1 Lycia under Persian Domination
As reported by Herodotus (1.176), Lycia fell under Persian domination after the military campaigns of the Persian general Harpagus (ca. 540 BCE), who defeated a small Lycian army on the plain of Xanthos and conquered the city. Herodotus’s account reports the destruction of the acropolis and the almost complete extermination of the local population: only 80 families, which were not in the city at that time, survived. The city was then resettled and repopulated under the Persians, who also probably established a ruling dynasty.1
In 516/515 BCE, the Persian king Darius I included the Lycians and the Milyans in the first nomos of his Empire—together with Ionians, Magnesians of Asia, Aeolians, Carians, and Pamphylians—charged with a joint tribute of 400 talents of silver (Herodotus 3.90), and in 480 BCE the Lycians provided Xerxes’s navy with 50 ships (Herodotus 7.92).
However, before 468 BCE, Lycia allied with Athens and became a member of the Athenian League, won by persuasion (
xbane: ese: trbbẽnimi: tebete: terñ se milasãñtrã: pddẽneke: xbãnije: izredi ehbijedi: hãtahe: (TL 44a:44–46)
It is generally assumed that the same inscription also provides evidence for a Lycian–Persian alliance at the end of the 5th century BCE, because its author appears to be indicated as an ally of the satrap Tissaphernes against Amorges, the satrap who led a revolt in Caria against the king Darius II (413–412 BCE):
mukale: tewẽte: sãma=ti: trbbetẽ: turaxssi: zxxãna terñ: ese: humrxxã: tebãna terñ: hãtahe (TL 44a:53–55)
The interpretation of the infinitive tebãna as “to overwhelm, conquer, defeat” or the like,6 following the accusative Humrxxã (i.e., Amorges)7 led scholars to assume that this passage contained the account of the conclusion of Amorges’s rebellion as reported by Thucydides (8.28). However, the recent analysis of the inscription by Oreshko (2021) challenges this interpretation: his explanation of the verb ese … tebe- as “join with, make alliance with” radically changes the meaning of the passage: “(the writing) of the victory when he fought at Thorax (against) the enemy which is from Samos—(an island) facing Mykale—and when he joined forces with Amorges.” The obvious implication is that the passage cannot refer to the rebellion of Amorges, but rather describes something that happened before. However, Oreshko’s arguments are not conclusive,8 and we do not know of any other episode involving Amorges apart from his rebellion against the Persian king.
At the beginning of the 4th century BCE, there was a conflictual situation in western Lycia, seemingly resolved by the son of Xeriga, the dynast Arbinas/Erbbina, who may have moved the administrative center to Telmessos, in the west.9 Western Lycia remained firmly under Persian domination: one the inscriptions on the sarcophagus of Pajawa at Xanthos, dating between 370 and 360 BCE based on stylistic grounds,10 mentions the Lydian satrap Autophradates,11 who is also represented in an audience scene in one of the reliefs on the monument (west side). It is not known why the satrap Autophradates is represented on this monument; it is possible that Pajawa contributed to the suppression of Datames’s rebellion in Cappadocia (the so-called Revolt of the Satraps, 372–362 BCE) by the Lycian satrap Artembares/Arttum̃para.12 Conversely, in eastern Lycia, Perikle of Limyra probably joined the rebellion against the great king Artaxerxes II, and apparently also succeeded in defeating Artembares in the west and possibly conquering Telmessos.13
However, after the Revolt of the Satraps, the Persians restored their authority over the country, and Lycia became part of the Carian satrapy, ruled by Mausolus until 353 BCE, and later by Pixodarus, as is known from the trilingual Lycian–Greek–Aramaic inscription of the Letoon at Xanthos (N 320),14 before it was conquered by Alexander the Great in 334/333 BCE.
