H. [and] his army”). Humrχχa can be identified as Amorges, who with the help of Athens continued the Carian revolt his father Pissouthnes had instigated. In 412 BCE, the satrap and his allies from Sparta and Syracuse managed to arrest Amorges in Iasos (Ijaeusas TL 44a.52). The whole passage suggests Lycian participation in the coalition to arrest Amorges.TL 44b.58 et seq. refers to provisions (azzalãi) by Darius II and his successor Artaxerxes II, the Lycian author obviously calling himself their patron or supervisor. The passage in question is in the context of the arranging of sacrifices and the building of monuments. Furthermore, the whole part of the inscription on the eastern page of the stele (TL 44b) appears to refer to the continuation of the Ionian war. This can be concluded from the common mentioning of the satrap, of Sparta, and of Athens in TL 44b.26 et seq., and from the reference to a trireme from Chios TL 44b.22 (trijer kijez).TL 44c.1 et sqq. indicates that during the Carian revolt of Amorges (see above), the Lycian author was employed as a negotiator in the coalition between the Persians under the leadership of Kizzaprñna (Tissaphernes), son of Widrñna (Hydarnes), and the Spartans. The subsequent reference to Erijamãna in TL 44c.12 (probably Iεραμένης, also known from Thucydides as a negotiator between the Persians and Sparta) has the same historical context.TL 44c.13 et seq. mentions a stele or a monument that the author erected for “Tissaphernes and the Persians” (ñtube τer[e] kizzaprñna epriti se parza meñ[ne] t[a]mã aχa).The Xanthos Stele thus confirms from a local viewpoint what is stated in other sources (e.g. in Thucydides). The author of the inscription apparently seeks to document the close relationship of his dynasty with the Achaemenids after the split between Lycia and Athens. The Xanthos Stele at the same time marks the beginning of the decline of the dynasty of Xanthos.
2 Arttum͂para (380–370 BCE)The end of the dynasty of Xanthos is closely connected with the rise of the eastern Lycian dynast Perikle (approximately 380–360 BCE). Directly connected with Perikle is Arttum͂para. His status has not yet become fully clear: It may well be assumed that Arttum͂para was a western Lycian dynast. However, it has been alternatively proposed that Arttum͂para was a Persian official (such as a governor). This is supported by a coin minted in Side, Pamphylia, which refers to Arttum͂para. Although it cannot be excluded that a Lycian dynast had coins produced outside Lycia, too, minting coins outside the ruled territory would have been easier for a Persian official. The other sources permit the following statements: Arttum͂para was at first active in western Lycia, since the only coins minted by him within Lycia are from Telmessos. But the inscriptions tell that he subsequently became an opponent of Perikle:TL 11.2 et seq.: The base of a sarcophagus from western Lycian Pinara contains the dating phrase trm͂misñ χñtewete ter[i] arttum͂para “when Arttum͂para ruled over Lycia.” This phrase indicates a rule of Arttum͂para that extended across western and central Lycia.TL 29.7: The epitaph from western Lycian Tlos mentions military achievements of its builder, Ikuwe: this includes the takeover (?) of an institution (?; wazzis) from Edrijeus (Idrieus), the later Carian satrap from 351–344 BCE (TL 29.5 ñtepi wazzisñ χalχχa edrijeusehñ). The text then mentions Arttum͂para as the overseer of the Medians (TL 29.7 arttum͂para medese pddatiti erije).TL 104b: The inscription from eastern Lycia mentions the defeat of Arttum͂para against Perikle: TL 104b tebursseli prñnawate (2) gasabala ke ese perikle (3) tebete arttum͂parã se m͂parahe (4) telzij “Tebursseli, who built Gasabala (this facility) when Perikle defeated Arttum͂para and his army.” The inscription TL 104a, which is found on the same monument, also mentions an institution (?) wazzis created by Arttum͂para (see above on TL 29). The builder, Tebursseli, could therefore be a follower of Perikle, who achieved major military successes against Arttum͂para.In summary, the inscriptions offer a picture that is quite clear and confirm what has been known so far: it appears Arttum͂para intended – be it as a Persian official or a Lycian dynast – to preserve the dominant position of the dynasty of Xanthos. But the rise of the eastern Lycian dynast Perikle appears to be unstoppable. At the latest after the conquest of the western Lycian city of Telmessos, which is reported by Theopompus (Philippica, F. 103.17), Perikle controlled all regions of Lycia within a short time span. The rise of Perikle around 370 BCE appears to be a signal for the satraps of western Anatolia to break away from the Persians. Subsequently, Lycia itself joined the Satraps' Revolt.
