The Athenian Empire Restored: Epigraphic and Historical Studies 0472106562, 9780472106561

One of the most important periods of Greek history lies between the Persian king Xerxes' defeat at Greek hands in 4

199 18 9MB

English Pages 584 [578] Year 1996

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Athenian Empire Restored: Epigraphic and Historical Studies
 0472106562, 9780472106561

Citation preview

The Athenian Empire Restored

The Athenian Empire Restored Epigraphic and Historical Studies

Harold B. Mattingly

Ann Arbor

THE l.INivERSITr OF MicmGAN PREss

Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1996 All rights reserved Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America @) Printed on acid-free paper 4 3

2

1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher.

A CIP catalogrecordfor this bookis availablefrom the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Mattingly, Harold B., 1923The Athenian empire restored : epigraphic and historical studies / Harold B. Mattingly. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-472-10656-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Greece-History-Athenian supremacy, 479-431 B.C.-Chronology. 2. Greece-History-Peloponnesian War, 431-404 B.C.-Chronology. 3. Athens (Greece)-History-Chronology. 4. Greece-HistoryAthenian supremacy, 479-431 B.C.-Historiography. 5. GreeceHistory-Peloponnesian War, 431-404 B.C.-Historiography. 6. Athens (Greece)-History-Historiography. I. Title. DF227.5.M37 1996 938' .04-dc20 95-42479 CIP

To Erica with Love

Foreword

In April 1957, the Classical Association of Britain held its annual meeting in Durham. After dinner one night, there were presented eleven "Communications," brief talks in which iuniores sometimes offer their firstfruits. Mr. H. B. Mattingly, a young man of 33, who had followed the old British tradition of not taking a doctorate and was then teaching at the University of Nottingham, spoke on the Athenian Standards Decree. 1 He suggested that this decree, by which the Athenians ordered the subject states in their empire to close their own mints and use none but Athenian coins, should be dated to 425-423 B.c.; a "low" date in this vicinity had indeed been widely accepted until 1938. Mattingly's "communication" was probably forgotten as a distant cloud that could not threaten our orthodoxy about fifth-century Greek history. Then, in 1961, the storm broke, when he published his massive paper on the Standards Decree in Historia.He here restated and greatly expanded his arguments of 1957 in favor of a low date for the decree. More than that, he urged revising downward the dates of several other important decrees concerning the Athenians and the administration of their empire. Mattingly began with historical considerations, estimating that the severe, repressive period of Athenian imperialism began in the 420s, when the bullying demagogue Cleon dominated Athenian politics and Athens was under severe pressure in the Peloponnesian War-pressure that led to the enormously increased assessment of tribute in 425. Russell Meiggs of Balliol, who did not follow Mattingly, once characterized his approach as believing that "it may be so, therefore it must be so"; but greater sympathy was shown by the most severe of all judges, Jeanne and Louis Robert, who said, after reading his first essays, "Sa methode nous parait saine. " 2 1. In the past, this decree has been called the Coinage Decree, but it concerns weights and measures as well as coins.

2. REG 75 (1962) 142.

viii

Foreword

Mattingly was not only challenging orthodoxy but was disagreeing with some senior scholars of the highest international rank. The reply was not long in coming, from B. D. Meritt and H. T. Wade-Gery, in a paper of such scope that it spread over two annual issues of the Journal of Hellenic Studies (1962-1963). In the courteous phrases of academic tradition ("he has obliged us to rethink our problems," etc.) the two eminent professors replied point by point to Mattingly' s ingenious and original arguments, but this was only the signal for renewed combat, which was to be carried out with scrupulous courtesy on both sides. Mattingly's ideas were threatened-and, the orthodox would say, conclusively refuted-by a palaeographic feature of Athenian inscriptions, the presence of three-barred sigma. The canonical view (I borrow the term from a class taught by Wade-Gery) was that sigma was not carved with three bars in official public inscriptions after 446 B.c. and that the four-barred form was used exclusively from that moment on. A fragment of one copy of the Standards Decree found on Cos in 1938 had the critical three-barred sigma.3 At once the orthodox shoved the date of this copy (and, a fortiori, the decree itself) up into the years before 445;4 they defiantly pointed to this evidence and in effect told Mattingly to come back when he had an inscription with three-barred sigma that was securely dated after 446. I first met Harold Mattingly in May 1965, in the town of Wellingborough, which used to play host to a yearly meeting of ancient historians in Britain (it was said to be exactly halfway between Oxford and Cambridge). After dinner I fell in with him and Meiggs to walk around a small park. I can still hear Meiggs' baritone voice humorously warning, "Now look here, Mattingly, there'll be a moratorium on lowering the dates of any more decrees until I get my book on the [Athenian] empire out!"5 Despite this admonition from the famous Balliol tutor, Mattingly persisted in his "lowering of dates." A few historians, among them E. Erxleben, joined him in questioning the canonical view, 6 but on the whole it held firm in the epigraphic community. Above all, the third 3. M. Segre, ClaraRhodos9 (1938) 149-78. 4. Segre, essentially following arguments of Meritt and Wade-Gery, constructed an argument for the widely accepted 449 (op. cit., 165-74). 5. The Athenian Empire (1972). 6. In his edition of the Standards Decree, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung21 (1971) 154-60, where he argues for the "low" date that had been accepted before 1938.