2 The Lycian Language
From a genealogical point of view, Lycian is an Anatolian language of the Luwic group, of which two different varieties (or dialects) are attested: so-called Lycian A, employed for the majority of Lycian inscriptions, and Lycian B or Milyan,15 attested by only a few inscriptions and still partly unknown, although it is clear that it preserves some archaic features compared to Lycian A.16
Lycian is currently attested by approximately 200 inscriptions, including inscriptions on stone (the most numerous and the most relevant ones for the study of the Lycian language), pottery, and metal vessels, to which one should add several coin legends.17 Most of the inscriptions date to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. Earlier inscriptions may exist, such as N 300a (ca. 580–550 BCE) and N 300b (7th century BCE), two graffiti on pottery from Rhodes, but the Lycian status of the texts is far from assured.18 Thus, so far, the earliest assured Lycian inscriptions are found on two ceramic sherds dated to ca. 500 BCE, one from Xanthos (N 313a) and one from the vicinity of Patara (see Dündar and Réveilhac 2021).
As for the content of Lycian inscriptions, the great majority are funerary inscriptions, but some votive inscriptions, decrees, and a long propagandistic text are attested. Furthermore, although most of the Lycian inscriptions are monolingual, a limited number of multilingual texts are found. In most of them, the Lycian text is sided by a Greek inscription (see Chapter 15), but in some cases an Aramaic text is (also) found.
3 Sources for the Study of Lycian–Iranian Language Contact
Although Iranian personal names and sporadic loanwords can be found in several Lycian inscriptions, there are few plurilingual documents containing inscriptions in Aramaic, one of the administrative languages of the Achaemenid Empire. Of these plurilingual inscriptions, only two also include a Lycian text, namely a very fragmentary bilingual inscription from the Letoon at Xanthos (N 319, inv. no. 5743), where the Lycian text is almost completely lost (it is uncertain whether a Greek version was also present),19 and the well-known trilingual inscription of the Letoon (N 320),20 where the Lycian and Greek texts are combined with an Aramaic inscription that is the shortest—but also the most official—of the three, because it adds important administrative information missing from the other texts, particularly the date of the decree and the title of Pixodarus as “satrap of Caria and Lycia” (vs. “satrap of Lycia” in the other versions). Conversely, the Lycian and Greek texts, which match each other quite closely, added some information concerning the local administration that was not included in the Aramaic version (e.g., the names of the local rulers), probably because it was less relevant for the Achaemenid government.
The other plurilingual inscriptions include a short Greek–Aramaic bilingual from Limyra (TL 152), in which, however, the Greek text appears to be later than the Aramaic one,21 and a small Greek–Aramaic fragment from Xanthos.22 It is uncertain whether these fragments also included a Lycian version beside the Greek and Aramaic ones. Furthermore, another Aramaic fragment was found in the Letoon of Xanthos (inv. no. 5627), which was possibly part of a bilingual or trilingual inscription.23
Finally, it has been suggested that the Lycian-Greek bilingual inscription TL 45 from Xanthos, containing a fees decree of Pixodarus, was a trilingual also including an Aramaic version, currently lost.24
As for external sources, besides two short inscriptions coming from Egypt—N 301, engraved on a statuette of the god Min (but probably a modern forgery),25 and N 307, on a silver head-vase belonging to the Tell el-Maskhuta hoard, but probably manufactured in Lycia26—and some coins with legends,27 no Lycian inscriptions are found outside Lycia. However, Lycians are sometimes mentioned in the Achaemenid administrative sources from Persepolis and Babylonia, although these occurrences are not particularly helpful for the investigation of language contact (see section 6 below).
4 Iranian Influence on Lycian
Despite Persian domination, Lycia remained relatively independent, and local dynasts ruled the country in place of Persian satraps, at least until the end of the 5th century BCE.28 Although Achaemenid influence appears in monumental and figurative art from at least 480/470 BCE (and shortly afterwards in coinage),29 likely testifying to the will of the local elites to mimic the Persian style, the linguistic influence of the Old Persian and the other languages of the Achaemenid Empire on Lycian is restricted to sporadic lexical items mostly referring to the Persian administrative apparatus. No clear evidence of grammatical interference has been identified so far. Besides these few loanwords, Iranian linguistic material in Lycian inscriptions includes some personal names and a couple of ethnonyms.
