Pericles, Dynast of Lycia

1. Introduction

Pericles (Perikle in the Lycian language) was the name of the dynast or king of the Lycian city of Limyra during the 370s BC. This was an especially tumultuous period for Asia Minor, as parts of it had become independent of the Persian central administration, forming self-governed states containing autochthonous populations (like the autonomous state of Lycia with the city of Xanthus as its capital) or attempted secessionary moves under the leadership of rebellious Persian satraps.

2. Biography

We have very little biographical information on Pericles. The evidence that help us to reconstruct a picture of the ruler, his state and time, consists mainly of epigraphical testimonies, many of which do not even pertain to his person directly, but have been discovered in the graves of warriors of that period or refer to his opponents.


The name ‘Pericles’ is obviously unusual for a Lycian ruler. It can be attributed to the fact that his family maintained close ties with Athens, possibly with the Athenian Pericles himself. Perhaps some of his ancestors had served as ambassadors at Athens. The fact that he took on the name of the Athenian politician has led scholars to believe that the Lycian was born while Pericles was still alive, i.e. between 435 and 430 BC.

Numismatic testimonies from Limyra and their dominion refer to another dynast by the name of Trbbenimi. The hypothesis has been put forward that these two were related, i.e. they were father and son or brothers, offspring both of an earlier Trbbenimi, a chieftain at Lycia. It is also possible that Trbbenimi was the head of a smaller dynastic family which ruled together with the house of Pericles who eventually managed to take all power into his hands. Perhaps the two houses were related through intermarriage.


Pericles had pursued a successful political and military career in the area of eastern Lycia. He died in c. 360 BC, and was buried in the renowned Heroon at Limyra, a mausoleum erected specifically for him.1

3. Deeds

According to epigraphical testimonies, Pericles came to power after defeating Artembares (Arttumpara in the Lycian inscriptions). As these inscriptions are written in the Lycian language,2 aspects of which continue to puzzle scholars, views of the latter’s capacity differ significantly. Some historians consider him a local ruler overturned by Pericles, while others believe that he was a Persian commander whom Pericles defeated thus liberating the area from the Persian overlordship.3 It appears that most evidence points to the second version.4


It is certain, however, that his domain was rather large and included cities such as Pinara,5 Tlos,6 Limyra7 and Telmessus, where apparently Artembares’ mint was located. The coins themselves, light and of low content in precious metals, are similar to those generally occurring in western Lycia, thus indicating continuity and indicating that geographically his domain was limited to the western areas. It seems that the capital of Artembares' state was Xanthus. A recent hypothesis has been formulated that Artembares had been sent by the Persian satrap Autophradates to rule over the areas that belonged to the dynasty of Xanthus, when its last ruler, Erbbina, died. At any rate, eastern Lycia itself appears to have been governed by some emissary of Autophradates bearing the Persian name ‘Mithrapates’.

After his victory over Artembares, Pericles apparently relocated his capital to Limyra,8 as he obviously wished to denote the discontinuity of his rule to the dynasty of Xanthus. His dominion, however, extended over the entire eastern Lycia, as indicated by inscriptions bearing his name at Teimioussa,9Arneai10 and Kizilca in southern Milyas. The coinage bearing his name reveals at least four mints: Limyra, Phellos and the still unidentified place-names of Zagaba and Wediwie.


In broad terms Pericles’ activities are dated to the period between 380 and 360 BC. In 375-370 BC, that is, before finally gaining his independence from the Persians, he would have probably given the order for the commencement of the construction of his mausoleum at Limyra. We are unsure of the stance Pericles maintained during the great revolt of the satraps against the Persian central administration (366-360 BC).11 Diodorus notes that in Asia Minor the Lycians, the Pisidians, the Pamphylians and the Cilicians rebelled, but does not mention the names of specific rulers.12 It seems, however, that the failure of the revolt led to the final dissolution of Pericles’ short-lived state. The sources allow us to deduce that Pericles was crushed by Autophradates, satrap of Lydia, who according to ancient writers became ruler of Lycia.13 Perhaps Lycia was once again given to Artembares to rule. With respect to Pericles’ fate we have two versions: he was either put to death or managed to escape to Stratus or Sidon.




1. For the identification of the heroon at Limyra as Pericles’ tomb see Borchhardt, J., "Das Heroon von Limyra - Grabmal des lykischen Königs Perikles", AA (1970), pp. 353-390, esp. pp. 362-372. Earlier scholars believed that Pericles’ tomb was the monument of the Nereids in Xanthus.

2. See mainly ΓΛΜΙ.11.3, 29.7, 29.9, 29.11,40c.2-3, 104 b.3, M231, 302.

3. On Pericles’ actions against Artembares see FrGrHist 115 F 103.17.

4. Keen, A.G., Dynastic Lycia: A political history of the Lycians and their relations with foreign powers c. 545-362 B.C. (Leiden 1998) , p. 150, apparently agrees with this version, furthermore he believes that the Persian name of Artembares would have been *Rtambura.

5. TAM I.11.

6. ΤΑΜ I.29.

7. TAM I. 124.

8. We should note, however, that this is deduced mainly by the erection of the heroon in this city, while the title ‘Pericles of Limyra’ is a creation of modern historians.

9. ΤΑΜ Ι.βΙ.

10. ΤΑΜ I.83.

11. On Pericles’ involvement on the revolt of the satraps see Keen, A.G., Dynastic Lycia: A political history of the Lycians and their relations with foreign powers, c. 545-362 B.C. (Leiden 1998), pp. 151ff; Debord, P., L'Asie mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C): pouvoirs et jeux politiques (Bordeaux 1999), pp. 352-357.

12. Diod. Sic. 15.90.3.

13. FrGrHist 115 F 103.17; Diod. Sic. 15.90.3; Nep, Oat. 2.1.