: Steph. Byz. s.v. MuXuau
Kybernis (= Lye. Kuprlli?)
son of Kossika; commander of Lycian naval contingent in Xerxes'
invasion of Greece: Herodotos 7. 98
Kylabras
hero honoured by Phaselitans with offering of pickled fish:
Zenoblus cent. 6. 36
sold site of Phaselis to Lakios for smoked fish:
Athenaeus,
deip. 7. 297E-98A, citing
Heropythos and
Philostephanos
Lakios
founder of Phaselis: Timachidas, Lind. Chron. c xxrv
purchased site from Kylabras with smoked fish: see under
Kylabras
Lakritos
Phaselitan involved in lawsuit: Demosthenes

35

Laodamas
Lycian slain by Neoptolemos in Trojan War: Quintus
20-21

Smyrn.

Laodameia
daughter of Bellerophon; mother of Sarpedon: Homer, II.
196-99
slain by Artemis: Homer, II. 6. 205

11.

6.

Leto
arrival in Lycia: Ovid, met. 6. 317-81, Antonius Liberal
met. 35, Servius,
Verg. Georg. 1. 378
gives birth to Apollo and Artemis in Lycia; creates Xanthos
river in her birth pangs: Quintus Smyrn. 11. 22-26
Leukippos
Ionia king of Asia Minor; traces his ancestry to Glaukos, son
of Bellerophon: Herodotos 1. 147
son of Xanthios, descendant of Bellerophon; flight to Crete,
and return to Asia Minor where he founded Cretinaeum:
P a r t h e n i u s , erot. 5

is,

248

The

Lycians

Lycadius
son of Apollo and nymph Lycia; founder of P a t a r a : Servi
Verq. Aen. 331. 19-25

us,

Lykos
son of Pandion, refugee from Athens to Lycia: Herodotos
1.
173, 7. 92, Strabo 12. 8. 5, 14. 3. 10, Pomponlus Mela,
chor. 1. 14. 79, Pausanias 1. 19. 3
one of Telchlnes who went to Lycia; founded temple of Apollo by
Xanthos r.: Diodoros 5. 56. 1
Mausolos
ruler of p a r t of Lycia (or Lydia?, see Houwink t e n C a t e , 1965,
13, n. 4): Lucian, dial. mort. 24
demands Lycians' long hair for his horses' forelocks: ( pseudo-J
Aristotle,
oecon. 1348a.
29-34
Melesander
campaign and death in Lycia: Thucydides

2. 69

Miletos
refugee from c r e t e , founder of town Miletos in Asia Minor:
Ovid, met. 9. 446-48, Apollodoros,
bib. 3. 1. 2
Milye
sister and wife of Solymos; subsequently wife of Kragos:
Steph. Byz. s.v.
MuXuau
Mlthrldates
conquest of Lycia: Appian, Kith. 12. 3. 20-21
siege of Patara: Appian, Hith. 12. 4. 27
Lycia liberated from Mithridates by Sulla: Appian,
9. 61

Mlth.

12.

Mopsos
founder of Phaselis: Pomponlus Mela, chor. 1. 14. 79
father of Rhode (s.v.): Theopompos 12 ap. Photius,
bib. 176 p.
120a 14. 15, (Jac. II B 115, no. 113)
instigated foundation of Phaselis by Lakios: Athenaeos,
deip.
297E-98A
Naucrates
Lycian leader in the unsuccessful resistance against Brutus:
Plutarch,
Brut. 30. 3
Nearchos
appointed satrap of Lycia and neighbouring territories by
Alexander: Arrian 3. 6. 6, Justin,
hist.
phil.
13. 4.
Nemios
Rhodian commander; defeated Lycian pirates in sea b a t t l e ;
founder of Gagae: Etym. Magn. 219 s.v.
rctyau
Ogygie
alternative name of Praxidike (s.v.)

15

Register
Olen
mythical Lycian or
Kallimachos,
s. y.'fiXnv ,
21. 3, 9. 27.

249

III

Hyperborean epic poet: Herodotos 4. 35,

bym. 4. 304-05, Alex. Polyhlst.
ap. Suidas
Pausanias 1. 18. 5, 2. 13. 3, 5. 7. 8-9, 8.
2

Pandaros
son of Lykaon, leader of contingent from Zeleia in Trojan War:
Homer, II. 2. 826-27
under protection of Apollo: Homer, II. 2 827, 4. 101, 4. 119
associated with Lycia: Homer, II. 5. 105, 5. 173
involvement in combat in Trojan War: Homer, II. 4. 86-104,
5.
95-105, 5. 166-240
the 'northern Lycia' subject to Pandaros: Strabo 12. 4. 6,
13. 1. 7
cult in Pinara: Strabo 14. 3. 5
Pataros
son of Apollo; name derived from patara: Alex.
ap. Stepb. Byz. s.v.
Flaxapa
Lycian brigand: Eustathius, Dion. Perleg.
129

Polyhist.

Pegasos (Pagasos)
offspring of Gorgon; tamed by Bellerophon: Pindar, Ol. 13.
63-92
tamed and given to Bellerophon by Athene: Pausanias 2.4.
1
Peisander
Homeric name for Isander (s.v.)
Perikle
blockade of harbour of Phaselis: Polyaenus,
strat.
5. 42
conquest of Telmessos: Theopompos 12, ap. Photius,
bib.
p. 120a 14. 17 O a c . JJ B, 115, no. 103)
Phanes
Halikarnassian in military service of Amasis; flight to and
capture in Lycia: Herodotos 3. 4
Pharnuches
Lycian used as interpreter/guide by Alexander in Persia:
Diodoros 17. 68. 4-7, Quintus Curtius 5. 4.
10-13,
Plutarch,
Alex. 37. 1-2, Arrian,
anab. 4. 3. 7
Philonoe (Antikleia/Casandra)
daughter of Iobates; given in marriage to Bellerophon:
Apollodoros,
bib.
2.3.2
Pinaros
son of Tremilos and Praxidike: Panyasis,
s.v.
TpeyuAn

ap. steph.

Byz.

176,

250

The

Lyclans

Praxidike
mother of Kragos, Tloos, Xanthos, and Pinaros: Paiiyasis
Steph. Byz. s.v. TpepuXri

ap.