4.1 Onomastics and Ethnica
Lycian sources, both inscriptions and coin legends, attest 17 names of Iranian origin (most of which are currently unattested in Iranian sources), summarized in the following table,30 which are often invoked in the debate about Persian influence on Lycia and have sometimes been used to suggest a significant Persian settlement in Lycia after Harpagus’s conquest.
|
Lycian form |
Iranian model |
Greek form |
|---|---|---|
|
Arppaxu |
*Arbaka |
|
|
Arssãma |
*R̥šāma |
|
|
Art(t)um͂para, Artuñpara/i |
*R̥tambara |
|
|
Erbbina |
*Arbina |
|
|
Erijamãna |
*Ariyamanā |
|
|
Ertaxssiraza |
*R̥taxšaça |
|
|
Humrxxa (Mil. Umrgga) |
*Humarga |
|
|
Kizzaprñna; Zisaprñna |
*Čiçafarnā |
|
|
Magabata |
*Bagapāta |
|
|
Mede |
Māda (ethnicon) |
|
|
Mi |
*Mi |
|
|
Ñtarijeuse/i |
*Dārayauš31 |
|
|
Utãna |
Utāna |
|
|
Wataprddata |
*Vātafradāta |
|
|
Wexssere, Waxssere |
*Hvaxšara |
|
|
Widrñna |
Vidr̥na |
|
|
Wizttasppa (Mil.) |
Vištāspa |
|
Besides these names with assured Iranian origin, others are also possibly Iranian, but their etymology is highly uncertain: Aruwãtijese/i, Ddenewele, Sppñtaza, Wedewiẽ, Zagaba/Zaxaba.32
It should however be noted that some of the Iranian names attested in Lycian sources refer to people who did not reside in Lycia (Erijamãna, Ertaxssiraza, Humrxxa/Umrgga, Kizzaprñna/Zisaprñna, Ñtarijeuse/i, Utãna, Wataprddata, Widrñna). Therefore, if we exclude the names with doubtful Iranian origin, we are left with only nine personal names—some of them possibly borne by more than one person—referring to people who probably lived in Lycia for a more or less extended period. However, it is difficult to evaluate both the nativeness of these people and their relations with the local communities. Even the occurrence of two Iranian names, Arppaxu and Erbbina, in the genealogy of the Xanthian dynasty cannot be taken as evidence for Persian descendance; it may simply have been a political choice to emphasize the connection with the Persians. Furthermore, the few Iranian names attested in the inscriptions of Roman imperial period cannot prove the existence of Persian families settled in Lycia in the Achaemenid period. All in all, these few names cannot tell us much about the Persian presence in Lycia, and archaeological evidence supporting a significant Iranian settlement is also scarce.33
Two Iranian ethnica are attested in Lycian sources: Parz(z)a- ‘Persian’ (TL 44c:2, 14; TL 40d:1–2) from Old Persian Pārsa and Mede- (TL 29:7, possibly also TL 37:3–4, as a personal name) from Old Persian Māda ‘Median.’34
4.2 Loanwords
Beside personal names and ethnica, a small number of Iranian loanwords can be detected in Lycian, mostly titles referring to the Persian administrative apparatus. First of all, the name of the satrap is found: Lycian xssadrapa- (TL 40d:1, with genitival adjective xssadrapahi in TL 44b:26) reflects the Median outcome of Old Iranian *xša
Less clear is the origin of the title gasabala (TL 104b:2), which, according to the most likely hypothesis, would be a loanword from an unattested Old Persian title *ganzabara- ‘treasurer’ (cf. Imbert 1916:341). Two difficulties make such an explanation problematic: (1) Lycian gasa- as the rendering of Old Persian *ganza- and (2) the irregular correspondence between l and r.35 The first problem has been resolved by Mancini (1987:41–43), who showed that an Aramaic intermediation can account for Lycian gasa‑: some Aramaic forms reflecting Old Persian *ganza- testify that an assimilation /nz/ > /zz/ occurred in Aramaic, thereby providing us with the model on which the Lycian gasa- depended (cf. also Gr.
