Lycian History Comes Back Into Focus in the Decade 370-360, in the Person of the Lycian King Perikle of Limyra, 1 Whose Name in Greek Was Rendered 'Perikles'

CHAPIBRELEVEN

PERIKLE OF LIMYRA

Arttumpara and Mithrapata

Lycian history comes back into focus in the decade 370-360, in the person of the Lycian king Perikle of Limyra, 1 whose name in Greek was rendered 'Perikles'. The evidence for Perikle's opponent, who appears in Lycian sources as Artturnpara, is almost entirely epigraphic or numismatic (TAM i 11.3; 29. 7; 40.c.2-3; 104.b.3; M 231, 302). M0rkholm has argued for a dating for Artturnpara's coinage of c. 380-360, rather than that of Hill, c. 400-390.2 Jenkins3 disassociates the coin-issuer from the man attested epi• graphically on the grounds of the absence of Artturnpara' s coins from the Podalia hoard, which seems to have been buried c. 375-370.4 That hoard, however, was buried in eastern Lycia, and consisted entirely of coins of the heavy east-Lycian standard. Artturnpara minted exclusively on the light west-Lycian standard, and his coins would not have circulated in eastern Lycia. The absence of his coins is therefore not surprising, and Jenkins' conclusion need not be followed. Nor should one follow Metzger' s assumption that, because of the ap• pearance of Alexander in an inscription from Tlos (TAM i 29.9), the men• tion of Arttumpara in the same text (I. 7) refers to a different man to the coin-issuer, living some decades later.' Weiskopf counters this by the rea• sonable suggestion that it is possible that Ikuwe, the owner of the tomb on which the inscription is carved (p. 150), had lived through the rule of both Arttumpara and Alexander, and M0rkholm had already used this idea as part of the evidence for his case for a later date for Artturnpara. 6 In point of fact the reference to Artturnpara in TAM i 29 is imperfectly understood; it may not indicate any connection between him and Ikuwe, though on the whole it probably is likely that they were contemporaries.

1 For a slightly different view of Perikles, see Bryce 1980a. 2 Mmkholm 1964: 73-74; Hill 1897: 25. 3 Jwkins 1959: 35n. 1. 4 Oly11y, Mm-kholm 1971: 7-13, 29. Zable 1989: 174, 176, is in favour of a date slightly be• fore c. 375 (pemaps as early as c. 380), but this is probably too early for a cmnecticn with Pe• rikle's fighting agairut Persia (p. 167). ' Met~er 1979a: 35. 6 Weiskopf 1982: 289 n. 140; Mm-kholm 1964: 74. PERlKLE OF LIMYRA 149

One of the most important pieces of evidence is an inscription from Li• myra (TAM i 104.b.2-3), which reads: eke : ese : Peri/de : tebete : Arltumpara This can been translated as 'when Perikle besieged Arttumpara'. The in• scription demonstrates that Arttumpara was Perikle's opponent, but it does not reveal any particularly significant information concerning the origins of Arttumpara. For that, it is necessary to return to the Tlos inscription, where appears the phrase Arttumpara : medese : (TAM i 29. 7). The usual interpretation is to view medese as an ethnic, meaning 'Arttumpara the Mede', giving rise to the idea that Arttumpara was of Iranian stock. 7 Weiskopf on the other hand believes it "safe to say that like Pericles Art• umpara was an indigenous Lycian"; he rejects the standard interpretation on the following grounds:

1. Metzger attacks the standard word-division; he prefers to render the phraseArttumpara: Mede se. 8 2. Bernard views Arttumpara (according to Weiskopf) as a Lycian with an Iranian name. 9 Metzger's word-division does not, however, necessarily alter the meaning of the text. Se is Lycian for 'and',10 so Metzger's word-division would pro• vide the translation 'Arttumpara mede and'. As far as Bernard is con• cerned, he is in fact using the presence of the name Arttumpara as evi• dence for his belief in Iranian settlement in Lycia. It has already been noted (pp. 62-63) that the number of indigenous Lycians who can defi• nitely be said to have Iranian names is small. Bryce suggests that medese may not be an adjective at all. Since 'Mede' is attested as an independent personal name in TAM i 37.3-4, and also recurs without Arttumpara in TAM i 29.11, he suggests, accepting Metzger' s word division, that mede is a personal name in its own right, and that this phrase means 'Arttumpara and Mede', though he admits that there is no other clear evidence for the enclitic use of -se in Lycian. 11 Melchert suggests that presence of the word-divider (:) after se indicates that it is to be taken with mede, but that it is linking Arttumpara : mede

7 Babelcn 1893: cvi; Benveniste 1966: 101; Bordihardt 1976: 100-02; Schmitt 1982b: 375- 76. 'Mede' was used as a syn