Foreword

ix

edition of the fifth-century Athenian inscriptions-the supreme research source, which will be consulted for a half-century and more-honored Mattingly in the preface by saying that his iconoclastic theories were still firmly rejected.7 Such was the position in the early 1980s. Yet it continued to be difficult to believe that the Athenians slammed the door on three-barred sigma at a single moment in time: why should stonecutters not continue to use this older form for a time, and why should the four-barred form not have taken over through an evolutionary process? The most promising inscription for testing this hypothesis seemed to be the one recording, though imperfectly, the alliance made between Athens and Egesta (IG P 11), which does contain the name of the archon for the year and thus could be dated in principle with absolute certainty-if we could read the name. Mattingly had once read this name as Antiphon, who was archon in 418 B.c., while the majority of scholars sponsored Habron (458). This stone had suffered cruel treatment over a long period, for someone had used it as a threshold stone for his house and had fixed into it a doorpost, with the result that the movement of the door had methodically effaced many letters, including the beginning of the archon's name. The last two letters, ON, had been read by all, but the exclusive use of three-barred sigma in the inscription seemed to call for a date earlier than 445 and thus to tip the scales toward Habron. At least three scholars supported Mattingly's reading, Antiphon, but the two letters before ON were too faint to carry conviction. One of my students, Louise Hitchcock, asked me why we historians did not use photogrammetry, that is, apply modern techniques of photographic analysis when working on such tantalizing Greek inscriptions. This signal led to the formation of a research team from the University of California, Los Angeles, that arrived in Athens in 1986 to work on the Athens-Egesta inscription. 8 We first photographed the critical letters preserving the archon' s name and then subjected them to enhancement through a computer-assisted image enhancement machine. This method brought up an undeniable iota, followed by a somewhat distorted but 7. IG P 1: "opiniones a Haroldo Mattingly prolatas etiam nunc firme repellimus." 8. Our results were published in Acta of the University of New England

(Armidale,Australia) InternationalSeminaron Greekand Latin Epigraphy,12-14 July 1989, ed. Ian Worthington (1990) 38-63; also published in ZPE 83 (1990) 38-63.

X

Foreword

still recognizable phi that could not be a rho. The iota and phi proved that the archon was Antiphon (no other archon' s name in the fifth century will accommodate these letters) and that the year of the alliance was 418 B.c.-a far better date from the historical perspective than 458 (Habron), for the alliance now moves into the period when Athens became interested in Sicily just before the tragic expedition to that island (415-413) narrated by Thucydides, books 6-7. Another procedure was supervised by a member of the research team, Pantelis Spanos. With the kind assistance of members of the Polytechnikon, Athens, he directed a laser beam through the stone from the rear toward the front. The laser shone through the translucent marble and brought a clear phi, also confirming Antiphon, up to the surface from within the stone-for the taps of the mason's chisel informed the crystals under the surface, and these were not erased by the door that had smoothed away many of the letters on the surface itself. 9 With the establishment of the date 418 B.c. for an inscription containing three-barred sigma, we are freed of the long-accepted canonical view that this letter was not used in official inscriptions after 446. Harold Mattingly, who seemed to be fighting a lost battle for a generation, has been proved right. The papers in this volume are a monument to his intellectual courage and scholarly integrity. It would be too much to say that every suggestion in these papers is now automatically proved. Rather, debate on a new basis can now begin. It is likely, however, that the Standards Decree will resume its pre1938 date, around 425 B.c. or later. 10 This decree will then be part of a policy of the strict administration of the Athenian Empire that probably began in the 420s, not in the 440s. That means that we know less than we thought we did about Athenian policy overall and that we must indeed (in the words of Meritt and Wade-Gery) rethink our problems. Even the history of Egesta, the small town in Sicily, has become a little clearer. As for the Peloponnesian War itself, the cataclysmic event that doomed the independent Greek city-states, it too has somewhat changed its appearance. The low date for the Standards Decree, now restored with high probability, must be brought into relation with the tremendous strains on Athens caused by the military events of the 420s; this correlation in turn 9. It has been gratifying to note that our reading, Antiphon, has been approved by J. Treheux in the Bull. epig. 1991, no. 228, in REG 104 (1991) 469. 10. See also M. Vickers, "Fifth Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree," JHS 116 (1996), forthcoming.