Another problematic title is haxlaza- (TL 44a:51), denoting a representative of the Persian king, clearly a compound professional noun in ‑aza- with the verbal stem xla(i)- ‘take control of’ as the second member. It is unanimously agreed that this title is identical to asaxlaza- (N 320:5), but the correspondence between the respective first elements ha- and asa- is difficult to explain. Because the fluctuation between /s/ and /h/ cannot be accounted for,37 Melchert (2004a:22) tentatively suggested that haxlaza- may represent a hybrid form with Iran. ha- matching Lyc. asa‑. However, a different explanation is provided by Oreshko (2021), who reads the sequence se haxlaza in TL 44a as a single word sehaxlaza. In this way, both the elements seha- and asa- could be traced back to a preform *eseha/*asaha: *asaha-xla-za would have been contracted to asa-xla-za, while *eseha-xla-za would have given seha-xla-za through apheresis. However, such an explanation seems quite complicated, and the etymology of the reconstructed element *eseha/*asaha is also problematic.38 Thus, a satisfactory solution for Lyc. haxlaza- is still lacking.
It has been suggested that Lycian ñtipa- derives from OPers. dipi- ‘inscription’ (for the Lycian adaptation of the Old Persian /d/ cf. the personal name Ñtarijeuse/i from OPers. *Dārayauš), which is, in turn, a loanword (cf. Elam. tuppi < Akkad. ṭuppu < Sum. dub ‘clay tablet’). The Lycian term is currently found in only two inscriptions: the occurrence in TL 124 from Limyra appears compatible with the meaning ‘inscription’ (ebẽñnẽ xupu se=i hri=ti ñtipa m=e=ti adẽ uhetẽi …, “This tomb and the ñtipa that (is) on it, Uhetẽi made it …”); however, the occurrence in TL 88, where the word occurs with the unknown term tezi, appears to suggest a different meaning, such as ‘sarcophagus’ or the like (se ẽke lati ddaqasa m=ene ñtepi tãti ñtipa tezi se ladã ehbi, “and when Ddaqasa is dead, they shall put him in the ñtipa tezi, as well as his wife”).39
Finally, another loanword that is not properly Iranian, but that was introduced to Lycian through the intermediation of the Achaemenid Empire, is sixla- ‘shekel’ (TL 57:5–6; N 320:22),40 which has Semitic origin (root šql ‘weigh’). However, the direct model cannot be the Persian
se=sm̃mati: xddazas: epi=de arawa: hãti km̃mẽtis: me=i=pibiti: sixlas:
“And they shall oblige the slaves, as many as they release into freedom, (that) they shall give shekels.”41 (N 320:20–22)
Based on the evidence of TL 57, where sixla- occurs twice (first in the singular and without any numeral; second in the plural and preceded by tupm̃me ‘two’), Frei (1977:70–71) suggested that the plural in the Letoon trilingual should be understood as a distributive, so that the sentence “they shall give shekels” would mean “each one shall give (one) shekel.” Were this correct, the trilingual would provide evidence for the equivalence between one shekel and two drachmas (i.e., 8.4 g), which corresponds to the standard Lycian stater, ranging from 8.3 to 8.6 g. Such a weight perfectly corresponds to the Babylonian shekel standard after Darius’s reform, established at 8.4 g,42 which, however, is different from the Persian coin-shekel called
5 Lycian Influence on Aramaic
As mentioned, Achaemenid official sources found in Lycia only include Aramaic inscriptions, which are usually—and possibly always—combined with a Lycian and a Greek version of the same text.
Anatolian lexical items occurring in the Aramaic texts found so far in Lycia are limited to personal names, theonyms, and local toponyms. However, some Lycian influences on Aramaic morphology and syntax can be possibly identified at the level of the single document.