Proitos
king of Argos, driven from kingdom by brother Akrisios, seeks
refuge in Lycia, marries Stheneboea (daughter of Lye. king), returns
to Greece and occupies Tiryns with Lye. army: BacchyTides
10.
64-70, Strabo 8. 6. 11, Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 2. 1,
Pausanias 2. 25. 7
sends Bellerophon to Lycia: Homer, II. 6. 155-71,
Euripides,
S then. Nauck2, frags.
661-72, Diodoros 6. 9. 1,
Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 3. 1-2, Hyginus, fab. 57,
Zenobius,
cent. 2. 87
Ptolemy I (Soter)
conquest of Phaselis and Xanthos: Diodoros

20. 27. 1

Ptolemy Philadelphus
overlord
of Lycia:
Theokritos
17. 89
repaired temple of Apollo at Patara, and renamed city Arsinoe:
Strabo 14. 3. 6
Ptolemy -?
a ruler of Telmessos (perhaps related to Egyptian Ptolemies)
prior to battle of Magnesia: Livy 37. 56. 4
Rhode
daughter of Mopsos; Rhodiapolis named after her: Theopompos
12 ap. Photius,
bib. 176, p. 120 a 14. IS (Jac. II B,
no. 103)
Salakia
sea goddess, associated with origin of Patara: Alex.
ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
ITaxapa

115,

Polyhist.

Sarpedon (in Homeric tradition)

son of Zeus and Laodameia: Homer, II, 6. 198-199
role as leader of the Lycian contingent at Troy: Homer, II,
2. 876-77, 5. 471-93, 5. 628-98, 12. 101-04, 12.
310-471,
16. 419-526,
16. 532-683, Apollodoros,
epit.
3. 35,
Hyginus, fab. 106. 2, Athenaeus,
deip. 1. 13, Quintus
Smyrn. 4. 289-90
Sarpedon (the immigrant from Crete)
flight from Crete to Cilicia; becomes king of Lycia:
Apollodoros,
bib. 3. 1. 2
arrival with Termilae in Lycia: Herodotos 1. 173, 7. 92,
Strabo 12. 8. 5, 14. 3. 10
conquest of Lycia; grandfather of the 'Homeric' Sarpedon:
Diodoros 5. 79. 3
founder of Miletos: Ephoros ap. Strabo 14. 1. 6, Strabo

12. 8. 5

Register

251

III

Skylakeus
son of Oileus, companion of Glaukos; fled from Trojan War to
Lycia; stoned to death by Lycian women: Quintus Smyrn.
147-66

10.

Solymians
original inhabitants of Lyeia: Homer, II, 1. 173, Strabo
12.
8. 5, 14. 3. 10
basic stock of Kabalia district and Termessos: strabo 13. 4.
16
listed amongst extinct Asiatic races: Eratosthenes ap. Pliny,
nat. 5. 33. 127
occupied peaks of Taurus range around Lycia: Strabo 1. 2. 11
conflict with Bellerophon: Homer, II. 6. 184-85, Pindar,
01.
13..90,
Strabo 12. 8. 5, 13. 4. 16, Apollodoros,
bib. 2.
2
Isander, son of Bellerophon, killed in conflict with
Solymians: Homer, II. 6. 203-04
cult of Kronos amongst the Solymians: Plutarch,
def.
orac.
421D-E
Solyms
son of Zeus and Chaldene: Steph Byz. s.v.
husband and brother of Milye: steph.
Byz.

3.

MLUCXL
s.v. TIuLOL-a

Stheneboea (Anteia)
daughter of lobates, wife of Proitos; a t t e m p t e d seduction of
Bellerophon: Homer, II. 6. 160-66, Euripides,
Sthen.,
Nauck?, frags.
660-72, Diodoros 6. 9. 1,
Apollodoros,
bib. 2. 2. 1, 2. 3. 1-2, Hyginus, fab. 57, Zenobius,
cent.
2. 87
Telchines
immigrants from Rhodes, founded temple of Apollo beside
Xanthos r.: Diodoros 5. 56. 1
suggested conflict with Apollo (the l a t t e r in wolf guise):
Servius,
Verg. Aen. 4. 377
Telephus
dedicated bronze bowl in temple of Apollo at Patara:
Pausanias 9. 41. 1
Tlepolemos
migration to Rhodes: Homer, II. 2. 653-70
conflict with Sarpedon: Homer, II. 5. 628-69
Tloos
son of Tremilos and Praxidike: Panyasis
s . v. TpeybXri

ap. Steph.

Byz.

Tremilos
father of Kragos, Tloos, Xanthos, and Pinaros by Praxidike:
Panyasis ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
Tpepi^n

252

The

Lycians

Xanthos
son of Tremilos and Praxidike: Panyasis ap. Steph.
s.v.
Tpen^n
king of Crete; abductor of Europa: Augustine,
civ.
of Cretan or Egyptian origin: Hekataios
ap. Steph.
s.v.
Eav3o
son of Triopas, king of the Pelasgians of Argos; seizes
Lycia: Diodoros 5. 81. 2

Byz.
D. 18.
Byz.

12

part of

Xerxes
includes Lycia in ship-building programme: Diodoros 11. 2. 2
Lycian naval contingent in Xerxes' fleet: Herodotos 7. 92, 7.
98, Diodoros 11. 3. 7
Zeniketos
Cilician pirate; controlled Phaselis and had stronghold at
Olympos; suicided when Olympos captured by P. Servilius Isauricus:
Strabo 14. 5. 7
Zeus
father of Sarpedon: Diodoros 5. 79. 3, Apollodoros,
epit.
35
orders Apollo to prepare Sarpedon's body for burial: Homer,
II. 16. 666-75
husband of Le to: Quintus Smyrn. 11. 22

3.

EPIGRAPHIC INDEX
(A list of the references to the Lycian epichoric inscriptions dealt
with in this volume. References in bold type indicate pages where all
or part of the inscription in question is translated.)
TL 1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
11.
16.
17.
20.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
31.
32.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
SI.
52.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
61.
64.

73, 150-51
61,121
61, 73, 121, 161
61, 73
52, 55, 61, 73-74, 151, 151-53, 163, 182
66-67, 74,139
74, 138, 139
49, 60, 74, 121, 133-34, 161
61, 83
60
60
130,132
52
89
52, 55, 68, 89, 90, 139, 164, 165
61, 63, 89, 130, 173, 174
89, 90, 164
89, 148, 151
49, 130, 133, 139, 161, 165
61, 121
52, 166
49, 61, 89, 130, 134
60, 61, 74-75, 121, 139, 148
75, 138, 161
61, 121, 131, 163
61, 75, 121, 147-48
47, 111, 113, 161
61, 147
60, 121
46,133
46, 47, 52, 55, 61, 70-71, 89, 97-98, 107-08, 109-10,
130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 148, 160, 161, 166, 174, 175, 177,
178, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189
52, 89
60,121
61, 121
117, 138, 187
75, 117, 131
60, 121, 122
89
76,121
57, 89, 131
71, 89
52, 68, 76, 124, 174, 175
76-77, 118, 121, 130, 173
121, 175, 188
139
47, 77, 112, 113, 133, 160
47, 133, 161

254
65.
67.
69.
70.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
80.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
101.
202.
103.
104.
106.
107.
108.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
226.
117.
118.
222.
124.
225.
127.
131.
132.
133.
134.
235.
136.
138.
139.
143.
245.