Foreword

xi

will cause us to read Thucydides' narrative with more care and understanding. And interpreters of Greek inscriptions will draw a warning against too confident reliance on a few letter forms as criteria for establishing chronology, the "eye of history." In sum, we may, largely through the work of Harold Mattingly, be within reach of a better understanding of Greek history in the fifth century B.c.-no insignificant era in European history. Mortimer Chambers

Acknowledgments

My first thanks must go to Mortimer Chambers. The constant interest and support of such a fine scholar greatly encouraged me to continue when the going was rough and I was delighted when he agreed to write a foreword for this volume. Without his pioneering work in Athens in 1986, with Ralph Gallucci and Pantelis Spanos, republication of my work would not have been possible. Applying new photographic techniques as described in the foreword, to the archon' s worn name on the stone with the Egesta Treaty, they made a sensational breakthrough. It has convinced most qualified scholars and has proved that my basic premise was correct; old-style epigraphic lettering survived at Athens for a generation after 445 B.c. I am most grateful to all the team for enabling me to present a new view of fifth-century Athens. I must also thank very warmly Tracey Rihll, my former research student at Leeds University. She not only urged me to republish, but spontaneously offered to secure a publisher for me and to provide all required editorial assistance. In a very busy life she somehow found an astounding amount of time and energy to set the project well and truly on its way. Her help was invaluable and this volume owes a great deal to her care and work. I hope that she will find some personal satisfaction in the result. Cambridge University trained me and has been my home in retirement, providing a most congenial atmosphere for continued research. My teaching career was divided between the Universities of Nottingham and Leeds. I owe a very big debt to these three centers of learning and excellence. I must also express my thanks to the staffs of the American Agora Excavations, Athens, of the Heberden Coin Room (Oxford) and of the Departments of Coins and Medals at the Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge) and at the British Museum. They have been ever ready with help, advice, and fruitful discussion. I would further thank the staffs of the University Library and Classical Faculty Library in Cambridge and the Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies in London. The British School of Archaelogy at Athens has been a real haven for me over

xiv

Acknowledgments

the years and I gladly record the value of contacts there with other scholars and with students. My debt to the German and French Schools at Athens must not be forgotten either. Altogether I have learned and gained so much from so many scholars; they are too many to mention separately here. Many will be found acknowledged in this volume. The rest should take this general thanks as meant for them. Obviously these lively discussions of more than thirty years have led me to change my mind on many minor points: but for any remaining errors I alone am responsible. I was very pleased when the University of Michigan Press took on this publication and they have carried it to completion with exemplary patience and skill. Ellen Bauerle, Classics Acquiring Editor, has helped the project on through all its stages and I must thank her most sincerely for her constant, positive support. Nancy Vlahakis and her staff have expertly seen the book through copyediting and proofing and have worked wonders with what must have seemed at first an intractable task. My thanks go to them also. I would finally like to acknowledge my son David, who not only urged republication, but has given me helpful advice throughout and suggested the title. My wife Erica was actually the first to urge me to republish and has never failed me in support and encouragement. She also designed a most effective dust jacket. The work presented here is bound up with so much of our life together. I therefore have dedicated this volume to her.

Contents

Page numbers of the original publications are indicated in square brackets in this book. Each bracketed number indicates the point at which the old page started, for example: [52] means that the text following the number is the old page 52. Introduction

1

The Athenian Coinage Decree

5

Chapter 1.

2. Athens and Euboea

53

3. The Methone Decrees

69

4. The Growth of Athenian Imperialism

87

5. The Peace of Kallias

107

6. Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea

117

7. Periclean Imperialism

147

8. Athens, Delphi and Eleusis in the Late 420s

181

9. Two Notes on Athenian Financial Documents

205

10. Athenian Finance in the Peloponnesian War

215

Athens and the Western Greeks: C. 500-413 B.C.

259

12. 'Epigraphically the Twenties Are Too Late ... '

281

11.