5.1 Onomastics
The issue of Anatolian personal names, divine names, and toponyms in the Aramaic inscriptions from Lycia is somewhat problematic because, in some cases, the Aramaic adaptation of such words appears to diverge from the alleged model found in the Lycian version of the text. The following table provides a list of all the Aramaic adaptations of Anatolian names occurring so far in inscriptions from Lycia, together with the corresponding Lycian and Greek forms (nouns between brackets occur outside the plurilingual documents attesting the corresponding Aramaic forms):
|
Aramaic |
Lycian |
Greek |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Personal names |
’RTYM |
– |
|
|
’RZPY |
– |
* |
|
|
KDWRS |
qñturahi |
|
|
|
KTMNW |
katamla, (ekatamla) |
|
|
|
PGSWD[R] |
pigesere, (pixesere) |
|
|
|
SYMYN |
eseimija, seimija |
|
|
|
Theonyms |
’RTMWŠ |
(ertẽmi, ertemi) |
|
|
KNDWS/Ṣ ’LH’ KBYDŠY |
xñtawat(i) xbidẽñne/i |
|
|
|
L’TW |
(*let°)44 |
|
|
|
Toponyms |
’WRN |
arñna |
|
|
KRK |
– |
( |
|
|
PNR |
(pinale) |
( |
|
|
TRMYL46 |
trm̃mili |
( |
|
|
ZYM[WR?]47 |
(zẽmure) |
( |
As can be seen, besides TRMYL and possibly ZYM[WR?], the other Aramaic adaptations do not perfectly match the corresponding Lycian forms (when attested). Because Pixodarus was a Carian satrap, it has been suggested by Molina Valero (2004) that Carian may have played a role in the transmission of some of these names in Aramaic. In other words, the Aramaic adaptations would often reflect a Carian model rather than a Lycian one. This seems to be plausible for the name of the satrap and his father: Pixodarus may originally be a Carian name composed by the stem pik- ‘splendor’ (= Luw. piha‑)48 and the possible Carian outcome of PA *sówedor ‘horn,’49 and the name of the satrap Hekatomnos is attested in Carian as k̑tmño‑.50
The origin of the Lycian name qñturahi is not clear.51 However, in any case, the preservation of /s/ in the Aramaic adaptation KDWRS makes it difficult to take the Lycian form as the model,52 although the same phenomenon can be observed in some Greek adaptations of Lycian names, e.g.,
The theonym KNDWS/Ṣ ’LH’ KBYDŠY matches Lyc. xñtawat(i)- xbidẽñne/i “King of Kaunos,” but the correspondence is not perfect, because both the ending ‑s/ṣ in the first name and ‑sy in the toponym cannot depend on the Lycian form. Therefore, Adiego (1995:19–21) suggested a Carian origin, although the exact Carian form to be reconstructed is quite debated.54 After a careful reconsideration of previous hypotheses, Simon (2024:334–341) suggested that KNDWṢ—the correct form, according to Vernet (2021a:85 fn. 9)—perfectly reflects *k(V)
The curse formulae in the three versions of the Letoon trilingual involve different deities: the Lycian text mentions the pñtrẽñni mother of the local sanctuary, her children, and Eliyana; the Greek text has Leto, the descendants, and the nymphs; and the Aramaic version mentions Leto, Artemis, and Satrapati. Although Leto and Satrapati are not problematic,55 the name of Artemis, ’RTMWŠ, shows a ⟨w⟩ that may point to the Lydian form artimu‑, rather than Lyc. ertẽ/emi and Gr.
The Aramaic name of the city of Xanthos, ’WRN, cannot depend on the Lycian toponym arñna, but it looks more similar to the form attested in Hittite and Luwian sources, awarna.57 The Carian form of this toponym is not attested so far, such that we cannot determine whether the Aramaic form may be based on it. Furthermore, the name of Pinara, PNR, found in two Aramaic fragments from Xanthos, shows an ⟨r⟩ that is also found in the Greek name of this city,
Finally, one last case of mismatch between the three versions of the Letoon trilingual should be addressed here. The Lycian and the Greek texts appear to concern the establishment of a cult for two gods, the King of Kaunos and a deity called arKKazuma/
5.2 Grammatical Interference
The word order with a topicalized object in initial position found in the Aramaic texts of the bilingual inscription from Limyra (TL 152) and the Greek–Aramaic fragment from Xanthos is consistent with the marked word order common to most Lycian funerary inscriptions. This is, however, quite common in Aramaic votive inscriptions, as shown by other examples from Asia Minor and Egypt.61