The

Lijcians

49-50, 53, 89, 130, 174, 175, 189

46-47, 133
57
52, 139
127, 148
77, 121, 174
148, 174
46, 133, 161
148, 163
173, 174
139
46-47, 130, 133, 135, 148, 149-50, 174, 179
61, 69-70, 77-78, 126, 130, 136, 139, 142
78, 138
148, 160
67, 78-79, 130, 135, 164, 174
79, 130, 138
58, 130, 163
79-80, 164
130
79, 80, 124, 164, 174
80, 130, 174
130, 135, 138, 139, 142
81
81-82, 125, 174, 175, 189
46-47, 58, 117, 133, 163
48, 58, 111-12, 164
57, 82, 121, 130, 135, 175, 187, 189
61, 62, 82, 116
147
174
81, 82-83, 125, 130, 131, 174, 179
175
139, 160
61, 83, 121
61, 121
151, 163
52, 67-68, 83, 164
83, 121, 124, 130, 135
83-84, 175, 189
60, 84, 116
47
138, 148, 164
61, 81, 82, 84-85, 124-25, 125, 174
46-47, 133
46-47, 130, 132
52, 55, 130
47, 121, 124, 174, 178
139
85
85, 121, 124, 175, 188
52, 55, 85-86, 131
61, 121, 174

Index

146.

138

149.
150.

57, 81, 86, 121, 130, 132, 164, 173, 174, 175, 178, 189
87, 127, 130, 135, 151, 164, 174, 178

151.
152.
N 300.

302.

255

54
53
45

52, 149

304.

89

306.
307.
309.
310.
311.
312.

87, 130, 137, 175-76, 189

45, 174, 178
175-76,189
46, 87-88, 133, 161
44, 52, 89, 94, 161
44, 52, 89, 165, 181

313.

45

314.
315.
318.
319.
320.
322.

46-47, 133, 181

47, 161
89, 161
53-54,89
44, 48-49, 52, 55, 62-63, 68-70, 79, 84, 89, 91-93, 114,
130, 131, 132,-33, 135, 165, 166, 169-71, 174, 175, 182,
186-87, 191-93
60, 88, 130, 131, 174, 179

323.

45

Suppl.

1.
2.
3.
4.

43-44, 46, 53, 89, 95

44,52,89
44,89
44,89

5.
6.

44
44

7.

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akurgal E.
(1961), Die Kunst Anatollens,

Berlin.

Albright WJ.
(1950), 'Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem 1 ,
AJA 54, 162-76.
Allen T.
(1921), The Homeric Catalogue

of Ships,

Oxford.

Archi A.
(19 71), 'The Propaganda of Hattusili III', SMEA 14,
185-215.
Arkwright W.
(1895), T h e Frontiers of Lycia and Caria', JHS 15, 93-99.
(1899), 'ber das lykische Alphabet', JOAI 2, 52-76.
(1911), 'Penalties in Lycian Epitaphs of Hellenistic and
Roman Times', JHS 31, 269-75.
(1923), 'Lycian Epitaphs' in Anatolian
Studies presented
to
Sir William Mitchell
Ramsay, ed. Buckler, W.H. and Calder,
W.M., Manchester, 15-25.
Asheri D.
(1983), Fra Ellenlsmo

e Iranismo,

Bologna.

Astour M.C.
(1965), 'New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit', AJA 69,
253-58.
(1967), Hellenosemitica,
Leiden, 2nd ed.
Atlan S.
(1958), 'Eine in Side geprgte lykische Mnze',
3, 89-95.
von Aulock H.
(1974), Die Mnzprgung des Gordian III
Tranquil Una in Lykien, Tbingen.

Anatolia

und der

Babelon E.
(1893), Les perses achmnides,
les satrapes
et les
dynastes
tributaires
de leur empire, Cypre et
Phnice,
Paris.
(1910), Trait des monnaies grecques et romaines, II. 2,
Paris.
Bachofen J.J.
(1861), Das Mutterrecht,
Basel (repr. 1948).
(1862), Das lykische
Volk und seine Bedeutung fr die
Entwicklung
des Alterthums,
Freiburg in Breisgau.
Badian E.
(1977), 'A Document of Artaxerxes IV"?', in Studies
Presented
to Fritz Schachermeyr on the Occasion

of

his

Bibliography

257

Eightieth
Birthday,
Greece and the
Eastern
Mediterranean
in Ancient History and Prehistory,
Kinzl K.H., Berlin, NY., 40-50.

ed.

Barnett R.D.
(1974), 'A Silver Head-Vase with Lycian Inscriptions' in
Mansel'e Armagan Mlanges Mansel, Ankara, 893-901.
(1975), 'The Sea Peoples', CAH II. 2 3 , 359-78.
Bayburtluogu C.
(1980), Lykia.
(1982), 'Das soziale und wirtschaftliche Leben in Arykanda
(Lykien)' in Palast und Htte-, ed. D. Papenfuss and V.M.
Strocka, Mainz-am-Rhein.
Beal R.H.
(1983), 'The Succession of Amuwanda I and his Relationship
to Queen Asmunikal', JCS 35, 117-18.
Bean G.E.
(1948), 'Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia', JHS 68, 40-58.
(1954), 'Notes and Inscriptions from Kaunos', JHS 74,
85-110.
(1958), 'Die Lage von Phellos', Anz. phil.-hist.
Kl. Ost.
Ak. Hiss., Vienna, 49-58.
(1968), Turkey's
Southern Shore, London.
(1971), Journeys in northern Lycia, 1965-67', Vienna.
(1978), Lycian Turkey, London.
(1979), Aegean Turkey, London, 2nd ed.
Beaufort F.
(1818), Karamania,

London, 2nd ed.

Beneviste E.
(1966), Titres
et noms propres en iranien
(1969), Le vocabulaire
des institutions
Paris.
Benndorf 0 . and Niemann G.
(1884), Reisen in Lykien und Karlen,

ancien, Paris.
indoeuropenes,

Vienna.

Bernard P.
(1964), 'Une pice d'armure perse sur un monument lycien',
Syria 41, 195-212.
Bisse K.A.
(1971), 'Who were the Amazons?', Greece
series, 18, 150-01.

and Rome, 2nd

Blinkenberg C.
(1915), Die lindische
Tempelchronik,
Bonn.
(1941), Lindos, fouilles
et recherches, 1902-14. ILl:
Les inscriptions, Berlin-Copenhagen.