3 Miϑrapata (380–370a)It is indicated by two epitaphs that Miϑrapata ruled as a dynast in central Lycia around the same time as Arttum͂para (see b). Miϑrapata is also mentioned on many coins from central and eastern Lycia, the portraits on which show a quite different style from those of the dynasts of Xanthos. The parallel and complementary character of the functional spheres of Arttum͂para and Miϑrapata have led to the thesis that Miϑrapata was a Persian official just like Arttum͂para. According to this thesis, the Achaemenids kept western Lycia and central/eastern Lycia under control through two of their officials before the takeover by eastern Lycian dynast Perikle. However, this scenario must remain speculation.
4 Wataprddata (391–c. 350a)Wataprddata (Autophradates) was the satrap of Lydia under Artaxerxes II. At the beginning of the Satraps' Revolt in 370a, he is on the side of the king of kings and intervenes against the Cappadocian satrap Datames. Two Lycian inscriptions are important in his regard:TL 61.2: This epitaph from eastern Lycian Phellus is dated n χñtawata wataprddatehe. Dating with reference to a satrap is conspicuous. It indicates that the inscription was written after the fall of Perikle.TL 40d.1 et seq.: This inscription, which is found in Xanthos on the sarcophagus of Pajawa, calls Wataprddata a Persian satrap and attributes to him a χruwata – possibly a religious donation – to the builder Pajawa/the sarcophagus (ebeija [χr]uwata: meije pijet wat[aprd]ata χssadrapa pa[r‐z]a). Obviously, Pajawa is a follower of the satrap, given that the sarcophagus shows an image of an oriental audience.The Lycian texts referring to Wataprddata obviously presuppose the end of Perikle's rule and the quelling of the Satraps' Revolt in 362a. This marks a new epoch for Lycia: the transfer under direct Carian control.
5 The Letoon Trilingual (N 320)The Lycian‐Aramaic‐Greek Trilingual from the Letoon of Xanthos reflects the new, “Carian” epoch of Lycian history. Although it does not contain any direct references to Persia, it offers indirect indications of Lycia's status and its society after the fall of Perikle. The Trilingual can be dated to 358a or alternatively to 337a and thus to the first year of the reign of Artaxerxes III or Arses/Artaxerxes IV, resp. It contains the decision of the Xanthians and “perioeci” (epewtlm͂mi or περιοίκοι) to install a cult for the “Kaunian King” (χñtawata χbideñni or βασιλεύς Καύνιος) and for a certain Arkesimas, who is by the way not explicitly mentioned in the Aramaic version. In this connection, the Carian satrap Pixodaros (Pigesere or Πιξώδαρος) appoints two archonts with power over Lycia. The political constellation seems relatively clear: a different balance of power enables the Carian satrap and dynast to install trusted followers as archonts and to establish a Carian cult. Remarkable is the fact that the Lycian and Greek versions call Pixodaros a satrap of Lycia (N 320.1 et seq. ke trm͂misñ χssaϑrapazate pigesere) while the Aramaic version calls him a satrap of Caria and Lycia (ḥŠTRPN’ ZY BKRK WTRMYL). Assuming that the Aramaic version reflects the official Persian view, the double mentioning is another piece of evidence for the submission of Lycia under the control of the Carian Hecatomnid dynasty. Quite generally, the differences between the Lycian and Aramaic versions provide insight into the different perspectives of local and state administration. The rules stated on the Trilingual to secure the financing of the cult also provide valuable indications on the structuring of autonomy in the Persian Empire.
Conclusion
Even though Lydia, Caria, and Lycia have strategic and economic importance for the Achaemenids, the epichoric sources do not provide many insights at first glance. This may on the one hand be due to the random nature of tradition, but on the other hand also to the social standing of the indigenous languages: in a multinational and multilingual society like the Persian Empire, the role of indigenous languages is limited to the rendering of locally relevant facts and to private communication.
The relatively favorable evidence in Lycia illustrates that this local perspective is not lacking attractiveness. The Lycian inscriptions provide insight into a century of Lycian‐Persian relations that are quite variable on a political and social scale. They tell primarily of changing coalitions and conflicts among the local elites, from which Achaemenid politics