CHAP1ERTWELVE

THE END OF THE DYNASTIC SYSTEM OF RULE IN L YCIA, AND THE BEGINNING OF CARIAN DOMINATION

To understand the end of Lycian 'independence', it is necessary to under• stand something of the role of Autophradates in . Two inscriptions mention his name. By far the more important of these historically is that from a grave at the central Lycian site of Baymdir Liman1, ancient Sebeda (TAM i 61). 1 This mentions Autophradates (in the form Wataprddata)2 with the ene ... xfitawata formula (I. 2). Given the existence in Lycian of a direct equiva• lent of (xssadrapa) which is applied elsewhere to Autophradates (TAM i 40.d.1) it seems unlikely that xfitawata is here simply being used as an alternative for 'satrap', though the possibility must remain. Autophra• dates was being described as 'King of Lycia' at the time this inscription was erected. This inscription can only date to after the end of Perikle's reign;3 before his departure, Perikle's own name would be used in the ene ... xfitawata formula in an inscription from central Lycia, and before that, the name of . It appears then that, in the immediate aftermath of the reign of Perikle, Autophradates himself assumed direct responsibility for the control of Lycian affairs-a Persian official acting as temporary 'king' ofLycia until a reliable local alternative could be found. 4 The other inscription (TAM i 40) is on the sides of the Sarcophagus of Pajawa, which dates to c. 310 at the earliest. 5 Pajawa very possibly was Autophradates' representative at Xanthos;6 he may even have served under Arttumpara (p. 170). On this inscription Autophradates is named only as 'Persian satrap' (xssadrapa : Pa[rz]a, d.1-2). It may be that officially he

1 Pubfuhed as being from lliellos, but see Bean 1958a: 49-55 and 1978: 96-99 for the correct identificatirn of this site as Sebeda and not lliellos. 2 Sdnnitt 1982a: 26-27. 3 Bryce 19 86: ll 0 states that the inscriptirn shows that Persian influwce still extwded to 'eastern' (sic) Lycia during Perikle's reign; at ll0 n. 30 & lll, however, he does crnsider the possibility that the inscriptirn post-dates Perikle. 4 Bryce 1986: 168 suggests that Arttumpara was reinstated after the revoh, but there is no evidence for this; if it were so, thw he, not Autophradates, should have appeared in crnnedirn with the ene ... ziitawata formula at TAM i 61.2. 5 Sarcophagus: Demargne 1974: 61-87, pls. xxx, 28, 30, 32-45.1; idil 1985: 82-83, pls. 87-88. Date: idil 1985: 83; Bryce 1986: 111. 6 AccordingtoNeumann 1996: 146hehasaGreekname. 172 CHAPIBRTWELVE retained this title for his dealings with Lycia, and did not formally adopt the title of 'king' (xntawati); but for a time was so closely involved with the administration of Lycia that, as with Arppakhu, some of his subjects perceived his true position. Alternatively, this inscription simply predates the Sebeda inscription, and hence Autophradates' assumption of the title zntawati. In any case, if Borchhardt and Kaptan are right, 7 Autophradates is rep• resented by the seated figure depicted in the audience scene on the side of the sarcophagus, which clearly demonstrates that he was looked up to as the most important individual within Lycia. This is interesting because the audience scene, though originally Persian-derived, was previously used by the Lycian dynasts as a means of depicting themselves and the power they possessed (p. 65). So here, as in his assumption of the title ziitawati, Auto• phradates is found being depicted with the attributes of power used by the Lycian rulers. There seem to have been a return to deportations as a punishment for the Lycians. When Alexander's army pressed beyond into in 331, they captured a Lycian, by the name of Pharnouches (Diod. 17.68.5; Curt. 5.4.4-13; Plut. Alex. 31.1-2; Polyaen. 4.3.27). This man had been captured by the in Lycia and resettled in Persis. The most likely context for this is in the years immediately following the ' Revolt; as it seems unlikely that deportations from Lycia took place after it became administered by the Carians. It is interesting to note that Pharnouches' mother was a Persian by birth (Plut. Alex. 31.2); this shows that even some Lycian families closely tied to the Achaemenid nobility by marriage had supported Perikle's revolt. Autophradates' period of direct rule did not last long; soon the country was handed over to Mausolos to govern.9 There is no evidence for the common supposition10 that Mausolos and Perikle had been in direct con• flict before the latter's fall from power. There is, however, no reason to doubt Mausolos' rule in Lycia at some point before his death in 352. The evidence is as follows:

1. Mausolos' hyparch Kondalos is recorded as raising money from the Ly• cians in return for not forcing them to cut their long hair ([Arist.] Dec. 2.2.14 [ 1348a]); this is obviously a humorous story that has distorted a

7 Bord:ihardt 1980; Kaptan 1996: 267. 8 Sekunda 1991: 100. 9 OnLyciaasaCarianpos.5eSSicn,seeHomblower 1982: 2n. 8,121 &n. 130. 10 E.g. Bean 1978: 25; Childs 1981: 77 n. 132; Weiskqif 1982: 292-93.