258

The

Lyeians

Blumenthal E.
(1963), 'Die altgriechische Siedlungskolonisation im
Mittelmeerraum unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Sdkste
Kleinasiens', Tbinger geographische
Studien, 10, Tbingen,
128-32.
Blomqyist J.
(1982), 'Translation Greek in the Trilingual Inscription of
Xanthos', Opuscula Athniens la 14, 11-20.
Bockish G.
(1969), 'Die Karier und ihre Dynasten', Kilo 51, 117-75.
Borchhardt J.
(1967), 'Limyra, Sitz des lykischen Dynasten Perikles',
Ist. Mitt. 17, 151-67.
(1968) (and Neumann G.), 'Dynastische Grabanlagen von
Kadyanda', AA 83, 174-238.
(1969-70), 'Ein Totengericht in Lykien, zum Grabmal des
Xntabura in Limyra', Ist. Mitt. 19-20, 187-222.
(1970), 'Das Heroon von Limyra - Grabmal des lykischen
Knigs Perikles', AA 85, 353-90.
(1972), 'Der Triumphierende Perseus in Lykien', Antike
Welt 3, 1972, 2-16.
(1973), 'Limyra, Bericht der III Grabungskampagne 1971",
TAD 20/1, 37-62.
(1974) (and Wurster W.), 'Megalith-Grber in Lykien', AA
89, 514-38.
(1975), Myra eine lykische
Metropole, Berlin.
(1985) (et al.), 'Das Grabmal des Sohnes des Ta aus Hoiran in
Zentrallykien', JOAI 55, 70-124.
Bousquet J.
(1975), 'Arbinas, fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos',
CRAI, 138-48.
Breasted J.H.
(1962), Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. Ill, New York
(reissue of 1906 ed.).
Bryce T.R.
(1974), 'The Lukka Problem - and a Possible Solution',
JNES 33, 395-404.
(1975), 'Lycian piye- and the Allocation of Burial
Rights', RHA 33, 31-41.
(1976a), 'Burial Fees in the Lycian Sepulchral
Inscriptions', AS 26, 175-90.
(1976b), 'The Lycian e variants as a Dating Criterion for
the Lycian Texts', Kadmos 15, 168-70.
(1977), 'Pandaros, a Lycian at Troy', AJP 98, 213-18.
(1978), 'Two Terms of Relationship in the Lycian
Inscriptions', JNES 37, 217-25.
(1978-79), 'A Recently Discovered Cult in Lycia', Journal
of Religious
History 10, 115-27.

Bibliography
(1979a), 'Lycian Tomb Families and their Social
Implications', JESHO 22, 296-313.
(1979b), 'The Role of the Lukka People in Late Bronze Age
Anatolia', Ant ich thon 13, 1-11.
(1980a), 'Burial Practices in Lycia', The Mankind
Quarterly 21, 165-78.
(1980b), 'The Other Pericles', Historia
29, 377-81.
(1980c), 'Sacrifices to the Dead in Lycia', Kadmos 19,
41-49.
(1981a), 'Disciplinary Agents in the Lycian Sepulchral
Inscriptions', AS 31, 81-93.
(1981b), review of Neumann G, Neufunde lykische
Inschriften
seit 1901, BiOr 38, 225-33.
(1982a), 'A Ruling Dynasty in Lycia', Klio 64, 329-37.
(1982b), Historical
and Social Documents of the
Hittite
World, University of Queensland.
(1983a), 'Political Unity in Lycia during the Dynastic
Period*, JNES 42, 31-42.
(1983b), 'The Arrival of the Goddess Leto in Lycia',
Historia 32, 1-13.
(1985), 'A Reinterpretation of the Milawata Letter in the
light of the New Join Piece', AS 35, 13-23.

Burn A.R.
(1930), Minoans,

Philistines,

and Greeks, London.

Cameron A.
(1939), Spe-ro and Related Terms in the Inscriptions
of Asia Minor' in Anatolian Studies
presented
to
W. Buckler, ed Calder W.M. and Keil J. Manchester, 27-62.
Carruba O.
(1968), 'Die I. und IL Pers. Plur. im Luwische und im
Lykischen', Die Sprache 14, 13-23.
(1969), 'Die satzeinleitenden Partikeln in den Indogermanischen
Sprachen Anatoliens', Incunabula Graeca, vol 32, Rome.
(1970), 'Contribute al Licio', SHEA 11, 27-42.
(1974)/1 Termini per Mese, Anno, e i Numerali in Licio',
RlLlOS, 575-97.
(1977), 'Commentario alla Trilingue Licio-Greco-Aramaica di
Xanthos', SMEA 18, 2 73-318.
(1979), 'Commento alle nuove iscrizioni di Licia' in Studia
Mediterranea,
75-95.
Catling H.W.
(1975), 'Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age' in CAM II. 2 3 ,
188-216.
Childs W.A.P.
(1979), 'The Authorship of the Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos',
AS 29, 97-102.
(1981), 'Lycian Relations with Persians and Greeks in the
5th and 4th centuries Re-examined', AS 31, 55-80.

259

260

The

Lycians

Contii R.
(1981), review of Metzger H. et al., Fouilles
Tome VI, Oriens Antiquus 20, 231-35.
Cook J.M.
(1983), The Persian

de

Xanthos,

Empire, London.

Coulton J.J.
(1982), 'Termessians at Oinoanda', AS 32, 115-31.
Coupel P. and Demargne P.
(1963), See Metzger, 1963.
(1969), Fouilles
de Xanthos,
Nrides, Paris.

Tome III,

le monument des

De ecke W.
(1889), 'Lykische Studien IV' in Bei trage zur Kunde der
Indogermanischen
Sprachen (ed. A. Bezzenberger) XIV
Gttingen, 181 ff.
Delcourt M.
(195), Hermaphrodite:
mythes et rites
de la
bisexualit
dans l'antiquit
classique,
Paris.
(1962-63), 'The Legend of Sarpedon and the Saga of the
Archer', History of Religions
2, 33-51.
Deltour-Levie C.
(1982), Les pillers

funraires

de Lycie,

Louvain.

Demargne P.
(1958), Fouilles
de Xanthos, Tome I, les
piliers
funraires,
Paris.
(1967) (and Metzger H.), 'Xanthos1 in RE IX A/2, 1375-1408.
(1969), See Coupel, 1969.
(1974), Fouilles
de Xanthos, Tome V, tombes -maisons,
tombes
rupestres
et sarcophages,
Paris.
(1979), 'Athna, les dynastes lyciens et les hros grecs' in
Florilegium
Anatolicum 97-101.
Devambez P.
(1960), 'Les piliers funraires de Xanthos', Journal
Savants, 34-42.
Dittenberger W.
(1903-05), Orientis
Graeci
supplementum sylloges

Inscrlptlones
inscriptionum

des

Selectae:
Graecarum, Leipzig (=

OGIS).

Dunbabin J.J.
(1953), 'Bellerophon, Herakles, and Chimaera1 in Studies
presented
to David M. Robinson, Vol II, St. Louis, 1164-84.