Contents

xvi

13. Formal Dating Criteria for Fifth Century Attic Inscriptions

3 15

14. Athens and Eleusis: Some New Ideas

325

15. The Protected Fund in the Athenian Coinage Decree (ATL D 14, par. 7£)

347

16. The Mysterious 3000 Talents of the First Kallias Decree

353

17. The Language of Athenian Imperialism

361

18. The Athenian Proxeny Decree, JG 12 30 23 (SEG 10.20)

+ 387

19. Three Attic Decrees

39 1

20. Vocabulary Change and Epigraphic Dating

399

21.

The Second Athenian Coinage Decree

22.

The Tribute Quota Lists from 430 to 425

B.C.

4o3 4 27

Samos and 23. Coins and Amphoras-Chios, Thasos in the Fifth Century B.c.

435

24· The Athenian Decree for Miletos (JG I2, 22 + = ATL II, D 11): A Postscript

453

25. The Athena Nike Temple Reconsidered

461

26. The Alliance of Athens with Egesta

473

27. The Athenian Coinage Decree and the Assertion of Empire

477

28. Methodology in Fifth-Century Greek History

487

29. The Jordan Hoard (IGCH 1482) and Kirnon' s Last Campaign

497

30. Some Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphic Hands

5o5

Contents

xvii

Appendices 1.

Chios and the Athenian Standards Decree

521

2. The First Athena Nike Decree, IG P 35

522

3. Athens and Herakleides of Klazomenai, IG P 227 + 11265

523

4. Athens, Methone, and Aphytis, IG P 61 and 62

525

5. Concordance

528

Index Rerum et Regionum

537

Index Nominum

545

Index Locorum

551

Indices

Introduction

Two recent exciting breakthroughs in Attic epigraphy of the fifth century B.c. may perhaps justify republication of the main articles in which I have contested over thirty years the dogma that no document with three-barred sigma could properly be dated after 445 B.c. This thinking seemed to me to be blocking our understanding of the history of a crucial period. I hope that this book may encourage young scholars to take comparable risks and to persevere under discouragement and opposition. Time may vindicate them, as it has finally vindicated me. The sensational paper by M. H. Chambers, R. Gallucci and P. Spanos with the challenging title "Athens' Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon" has shaken the scholarly world. Using new techniquesmost notably enhanced photography and laser beam-they have shown that [ANT]Icl>ONcan be read as the archon in a document long put in the 450s because of three-barred sigma. Now Antiphon was archon in 418/7 B.c.! 1 They have convinced many good scholars, though a few still will not be persuaded to agree to the phi. Much is at stake, since if only one document with three-barred sigma can be dated so late, others must also be down-dated where there are good historical grounds. 2 The best candidate is the famous Athenian Standards Decree, with which I began my long campaign. The discovery of a copy in Attic script with three-barred sigma in Kos in the mid-193os made most scholars

1. See Acta of the University of New England (Armidale,Australia) International Seminaron Greekand Latin Epigraphy,12-14 July 1989, edited by Ian Worthington (1990) 38-63; also published in ZPE 83 (1990) 38-63. They deserve our warmest thanks and congratulations for their brilliant initiative. For text and bibliography of the Egesta alliance see IG l3 11. 2. Since the mid-196os good epigraphists have read the phi on the stone in Athens: see my article in Chiron 16 (1986) 168-70. The problem always lay in convincing others, through squeezes or photographs, of what is actually there. For a full endorsement of the Antiphon reading see J. Treheux, Bull. epig. 1991, no. 228, in REG 104 (1991) 469. For doubts see Alan Henry, ZPE 91 (1992) 137-46.