More complex is the issue of word order in the Letoon trilingual inscription. The Lycian, Greek, and Aramaic texts all include a number of sentences having the verb in first position with respect to the subject and the object. Such a coincidence might be explained as a document-level influence of one language on the other two (although we should keep in mind that Pixodarus belonged to a Carian dynasty, and phenomena of language contact in this inscription may involve languages other than those found on the monument).62 Were this the case, which language would be regarded as the model? Aramaic may seem like a good candidate, having a common VSO order. However, Folmer’s (1995:521–587) analysis has shown that, unlike Old Aramaic (with few exceptions), the word order of Achaemenid Aramaic does not require the verb to be at the beginning of the sentence, although it is sometimes found there, and one should also consider the different status of the Aramaic text compared to the Lycian and Greek versions. On the other hand, several Lycian inscriptions include sentences with the verb in first position, such that Garrett (1994:30–31) suggested that the basic Lycian word order was in fact VSO. This is potentially untrue, because some examples appear to indicate an unmarked SVO word order,63 but sentences beginning with a verb are nevertheless quite common and may represent a stylistically preferable choice in Lycian. Also note that some Lycian sentences without a direct match in the Greek and Aramaic versions of the Xanthos trilingual still show a verb in initial position. Therefore, it is likely that Lycian should be regarded as the model language, at least as far as word order in the Greek version is concerned.64
On the morpho-syntactic level, one may observe occasional lack of agreement in gender in the Aramaic texts from Asia Minor. In Lycia, there is only one example: ŠNT ḤD “first year” in N 320:1. Such a phenomenon is usually explained by invoking the absence of a feminine grammatical gender in the Anatolian languages, which distinguish between only a common and a neuter gender. However, as noted by Folmer (1995:743), the same phenomenon can be also found elsewhere in Aramaic. Also note that the case mentioned above occurs in the dating formula at the beginning of the Aramaic text, which has no counterpart in the Lycian and the Greek versions. Even if this example were due to the influence of an Anatolian language, it might not have been Lycian.
6 Lycians in the Achaemenid Sources
Although Lycians are not attested in Old Persian royal inscriptions, the turmiriyap (an ethnicon attested in several variants adapted from Lyc. trm̃mile/i- ‘Lycian’, derived from trm̃mis- ‘Lycia’, with Elamite plural ending ‑p) frequently occur in several Elamite administrative tablets from the Persepolis Fortification Archive.65 In these texts, Lycians are attested as workers (kurtaš) and are never mentioned with their personal names.
Conversely, in Babylonian sources of Achaemenid period, Lycians are currently attested in only one tablet from the Murašû archive at Nippur (second half of the 5th century BCE).66 This text mentions five possibly Anatolian personal names, three of which refer to people explicitly indicated as Lycians (LÚta-ar-mi-la-a-a = /tarmilaya/): Tilapa (mti-la-pa-’), perhaps to be compared with
7 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has addressed the issue of language contact between Lycian and the languages in use in the Achaemenid Empire (particularly, Aramaic and Iranian languages). Despite the inclusion of Lycia in the Carian satrapy, language contact phenomena appear rather superficial, involving only the adaptation of proper names and sporadic borrowings, mostly titles (e.g., xssadrapa- and gasabala‑) and other technical terms (sixla‑), which—at most—show the degree of impact that the Achaemenid administration may have had on local politics. This can be further confirmed by the trilingual inscription of the Letoon, a decree most likely issued by the Carian satrap Pixodarus (despite it being presented as the initiative of the Xanthians), whose Aramaic version was a rather different document—and probably the official one, from the perspective of the Achaemenid administration—compared to the Lycian and Greek versions, because, on the one hand, it included important administrative information lacking in the other versions; on the other hand, it did not include as many details concerning local matters.
No example of relevant grammatical interference can be observed, which further shows that these languages had a different status compared to Greek, whose interplay with the epichoric language was more extensive, as will be discussed in Chapter 15.
Cf. Bryce 1986:101.
Cf. the discussion in Bryce 1986:103–104, with further references. On the relationship between Lycia and Athens, see also Keen 1998 and Thonemann 2009.
The Lycians are not listed among the Athenian allies by Thucydides (2.9).