Bibliography

261

Dupont-Sommer A.
(1974), 'La stle trilingue rcemment dcouverte au Lton
de Xanthos: le texte aramen 1 , CRAI, 132-49.
(1979), 'L'inscription aramenne' in Fouilles
de Xanthos
VI: la stle
trilingue
du Lton, Paris, 129-69.
Eichner H.
(1983), 'Etymologische Beitrge der Trilingue vom Letoon bei
Xanthos', Orientalia
52, 48-66.
Eilers W.
(1940), 'Kleinasiatisches' ZDMG 94, 189-233
Farnell L.R.
(1907), The Cults

of the Greek States,

Florilegium Anatolicum
(1979), Mlanges offerts

Vol. IV, Oxford.

Emmanuel Laroche, Paris.

Fraser J.
(1927), The Golden Bough, Part IV, Vol n, London.
Frei P.
(1967), Bemerkungen zu lykischen Mnzlegenden', Schweizer
Mnzbltter 67, 85-90.
(1976), 'Die Trilingue vom Letoon, die lykischen Zahlzeichen
und das lykische Geldsystem', Schweizerische
Numismatische
Rundschau 55, 5-16.
(1977) (as for 1976), 56, 66-78.
(1978), 'Die Lykier bei Homer', in Procs. of the Xth
International
Congress of Classical
Archaeology, 819-27.
(1981), review of Metzger H. et al., Fouilles
de Xanthos,
Tome VI, BiOr 38, 354-71.
Friedrich J.
(1930), Staatsvertrge
des Hatti-Relches
Sprache, MVAG 24. 1.
(1932), Kleinasiatische
Sprachdenkmler,
Gaisford T. (d.)
(1967), Etymologicon
ed.).

in

hethitischer

Berlin.

Magnum, Amsterdam (reprint of 1848

Garbini G.
(1977), 'Osservazioni sul testo aramaico dlia trilingue di
Xanthos', SMEA 18, 273-318.
Gardiner A.
(1975), The Kadesh Inscriptions
(repr. of 1966 ed.).
Garstang J.
(1910), The Land of the Hittites,

of Ramesses

London.

II, Oxford

262

The

Lycians

Garstang J. and Gurney O.R.

(1959), The Geography of the Hittite

Empire, London.

Gates C.
(1974), "The Luwian '12 Gods'", AJA 78, 165-66.
Goetze A.
(1957), Kleinasien2,
Munich.
(1960), review of Garstang and Gurney, The Geog. of the
Hittite
Empire, JCS 14, 43-48.
(1967), Die Annalen des Marsilis,
Darmstadt, repr. of 1933
ed. appearing in MVAG 38.
(1968), Madduwattas, Darmstadt, repr. of 1928 ed.
appearing in MVAG 32,1.
Gurney O.R.
(1940), Hittite
Prayers of Mursili
II, University of
Liverpool.
(1980), The Hittites,
Harmondsworth.
Gusmanl R.
(1960), 'Concordanze e Discordanze nella Flessione Nominale
del Licio e del Luvio', RIL 94, 497-512.
(1962), 'Kleinasiatische Verwandtschaftsnamen', Die
Sprache 8, 177-83.
(1963), 'Kleinasiatische Miszellen', IF 68, 284-94.
(1968), 'Zur Deutung einiger milyischer Wrter', AO 36,
1-18.
(1975), 'In margine alla trilingue licio-greco-aramaica di
Xanthos', Incontri
Llnguistici
2, 61-75.
(1977) 'Randbemerkungen zur Trilingue von Xanthos', ZDMG
Suppl. III, 1, 52-54.
(1979a), 'Lykisch smmati', in Flor i legi um Anatolicum,
129-36.
(1979b), 'Su due termini dlia trilingue di Xanthos' in
Studia Mediterranea,
225-34.
Gterbock H. G.
(1983), 'The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered", AJA 87,
133-38.
Hahnl.
(1981), 'Perikenund Perikenbesitz in Lykien', Kilo 63,
51-61.
Hailock R.T.
(1969), Persepolis
Hamp E.H.
(1980), 'Lycian

Fortification

Tablets,

Chicago.

ahba1, JNES 39, 215-16.

Hansen E. and LeRoy C.

(1976), 'Au Lton de Xanthos: les deux temples de Lto',
RA fasc. 2, 317-36.

263

Bibliography
Hansen P.A.
(1975), A List of Greek Verse Inscriptions
B.c. y Copenhagen.

down to 400

Hawkins D.
(1974), appendix to Barnett R.D., ' A Silver Head-Vase with
Lycian Inscriptions', Mlanges Mansel, 902-03.
Head B.V.
(1887), Hlstoria

Numorum, Oxford.

Heinhold-Krahmer S.
(1977), Arzawa (Texte der Hethiter
Hestermann F.
(1929), Matrlarchale

lykische

8), Heidelberg.

Inschriften,

Utrecht.

Heubeck A.
(1975), 'berlegungen zum lykischen Plural', Incontrl
Linguistic!
2, 77-88.
(1980a), review of Metzger H. et al., Fouilles
de Xanthos,
Tome VI, Gnomon 52, 560-61.
(1980b), review of Neumann G., Neufunde
lykische
Inschriften
seit 1901, Kratylos 24, 77-81.
(1981), 'Weiteres zur lykischen Verbalflexion',
Zeitschrift
fr Vergleichende
Sprachforschung
95, 158-73.
(1982), 'Zur lykischen Verbalflexion* in serta
Indogermanica, 107-19.
Hoffner H.A.
(1982), 'The Milawata Letter Augmented and Reinterpreted',
AfO Beiheft 19, 130-37.
Hope-Simpson R.
(1965), A Gazetteer
Hornblower S.
(1982), Mausolos,

and Atlas

of Mycenaean Sites,

London.

Oxford.

Houwink ten Cate Ph. H. J.

(1965), The Luwian Population
Groups of Lycia and
Cllicia
Aspera during the Hellenistic
Perlodt Leiden.
(1970), The Records of the Early Hittite
empire, Istanbul.
Hurter S.
(1979), 'Der Tissaphemes-Fund 1 in Greek Numismatics and
Archaeology, ed. Mrirkholm O. and Waggoner N., Belgium,
97-108.
Imbert J.
(1891), 'Notes on the Writings of the Lycian Monuments',
BOR 5, 105-14.
(1893), tudes d'histoire lycienne', Le Muson 12, 235-43.