2

The Athenian Empire Restored

allow the decree to be backdated from the 420s to the early 44os.J The second breakthrough concerns this decree. A new copy has appeared at Hamaxitos in the Troad. Restored with a stoichedon line of 53 letters, it exactly matches the Kos copy over many lines, and it is also in Attic script, but the sigmas are four-barred this time.4 Now Hamaxitos first came under Athenian control in 427 a.c., when the Mytilenean revolt collapsed; but the Aktaian cities may not have been registered for regular tribute before 425/4 B.c., when they formed a separate panel.5 In theory each new member of the empire might have been required on entry to put up a copy of this decree passed long since. 6 But it is hard to parallel this theory with fact, and a more straightforward solution lies to hand. The decree itself was passed in 425/4 a.c. and not in the 440s. The numismatic evidence now firmly supports this. Such major allied mints as Abdera, Akanthos, Mende, Maroneia, and Ainos show no break in coinage in the 440s. Instead they go on uninterruptedly through the 430s and even into the 420s. With these exceptions an early Standards Decree is barely imaginable.7 Evidence on allied capacity standards also suggests that the shift from local to Attic did not take place before the 42os. 8 David Lewis noted that in the second Methone decree of 426/5 3. See M. Segre, Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 151-78 (Kos): R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, Greek HistoricalInscriptions (1969) no. 45, 111-17, for composite text and commentary (hereafter cited as ML). 4. It was published by E. Schwertheim (VI Ara§tirmaSonuflari Toplantisi[1988] 283-86, with a photograph) as an imperial Athenian measure for Hamaxitos. See also SEG xxxviii (1988) 9 and 1251. I have demonstrated its true nature in a communication to the Tenth International Epigraphic Congress, Nimes 1992, published in Klio 75 (1993) 99-102. 5. On the Aktaian cities see Thuc. 3.50.3 and 4.52.2-3 with 4.75.1: A. W. Gomme, A HistoricalCommentaryon Thucydides(1956) 2:328 and 3:507, 536f.: IG 13 71, col. 3.124££. (425/4), and 77, col. 4.14££. (422/1): R. Meiggs, Athenian Empire (1972) 533: M. Pierart, BCH 108 (1984) 175 n. 60. Pierart reasonably suggested that they at first paid war indemnity, like Samos and Thera (IG I3 68.21-25), and not tribute. 6. David Lewis suggested this possibility in 1986 as a way of dealing with the awkward fact that the Syme copy was probably late. See Lewis, in Coinageand Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, BAR International Series 343, edited by Ian Carradice (1987) 56. 7. See Johnathan Kagan and Martin Price in Carradice, ed., op. cit. (n. 6) 25f. and45-47. 8. On amphora and pithos capacities see Virginia Grace, "Early Thasian Stamped Amphoras," (AJA 50 (1946) 31, and "Standard Pottery Containers," Hesp. suppl. 8 (1949) 182; Mabel Lang," A New Inscription from Thasos," BCH 76

Introduction

3

B.c., "the type of medimnoiat Byzantion does not need to be stated." He

was implying, of course, that it was Attic. But why should it not have been the local Byzantine measure and equally self-evident as such, if the decree imposing uniformity was still in the future?9 In the Eleusinian Firstfruits decree, however, Athens and the allies would appear to be using the same Attic measures; it is normally now dated in the late 42os 10 A rather neglected piece of literary evidence can now be seen as highly relevant. An allusion in Aristophanes' Clouds (247-49) suggests that uniformity of coinage was most topical in 424/3 B.c. Byzantion was apparently using iron currency, which-like electrum-happened not to fall under the general ban of silver. It was bound to attract attention, when all other allies had to stop their local currency. 11 Michael Crawford ingeniously tried to discount this passage. The Byzantine sidareoi, he suggested, were not iron coins but a local nickname for obols-which had once been of iron in the distant past. Yet iron coinage was known in Greece. Actual specimens survive, possibly from Argos, Phleious, and Phokis, and we hear of an experiment in iron currency at Klazomenai. 12 The tradition that the sidareoiwere iron coins was already well accepted by c. A.D. 140, and that remains the natural interpretation of the Clouds passage. Socrates loftily asserts that "the gods are not currency with us," (1952) 15-31; Mattingly, "Epigraphically the Twenties Are Too Late ... ," BSA 65 (1970) 142, and "Coins and Amphoras-Chios, Samos and Thasos in the Fifth Century B.c.," JHS 101 (1981) 85 f. Both Grace and Lang took this awkward evidence as implying reinvigorationof an old regulation in the 420s, not its first implementation. 9. See IG l3 61.34-36 (ML no. 65, 180): Lewis in Carradice, ed., op. cit. (n. 6), 6tf. 10. IG l3 78.4-8, 14-21, and 26-30. Attic farmers are clearly being rated in Attic measures; the hieropoioiregister the quantity of corn received under each deme and each allied city, with no apparent distinction. For a good commentary on the decree see ML no. 73, 217-23 (c. 422 B.c.?). Their reservations on the date seem unjustified. The allied collectors of corn (lines 14-16) were surely modelled on the allied collectors of tribute established by Kleonymos in his tribute decree of 426/5 B.c. (IG l3 68.5-9). 11. That only silver was banned is clear from the addition to the Council oath in the Standards Decree (ML no. 45, § 12). Bronze coinage was not known in mainland Greece or Asia Minor before c. 410 B.c. at the earliest. See Martin Price in Essaysin GreekCoinagepresentedto StanleyRobinson,edited by C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (1968) 99-101 and 104. 12. M. H. Crawford, Athenaeum,n.s., 6o (1982) 276. On iron coins see Price in C. M. Kraay, ed., op. cit. (n. 11) 100, with nn. 1-3; Mando Oikonomidou-Caramesini in Moneta e non Moneta (1992); 'Aristotle', Oikonomika2.16 (Klazomenai).