The name of the author of the inscription, indicated as “son of Harpagus,” originally contained in line 1 of TL 44a and in the Greek epigram (TL 44c:24: […]
Different interpretations were provided by, e.g., Schürr 2010:152 (“Bei Kyaneai nieder Trbbenimi warf das Heer und den Melesandros, vor den eki, den kyaneischen, eigenhändig hãtahe”) and Oreshko 2021:138 (“[the writing] of the victory with his [own] hand over Milesander in the neighborhood/on the plain of Kyaneiai, when he joined forces with Trbbẽnimi at Kyaneiai”). For a recent explanation of hãtahe as ‘in the communal tomb,’ see Martínez-Rodríguez (2023). It is not completely assured that the passage refers to the defeat of Melesander in 430/429 BCE. Because other personal names in the inscription seem to point to the Dekelean War (413–404 BCE), Thompson (1967) suggested that the Melesander mentioned here cannot be identified with the Athenian general in Thucydides’s account. See, however, Bryce 1986:107–108.
Cf., e.g., Melchert 2004a:61–62 and Neumann 2007:342, with references.
See already Imbert 1889–1890:160.
The comitative function of the preverb ese is not enough to exclude a hostile meaning for the verb, and the objection that there are “enough terms which render aggressive military actions […] so that there is no real necessity to look for further terms with comparable meaning” simply has no point.
Cf. Bryce 1986:110–111.
Cf. Childs 1981:76.
TL 40d: ebeija: [xr]uwata: m=e=ije pijetẽ wat[aprdd]ata: xssadrapa: pa[rz]a, “These votive offerings, Wataprddata, the Persian satrap, gave them.”
Cf. Childs 1981:76–77.
Cf. TL 104b:2–3: ẽke: ese: perikle: tebete: arttum̃parã, “When Perikle defeated Arttum̃para.” Note, however, that Oreshko’s explanation of ese … tebe- as “join with” (see above) would totally change the meaning of this passage and the historical reconstruction of the events. On the conquest of Telmessos, cf. Theopompus FGrHist 115 F 103, 17.
On the problems involving the date of this inscription, cf. Childs 1981:77–78 with references.
On the conventional glottonym Milyan, see Quadrio 2012.
For the position of Lycian within the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European family, see, e.g., Melchert 2003c, with references. On Milyan, see now Martínez-Rodríguez 2021a. For the dialectology of the Luwic subgroup of the Anatolian branch, see Rieken 2017 and Kloekhorst 2022a.
Lycian inscriptions have been first published by Kalinka 1901 (siglum: TL) and Neumann 1979 (siglum: N = nova). Melchert (2001b) and Réveilhac (2018) re-published the whole corpus (the latter with some addenda), to which one should also add the inscriptions edited by Christiansen (2019b). An online edition of the Lycian corpus is available on the eDiAna project website (
See Neumann 1979:10–11, with references.
Cf. Neumann 1979:43 and FdX between VI 172–175.
Cf. FdX VI.
Cf. Vernet and Vernet 2015, with further references.
Cf. Lemaire 1992.
Cf. FdX between VI 170–172.
Cf. Bousquet 1986:105. It is possible that one of the two Aramaic fragments found at Xanthos belonged to this inscription, although the preserved text does not allow any conclusion (but note that both the Aramaic fragments mention the citizens of Pinara, who also occur in TL 45).
See the discussion in Neumann 1979:11–13.
Cf. Strong 1964. The inscription consists of three names in Lycian characters (pedrita, alixssã[(ñ)tra], and mal[ija]) identifying the figures in a relief representing the Judgement of Paris (i.e., Aphrodite, Paris, and Athena).
Cf. Zahle 1989:175.
Cf. Childs 1981:79.
Cf. Zahle 1989 and 1991.
See Schmitt 1982b for occurrences and analysis.
Haplological form from the Old Persian Dārayavauš.
See Schmitt 1982b:385–387 for their analysis.
Cf. Bryce 1986:158–163 and Keen 1998:61–66, 76–79, with further references.
Cf. Schmitt 1982b:375–376 and Keen 1998:149–150. However, see a different interpretation by Melchert (2004a:38), who suggests a stem Medes-.
See Benveniste 1966:103: “la forme est unique en lycien et n’autorise aucune conclusion, notamment sur le rapport phonétique de r et de l dans la langue.” Cf. also Schmitt 1982b:386.
See also Merlin and Pisaniello 2020:186.