264

The

Lye1ans

(1894), 'Les termes de parent dans les Inscriptions

lyciennes', MSL 8, 449-72.
(1896), 'Une pitaphe lycienne', MSL 9, 196-232.
(1898), 'De quelques inscriptions lyciennes', MSL 10,
24-58 and 207-27.
(1900), 'De quelques inscriptions lyciennes', MSL 11,
217-57.
Jameson S.
(1973), 'Lykia' in RE x m (Suppl.) 265-308.
Jenkins G.K.
(1959), 'Recent Acquistions of Greek Coins by the British
Museum', NC 6th Series, Vol 19, 23-45.
Jones A.H.M.
(1971), The Cities
of the Eastern Roman Provinces,
by M. Avi-Yonah et al.), Oxford, 2nd ed.

(rev.

Jordan B.
(1975), The Athenian
of California.

Univ.

Navy in the classical

Period,

Kalinka .
(1901), Titull
Aslae Mlnoris:
Tituli
Lyciae lingua
Lycia
conscript!,
Vienna (cited as TL).
(1920-44), Tituli
Asiae Mlnoris:
Titull
Lyciae
Unguis
Graeca et Latina conscript!,
Vienna (cited as TAM II).
Keil J. and von Premerstein A.
(1914), Bericht
ber eine dritte

Reise

in Lydien,

Klshimoto M.
(1965), 'Lykisch *wawa', Anadolu Arastlrmalari,

Istanbul, 283-86.

Kleiner G.
(1969), 'Stand der Erforschung von Alt-Met*, Ist.
19/20, 113-23.
Knapp A.B.
(1980), 'Alasiya and Hatti', JCS 32, 43-47.
Knudtzon J.A.
(1915) Die El-Amarna Tafeln,

Vienna..

Leipzig (=EA).

Knig F.W.
(1936), 'Die Stele von Xanthos V, Klotho I,
Vienna.
Korol'ov A. and Sevoroskin V.
(1969), 'Lykische Wrter und Namen', AO 37, 23-44.

Mltt.

265

Bibliography
Kretschmer P.
(1933), 'Die Hypachaer', Glotta 21, 213-57,
(1939), 'Die Stellung der lykischen Sprache I', Glotta 27,
256-61,
(1940), 'Die Stellung der lykischen Sprache II', Glotta 28,
101-16.
Kruse
(1927), 'Lykeios' in RE XIII, 2268-70.
Kubinska J.
(1968), Les monuments funraires
dans les
grecques de l ' Asie Mineure, Warsaw.

inscriptions

Laroche E.
(1957-58), 'Comparaison du louvite et du lycien', BSL 53,
159-97.
(1958), 'tudes de vocabulaire Vu1, RHA 63, 85-114.
(1959), Dictionnaire
de la langue louvite,
Paris.
(1960), 'Comparaison' (cont.), BSL 55, 155-85.
(1966), Les noms des Hittites,
Paris.
(1967), 'Comparaison* (cont.), BSL 62, 46-64.
(1971), Catalogue des textes hittites,
Paris (= CTH)
(1974a), 'La stle trilingue rcemment dcouverte au Lton
de Xanthos: le texte lycien', CRAI 115-25.
(1974b), 'Les pitaphes lyciennes' in Fouilles
de Xanthos,
Tome V, Paris, 123-49.
(1976), 'Lyciens et Termiles', RA fasc. 1, 15-19.
(1979a), 'Les reprsentants lyciens de l'anatolien appa' in
Studia Mediterranea
2, 347-52.
(1979b), 'L'inscription lycienne' in Fouilles
de Xanthos,
Tome VI, Paris, 49-127.
(1980), 'Les dieux de la Lycie classique d'aprs les textes
lyciens', in Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie Antique, Paris,
1-6.
Larsen J.A.O.
(1945), 'Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic
Federalism', Classical
Philology,
40, 65-97.
(1956), 'The Araxa Inscription and the Lycian Confederacy',
Classical
Philology 51, 151-69.
(19*68), Greek Federal States, Oxford (espec. 240-63 on the
Lycian Confederacy).
Lebrun R
(1977), 'L'tat actuel de la connaissance du lycien',
Hethitlca
II, 155-58.
Lethaby W.R.
(1917), 'The Earlier Temple of Artemis at Ephesus', JHS 37,
1-16.
Macqueen J.
(1968), 'Geography and History in Western Asia Minor in the

266

The Lye1 ans

2nd Millennium B.C.', AS 18, 169-85.

(1975), The Hittites
and their contemporaries
Minor, London.

In

Asia

Magie D.
(1975), Roman Rule In Asia Minor to the End of the 3rd
Century after Christ, Princeton (repr. of 1950 ed.).
Malten L.
(1925), 'Bellerophontes', JDAI 40, 121-60.
(1944), 'Homer und die lykischen Frsten', Hermes 79, 1-12.
Masson .
(1979), 'Les inscriptions louvites hiroglyphiques
d'Emirgazi', Journal des Savants, 1-49.
Masson 0 .
(1974), 'Notes d'pigraphie carienne', Kadmos 13, 127-30.
(1977), 'Notes d'pigraphie carienne III-V, Kadmos 16,
87-94.
Mee C.
(1978), 'Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the 2nd
Millennium B.C.', AS 28, 121-56.
Mlanges Mans el
(1974) Mansel 'e Armagan, Mlanges
Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara.

Mansel, Turk Tarih

MellinkMJ.
(1964), (and subsequent years) 'Excavations at
Karatas-Semayk in Lycia', AJA 68 etc.
(19 74), 'Archaeology in Asia Minor', AJA 78, 105-30.
(1980), 'Archaeology in Asia Minor', AJA 84, 501-18.
(1983), 'Archaeological Comments on the Ahhiyawa-Achaeans in
Western Anatolia', AJA 87, 138-41.
Mercer S.A.B.
(1939), The Tell-El-Amarna

Tablets,

Toronto.

Meriggi P.
(1928), 'La declinazione de Licio', Rendlcontl
della
Accademla Nazlonale del Llncel, S er. VI, vol. 4, 410-50.
(1930), 'Beitrge zur lykischen Syntax', KLF 1, 414-61.
(1936), 'Der Indogermanismus des lykischen', Festschrift
fr
Herman Hlrt, ed. Arntz H., Heidelberg, vol. 2, 257-82.
(1963), 'Anatolische Satzpartikeln', RHA 72, 1-33.
(1978),'Appunti sul licio', Incontrl
Llngulstlcl
4, 43-48.
(1979), 'La declinazione del Licio', (Part II), Rendlcontl
etc. Ser. VIII, vol. 33, 243-68.
(1980), 'La declinazione dei nomi propri e dei pronomi in
licio', SMEA 22, 215-74.

267

Bibliography
Merrltt
(1932), Athenian
Ann Arbor.