4

The Athenian Empire Restored

to which Strepsiades counters, "What do you use then? Iron coins as at Byzantion ?" 1 3 The Egesta Treaty and the Standards Decree should now be firmly anchored in 418/7 and 425/4 B.c. For the financial decrees of Kallias there has so far been no comparable breakthrough. The lettering is developed Attic, with four-barred sigma, and most scholars accept the dating 434/3 B. c. 1 4 I have long championed the alternative 422/1 B. c., and some of my work on this problem appears in this book. I make no apologies for this. Part of my case has not been properly faced yet. The second Kallias decree ordered the completion of at least three Golden Nikai out of the total of eight known for the fifth century. In 1974 I tried to show that at least six of these statues of Victory were made between 426/5 and c. 407 B.c., so that, if the Kallias Nikai were really completed c. 430 B.c., we would have a fifth-century total of at least nine Nikai, not the agreed eight. The crucial point is the dating of one Nikai record, IG P 467. With that dated c. 430 B.c., its two or more Nikai can be seen as those authorized by Kallias at the accepted date, and no problem arises. But the way that its Nikai are listed and weighed is quite unlike the methods used in IG P 468 of 426/5 B.C. and very close indeed to the latest records; that was why I put it in the late 420s. I can only ask readers to study this vital evidence very closely without prejudice and see whether it leads them where it led me. 1 5 On Kallias there is at least reasonable doubt, and I continue to hope for some new breakthrough here also. Meanwhile the other breakthroughs have opened up the history of Periclean Athens to fresh inquiry on a very broad front. I look forward to watching others exploit this hard-won freedom, and I trust that the publication of this book may serve in some way as a guide and inspiration. 13. See Aristeides (Lenz-Behr 1976) 3.104. The information does not then come only from the scholia and late lexicographers. In fragment 96 of the comic poet Plato (Edmonds 1, 521: from Peisandros,c. 417 B.c. ?) a character observes that they would do badly in Byzantion with its iron currency. This fragment is harder to discount, I think, than Clouds247-49. 14. See JG IJ 52 a-b; ML no. 58, 154-61. Wade-Gery (JHS 51 [1931] 57-85) once argued strongly for 422/i B.c.: but he soon withdrew and settled for 434/3 instead (see A. B. West, AJA 38 [1934] 407, and B. D. Meritt, AJPh 55 [1934] 263). 15. In Cl)OR07:Tributeto BenjaminDeanMeritt (1974) 94-96 I argued the case fully, and there is little to add. For the Nikai records see now JG IJ 467-71 with good bibliography. Only one Nike (469.29-33: 454£.) survived into the fourth century; the rest were melted down for the emergency gold coinage of 407/6 B.C. See on this Wesley Thompson, NC 1970, 1-6.

1

The Athenian Coinage Decree

Before the discovery of the fragment in Attic script at Kos the measure which imposed Athenian currency on the Empire was universally dated c. 420 B.C. The context seemed admirable and it was tempting to recognise Kleon or Hyperbolos as the decree's ultimate sponsor. 1 Since Segre' s publication, however, historians have shown a flattering readiness to accept the epigraphists' verdict as final. Few have quarrelled openly with their disturbing insistence that the Kos copy must be dated on its letterforms close to 450 B.C. Most waverers will have been won over by the masterly reinterpretation of the coin evidence, through which E. S. G. Robinson sought to demonstrate a general break in allied issues about that very time. 2 Cavaignac, however, remained unconvinced and argued forcibly against the new dating on historical grounds similar to those urged earlier by H. Schaefer. The decree, they feel, is too drastic and ambitious for Perikles in the early 440s. It is the work of a power long confirmed in habits of imperialism and further schooled by the harsh necessities of the Archidamian War. Their instinct may well prove sound, but they did not support it sufficiently with epigraphic arguments. Since