Cf. however Carruba’s (1977:284) explanation: asaxlaza- < *asa-(h)axlaza.
According to Oreshko, it would be comparable to Luw. *azasa‑, the base of *azasal(l)a/i‑, allegedly represented by the writing LIS‑za-sa-li-sà in the inscription of MEHARDE (§ 6). See, however, the different interpretation by Yakubovich (ACLT2), who reads LIS-za (dat.pl.) sa-li-sà (nom.sg.).
Cf. Schmitt 1982b:386 with references. Recently, Seyer and Vernet (2023) have suggested that ñtipa could mean ‘additional’ or ‘inserted.’ Thus, the passage in TL 124 would mean something like “This tomb and that which is above in addition,” while in TL 88 one should understand ñtipa tezi as ‘added burial place.’
Cf. Zahle 1989:177.
Translation by Melchert 2018.
Cf. Bivar 1985. As a further confirmation of the equivalence between one shekel and two drachmas established by the Letoon trilingual, note that the half-shekel corresponded to one drachma, and the Aramaic term for ‘half-shekel,’ ZWZ, was used in Pahlavi texts as a heterogram for drahm ‘drachm.’
On this name, see also Chapter 7, section 2.1.
Indirectly attested in the relational adjective le
Attested in Stephanus of Byzantium.
Seemingly used as a toponym, although the Lycian model is an ethnicon.
Cf. Vernet and Vernet 2015.
See Adiego 2007a:337 for this stem.
The Lycian form pig/xesere is an odd adaptation. As suggested by Schürr (2001:104), the element ‑sere may be a translation of Car. */so:dar/, if it can be traced back to the root *k̂er- ‘horn.’ See also eDiAna s.v. Cuneiform Luwian šāwatar ‘horn’ (
Cf. Adiego 2007a:378 and Adiego 2023:12–14. The Lycian form (e)katamla shows dissimilation (note that the cluster /mn/ is currently not attested in Lycian; cf. Melchert 1994:297–299).
Cf. Neumann 2007:306.
The correspondence between d and ñt is not problematic (cf. Gr.
Cf. Neumann 1996:147.
See, e.g., Schürr 1998:145–147, Molina Valero 2004:1015–1016, Vernet 2021a.
See Vernet 2021b, with references.
See Simon 2024:341–342, with references.
Cf. KUB 19.55 + KBo 18.117 l.e. 1–6 (LNS, CTH 182), YALBURT 13 § 3, EMİRGAZİ block B l. 3.
See Melchert 2004a:50 for the occurrences. On the problems related to the correspondences between Lycian, Greek, and Aramaic as far as the name of this city is concerned, see also Merlin and Pisaniello 2020.
Cf. KUB 19.55 + KBo 18.117 l.e. 1–6 (LNS, CTH 182), YALBURT 12 §§ 2–3, YALBURT 13 § 2, EMİRGAZİ block B l. 3.
According to Carruba, based on the Lycian form, the origin of this term should be traced back to a Hittite or Luwian ablative of the noun arha- + the suffix ‑uma (= ancient ‑umna): *arhaz-uma vs. *arhati-uma.
Cf. Folmer 1995:563–564.
Also note the initial verb at the beginning of the Lycian and Greek text of TL 45 ([pijet]e=ñn=ẽ pixe[s]ere =
Cf. Kloekhorst 2011:17–18.
See also Melchert 2021: 357–358.
See Schmitt 2003 and especially Tavernier 2015 (with an explanation of the attested variants and a broad discussion on the different sources); cf. also Hallock 1969:764–765 for the occurrences. Conversely, Lycians are never attested so far in the administrative tablets found in the Persepolis Treasury Archive.
PBS II/1, 53 (Darius II, 422 BCE).
Cf. Zgusta KPN 317–318 and Curbera 2013:133.
On these names, cf. Eilers 1940:206–215 and Tavernier 2015:170–173, with further references.
One may note that the element ‑pa in Tilapa could somehow match the element ‑piya frequently occurring in Anatolian personal names, but Lycian names usually have the participle ‑pijemi as second member. As for Minna, there are some Lycian personal names that might possibly be compared (Mñnãtahi, Mñne