Financial

Documents of the Fifth

Century,

Metzger H.
(1963) (and Coupel P.), Fouilles
de Xanthos, Tome II,
l'acropole
lycienne, Paris.
(1966), 'Fouilles du Lton de Xanthos (1962-65)', RA,
101-12.
(1967), see Demargne, 1967.
(1970), 'Fouilles du Lton de Xanthos (1966-69)', RA,
307-22.
(1972), Fouilles
de Xanthos, Tome IV, les
cramiques
archaques
et classiques
de l'acropole
lycienne,
Paris.
(1974a) (et al.), Fouilles du Lton de Xanthos', RA fasc.
2, 313-40.
(1974b), 'La stle trilingue rcemment dcouverte au Lton
de Xanthos: le texte grec', CRAI, 82-93.
(1979), 'Le sanctuaire de Lto' and 'L'inscription grecque'
in Fouilles
de Xanthos, Tome VI, Paris, 5-48.
Metzger H. and Laroche E.
(1974), 'Notes sur la stle trilingue du Lton de Xanthos',
Kadmos 13, 82-84.
Meyer E.
(1975), Geschichte
of 1939 ed.).
Miller M.
(1970), The Sicilian
Monro
(1890), ed. of Iliad

des Altertums

Colony Dates,

IV, 1, Darmstadt (repr.

Albany.

I-XII, Oxford.

Mrkholm O.
(1964), 'The Classification of Lycian coins before Alexander
the Great', JNG 14, 65-76.
(1971), See Ole ay and MiSrkholm.
Mrkholm O. and Neumann G.
(1978), Die lykischen Mnzlegenden, Nachrichten
der
Akademie der Wissenschaften
in
Gttingen.
Mrirkholm O. and Zahle J.
(1972), 'The Coinage of Kuprilli', Act. Arch. 43, 57-113.
(1976), 'The Coinages of the Lycian Dynasts Kheriga, Kherei,
and Erbbina', Act. Arch. 47, 47-90.
Nauck A.
(1889), Traglcorum

Graecorum Fragmenta,

Leipzig, 2nd ed.

Neumann G.
(1955), 'Der lykische Ortsname Patara', BzN 6, 112-14.

268

The Lye1 ans

(1961a), 'Beitrge zum Lykischen', Die Sprache 7, 70-76.

(1961b), Untersuchungen zum Welterleben
hethltischen
und
luwisehen Sprachgutes
in hellenistischer
und rmischer
Zeit, Wiesbaden.
(1962), 'Beitrge zum Lykischen II', Die Sprache 8, 203-12.
(1967), 'Beitrge zum Lykischen IIT, Die Sprache 13,
31-38.
(1968), See Borchhardt, 1968.
(1969), 'Lykisch' in Altklinasiatische
Sprachen,
Handbuch
der Orientalistik,
Abtlg. I Bd. II, Leiden, 358-96.
(1969-70), 'Der epigraphische-sprachliche Befund', in
Borchhardt J., 1969-70, 218-219.
(1970), 'Beitrge zum Lykischen IV, Die Sprache 16, 54-62.
(1971), Neue Funde und Forschungen in Lykien* Jahrbuch der
Akademie der Wissenschaf ten in Gttingen, 34-49.
(1974a), 'Beitrge zum Lykischen V , Die Sprache 20, 109-14.
(1974b), 'Ein weiterer Gttername in den lykischen
Inschriften' in Melanges Mansel, 637-41.
(1975), 'Die lykische Grabinschriften von Myra', in
Borchhardt, 1975, 150-56.
(1976), 'Die Aussage der lykischen Inschriften TL 24 und
26', RA, 83-87.
(1978), see Mrfrkholm and Neumann.
(1979a), 'Namen und Epiklesen lykischer Gtter', in
Florilegium
Anatolicum, 259-71.
(1979b), Neufunde lykischer
Inschriften
seit 1901, Vienna.
(1982/83), 'Zur Erschliessung des Lykischen' in Le lingue
indoeuropee
di frammentaria
attestazione,
Attl
del
Convegno della Societ Italiana
di Glottologla
e della
Indogermanische
Gesellschaft
(Udine 1981), Pisa, 135-51.
(1985), see Borchhardt et al, 1985.
Nilsson M.P.
(1933), Homer and Mycenae, London.
Nougayrol ]. (et. al.)
(1968), Ugaritica
V, Mission

de Ras Shamra Tome XVI, Paris.

Oettinger N.
(1976/77), 'Nochmals zum lykischen Plural1,
Linguistic!
3, 133-35.

Incontri

Ole ay N. and Mrkholm Q.

(19h), 'The Coin Hoard from Podalia', NC 7th Series, 11,
1-29.
Omerod H.A. and Robinson E.S.G.
(1914), 'Inscriptions from Lycia', JHS 34, 1-35.
Page D.L.
(1959), History and the Homeric Iliad,
California.

University of

269

Bibliography
Paton W.R. and Hicks E.L.
(1891), The inscriptions
of Tlos,
Pedersen H.
(1945), Lykisch

und Hittitisch,

Oxford.
Copenhagen.

Pembroke S.
(1965), 'The Last of the Matriarchs, a study in the
inscriptions of Lycia', JESHO 8, 217-47.
Peppermller R.
(1962), 'Die Glaukos-Diomedes-Szene der Ilias', Wiener
Studien 75, 5-21.
Petersen E. and von Luschan F.
(1889), Reisen in Lykien, Hilyas,

und Kibyratis,

Vienna.

Pirenne J.
(1950), 'La politique d'expansion hittite envisage travers les traits
de vassalit et de protectorat', AO 18. 1-2.
Pritchard J.B.
(1969), Ancient
Testament,

Near Eastern
Princeton.

Ramsay W.M.
(1895), The Cities

Texts

and Bishoprics

relating

of Phrygla,

to the Old

Oxford.

Rawson B.
(1966), 'Family Life among the Lower Classes at Rome in the
First Two Centuries of the Empire', classical
Philology
74-83.
Robert J. and L.
(commentaries in Bulletin
Epigraphique)
(1974), REG 87, 290-92, no. 553.
(1976), REG 89, 550-51, no. 661.
(1980), REG 93, 458, no. 486.
Robert L.
(1946), 'Un dieu anatolien: Kakasbos', Hellenica 3, 38-74.
(1949), 'Divinits d'Anatolie', Hellenica 7, 50-58.
(1962), Villes
d'Asie Mineure, Paris, 2nd ed.
(1966), Documents de l'Asie
Mineure mridionale,
Paris.
(1975), 'Une nouvelle inscription grecque de Sardes',
CRAI, 306-30.
(1978), 'Les conqutes d'Arbinas', Journal des
Savants,
3-48.
Robinson E.S.G.
(1914), 'Coins from Lycia and Pamphylia', JHS 34, 36-46.

61,

270

The Lye1 ans

Rscher W.H. (ed.)