Reprinted from Historia10 (1961), 148-88, with necessary corrections. I would like to thank Prof. H. Bengtson, Dr. M. N. Tod, G. K. Jenkins, A. G. Woodhead and E. Badian for encouragement and help. None of them should be taken as agreeing with my conclusions. I owe an immense debt to the work and inspiration of Prof. B. D. Meritt and Prof. H. T. Wade-Gery, but it would be a poor return to refrain from criticism. They have themselves always shown that respect for the facts which leads to continual modification of theory. 1. See M. N. Tod, Greek HistoricalInscriptions, i (1933), no. 67 (with good bibliography): D. M. Robinson, Amer. Journ. Phil., lvi (1935), 149-154 (Aphytis fragment): M. Segre, ClaraRhodos,ix (1938), 151-178 (Kos): JGxii, Suppl. (1939), 215 ff. (composite text): B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists (henceforth ATL), ii (1949), D 14 (improved text): A W. Gomme, A HistoricalCommentaryon Thucydides,i (1945), 383f.: G. F. Hill, Sources for GreekHistory2(edited by R. Meiggs and A. Andrewes; 1951), B 39 (ATL text and date). 2. Hesperia,Suppl. viii (1949), 324-340. 5

6

The Athenian Empire Restored

they both also inclined towards a date manifestly too low, scholars have been able to underestimate the seriousness of their challenge.J The epigraphic evidence forms the gravamen of the orthodox case. The numismatic arguments are far from being decisive and have little independent force. Robinson himself frankly conceded that he was faced with some awkward exceptions. Certain important coinages were not interrupted c. 450 B.C. He was well aware too that Athens was not really ready for so drastic a measure at that date.4 I shall try to show later that some of these difficulties can be better explained in terms of the old dating, but here shall content myself with appeal to a second opinion. G. K. Jenkins, in a review of Seltman's GreekCoins,2has suggested that numismatically the later date for the Coinage Decree may still be considered open.5 We must not then be too impressed by the agreement of experts in these two branches of study. Essentially what counts is the strength of the epigraphic criteria. We are imprisoned by a dogma which requires most rigorous probing. Is it really true that three-bar sigma disappears from Attic epigraphy after 445 B.c. ?6 This dogma has been effectively criticised by no less an authority than M. N. Tod. Since he found other reasons for putting the Coinage Decree after 438 B.c., he suggested that the Samian OQOLwith '7should perhaps after all be put after the suppression of the Samian revolt.7 Athenian sacred property in Samos is hard to reconcile with full autonomy, but nothing is more natural after surrender. When Lesbos capitulated in 427 B.c., Athens carved out n:µtvri for her gods on the island. 8 We might 3. Rev. Num. (v ser.), xii (1953), 1-7: Hermes, lxxiv (1939), 253-257. The ATL editors assert (iii, 11 n. 25) that Schaefer 'misses completely the significance of the Decree of Klearchos (D 14), which he persists in dating ea. 414 B.c.': but, despite charging him with misuse of evidence, they do not examine his case. Cavaignac touched on epigraphy (p. 2) but A. G. Woodhead's dissatisfaction (SEC xv (1958), 4) was clearly justified. Though he made Kleon ultimately responsible, Cavaignac linked the decree with plans for the change-over from qi6Qo~to the 5% harbour-tax, which was not achieved until 414"3B.c. (p. 6f.). 4. Op. cit., 324, 331, 334, 337f. These problems were well stressed by Cavaignac (3 ff.) in favour of his late date. 5. Num. Chron., (vi ser.), xv (1955), 263. 6. See A. E. Raubitschek, Amer. Journ. Phil., lxi (1940), 477f. and Segre, op. cit., 167 for good defences of the dogma. 7. Journ. Hell. Stud., lxix (1949), 105 (review of ATL ii). For the OQOLsee SEC i, 375 (('A]0eva(a~ 'A0evov µe~e6oe~), Bull. Corr. Hell., viii (1884), 160 Ciovo~ 'A0ive0ev) and compare H. Roehl, ICA, 8 (btovuµov 'A0ive 0[e]v). 8. Thuc. iii, 50, 2.