(1977), Ausfhrliche
Lexikon der griechischen
und
Mythologie, vol. IV (repr. of 1909-15 ed.), NY.

rmischen

Rge W.
(1934), 'Telmessos' in RE VA, 409-15.
Sakellariou M.B.
(1958), La migration

grecque

Sandars N.K.
(1978), The Sea Peoples,
Schadewaldt W.
(1938), Iliasstudlen,

en lonie,

Athens.

London.

Leipzig.

Schmidt M.
(1968), The Lycian Inscriptions
after
the Accurate Copies
the late Augustus Schoenborn, Jena.
(1876), Commentatio de inscriptlonibus
lyciis,
Leipzig.

of

Schmitt R.
(1977), review of M/6rkholm and Zahle, 1976, Bzn
(1982a), 'Iranische Namen in den indogermanischen Sprachen
Kleinasiens' in Iranisches
Personennamenbuch,
ed.
Mayrhofer M. and Schmitt R., Bd. V, fasc. 4, Vienna, 17-28.
(1982b), 'Iranische Wrter und Namen im Lykischen", in Serta
Indogermanica,
373-88.
von Schuler E.
(1957), Hethitische
Staatsbeamte,

Dienstanweisung
AfO, Beiheft 10.

fr hhere

Hof- und

Schwabacher W.
(1968), 'Lycian Coin Portraits' in Essays in Greek Coinage
presented
to Stanley
Robinson, ed. Kraay C M . and Jenkins
G.K., Oxford, 111-24.
Serta Indogermanica
see under Tischler.
Sevoroskin V.
(1964), 'On Karian', RHA 74, (Tome 22), 1-55.
(1969), see Korol'ov and Sevoroskin.
Shafer R.
(1950), 'Lycian Numerals', AO 18. 4, 251-61.
(1951), 'Greek Transcription of Lukian', Jahrbuch
fr
Kleinasiatische
Forschung 2, 1-12.
1
(1959), 'System of Relationship in Lukian , Die Welt des
Orients 2, 484-501.
(1965), 'A Break in the Carian Dam', Aiitlquit
Classique
34, 398-424.

271

Bibliography

Shapur Shahbazi A.
(1975), The Irano-Lycian
Monuments.
The Principal
Antiquities
of Xanthos and its Region as Evidence for
Iranian
Aspects of Achaemenid Lyela, Teheran.
Singer I.
(1983), 'Western Anatolia in the 13th Century B.C. according to
the Hittite Sources', AS 33, 205-17.
Sommer F.
(1932), Die Ahhiyav-Urkunden,

Munich.

Spratt T.A.B. and Forbes E.

(1847), Travels
in Lycia, Milyas,
(2 vols.), London.
Stark F.
(1956), The Lycian

and the

Kihyratis

Shore, London.

Starr C.G.
(1975), 'Greeks and Persians in the 4th Century',
Antiqua 11, 39-99.
(1977), as above, 12, 49-115.
Stoltenberg H.
(1955), Die termilische

Sprache

Lykiens,

Strong D.E.
(1964), 'A Greek Silver Head-Vase', British
28, 95-102.
Studia Mediterrane a
(1979), Piero Meriggi

dicata,

Iranica

Leverkusen.
Museum

Quarterly,

ed. Carruba O., Pavia.

Sullivan R.D.
(1978), 'Priesthoods of the Eastern Dynastic Aristocracy' in
Studien zur Religion
und Kultur Kleinasiens
(Festschrift
fr F.K. Drner), ed. Sabin S. et al., Leiden, 914-39.
Thompson W.E.
(1967), 'Two Athenian Strategoi', Hesperia

36, 105-07.

Thomsen V.

(1899), Etudes lyclennes

Thomson G.
(1978), the Prehistoric
1961 ed.).

I, Copenhagen.
Aegean, London, 3rd ed. (reprint of

Tischler A. (ed.)
(1982), Serta Indogermanica,
Innsbruck.

Festschrift

fr Gnter Neumann,

272

The Lye1 ans

Treuber 0.
(1886), Beitrge
zur Geschichte
der Lykier,
(1887), Geschichte
der Lykier,
Stuttgart.

Tbingen.

TritschFJ.
(1942), 'The Harpy Tomb at Xanthos', JHS 62, 39-50.
(1943), 'False Doors on Tombs', JHS 63, 113-15.
(1950), 'Lycian, Luwian, and Hittite', AO 1-2, 494-518.
(1951), 'The Myth of the Chimaera', Actes du premier
Congrs
de la Fdration
Internationale
des
Associations
d'Etudes Classiques,
Paris, 279-80.
(1953), 'Finding a Colossal Head of Apollo and Other
Discoveries in Ancient Lycia', Illustrated
London News,
21/3/53, 448-49.
(1968), 'Tirynthia Semata', Kadmos 7, 124-37.
(1976), 'The Lycian Bilingual in Stoichedon from Korydalla1,
Kadmos 15, 158-67.
Troxell H.A.
(1982), The Coinage of the Lycian
Monographs No. 162, NY.
Vermeule C.C.
(1968), Roman Imperial

League,

Art in Greece

Numismatic

Notes

and

and Asia Minor, Harvard.

Wace A.J.B. and Stubbtngs F.H.

(1962), A Companion to Homer, London.
Walsh J.
(1981), 'The Authenticity and the Dates of the Peace of Callias
and the Congress Decree', Chiron 11, 31-63.
Weickert C.
(1959), 'Neue Ausgrabungen in Milet' in Neue Deutsche
Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet
und im Vorderen
Orient,
ed. Boehringer E, Berlin.
(1959-60), 'Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet, 1957',
Ist. Mitt. 9/10, 1-96.
Weinreich 0 .
(1913), Lyklsche Zwlfgtter-Rellefs,
(1927) 'Sozon' in RE III A, 1, 1248-56.

Heidelberg.

Wrrle M.
(1977), 'Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens I',
Chiron 7, 43-66.
(1978), 'Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens II',
Chiron 8, 201-46.
Wurster W.
(1974), see Borchhardt, 1974.
Yalouris N.
(1975), Pegasos,

the Art of the Legend, Mobil Oil Hellas.

273

Bibliography
Young R.S.
(1969), 'Old Phrygian Inscriptions from Gordion: Towards a
History of the Phrygian Alphabet', Hesperia 38, 252-96.

Zahle J.
(1980), 'Lycian Tombs and Lycian Cities' in Actes du Colloque
sur la Lucie antique^ Paris, 37-49.
(1982), 'Persian Satraps and Lycian Dynasts. The Evidence of
the Diadems', in Procs. of the 9th International
Congress
of Numismatics (Berne, Sept., 1979), Louvaine-La-Neuve,
101-12.
(1983), Arkaeologiske
studier
i lykiske
klippergrave
og deres
r e l i e f f e r , Copenhagen.
Zgusta L.
(1964), Kleinasiatische

Personennamen

Prague.