The Athenian Coinage Decree

7

argue similarly about the archaic-looking OQOLfrom Aigina. In the late 430s Aigina began covertly complaining to Sparta about inroads on her autonomy. One form of interference might well have been Athenian acquisition of sacred property on Aigina, perhaps in consequence of some stirrings of revolt. Alternatively the OQOLcould even be as late as the Athenian cleruchy which dispossessed the islanders in 431 B.c.9 There is one isolated example of 7 which must be at least as late as this. It occurs on the famous dedication of Aristokrates son of Skellios, to which Plato refers in the Gorgias(472a). In view of his known career his victory as choregos must surely be set in the Archidamian War. 10 Religious conservatism might account for deliberate archaising in these three cases, but they still show that masons of the old school were working at Athens in the 430s. This is a vital point. Surely, as Tod argued, such men would be called upon to help more progressive craftsmen in times of intensive public record. 11 So much could be urged without questioning the general proposition that 7 and similar archaic forms went out of public use c. 445 B.C. But I believe that we must be prepared to go further. There are strong reasons for assigning the Coinage Decree to its former date. My first task is to state these as fairly as I can. I would ask the reader to forget preconceptions and try to treat the decree as a document of unknown date. For the moment let us not surrender tamely to the mass of material in JGi2 and SEGthat appears to support orthodoxy, but recall only that few old Attic decrees contain any objective evidence of date. 12 We must begin by examining rigorously 9. Thuc. i, 67, 2 and 139, 1 (autonomy); ii, 27,1 (famxm). In both cleruchies and colonies i:EµEVl'J were normally set aside for the Athenian gods; see the decree for Brea, JG il, 45 10f. For the Aiginetan OQOLsee JG iv, 29, 33-35, 37. 10. JG i2 , 772: Pros. Att., 1904 and A. Andrewes and D. M. Lewis, Journ. Hell. Stud., lxxvii (1957), 179. He was especially prominent between 414 and 406 B.c., often as a general. 11. D 14 (§ 10) arranged that Athens should provide copies of the decree for uncooperative states. Tod thought that Kos may have been only one of many defaulters. 12. Archon dates are found only in the Segesta Treaty (JG i2 , 19: [ ... ]ov tQXE)and the Miletos Decree (JG il, 22+, = ATL ii, D 11, 63 and 86; bt' 'Eu0uvo aQxovi:o~). Raubitschek's attempt to fix the Segesta Treaty in 458/7 B.c. (Trans. Amer. Phil. Ass., 1xxv (1944), 10-14) was countered by W. K. Pritchett (Amer. Journ. Arch., lix (1955), 58f.); the letters which Raubitschek thought that he could read on the stone ([ha] 1;>Qqo) are not identifiable. In the ATL text of the Erythrai tQXE... ] has been restored after the Decree (ii, D 10, 2; seep. 57) A[um]x[QU'l:E~ epistates, following a suggestion made by R. Meiggs Uourn. Hell. Stud., lxiii (1943), 34); this yields a firm date (453/2 B.c.), but it involves omitting the secretary's name exceptionally from the body of the decree and is quite uncertain.

The Athenian Empire Restored

8

the implications of the close affinity seen by most scholars between D 14 and a document which displays throughout the four-bar sigma. 1.

The Coinage Decree and the Decree of Kleinias (JG i2·,66+)

The letter-forms of IG i2, 66 were once found perfectly consistent with a date in the 420s. 1 3 After the redating of D 14, however, Raubitschek reviewed .Kleinias' measure epigraphically and put it back to the early 440s. His arguments were hardly conclusive, but they were accepted by Hill and Meritt, who in 1944 published a revised text of the decree with a new fragment found in 1938; they gave it the firm date of 448/7 B.C. 1 4 Their instinct may well have been correct. The two decrees are surely allied in spirit and formulation. They should therefore lie close together in date. But what is their true date? If it can be shown that D 7 should never have been moved from the 420s, must we not then think again most seriously about .Klearchos?1 5 Meritt once argued that .Kleinias' Decree was closely linked with that of .Kleonymos which established boards of Tribute Collectors in the allied cities. This was passed in the second prytany of 426/5 B.C. Have the plain affinities lost their dating force? They would seem to tell inherently against separating the two measures by over twenty years. 16 Since the 13. See B. D. Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute (1937); 59f. and 39: ATL i (1939), D 7, ('before 426/5 s.c.'). 14. See Amer. Journ. Phil., lxi (1940), 477ff. and Hesp., xiii (1944), 1 ff. For bibliography to 1949 see SEG x, 31. The definitive publication is ATL ii, D 7. For convenience I shall employ 'D 1 and similar references for decrees included in ATL ii. 15. See Hesp., xiii, 9; 'Along with the monetary decree ... it (D 7) was one of the measures taken by Athens to tighten economic control over the empire and it represents one of the last links in the swift chain of events that transformed the Delian League into the Empire of Athens'. The view recurs in ATL iii, 281. Segre (op. cit., 174) neatly eliminated the 'earlier decree' of Klearchos which still causes controversy; Klearchos will have already proposed a decree as Councilor, so that D 14 had to be defined in the Council's oath specifically as [ .. TOoEcj>Ltov'tm 'A0Eva'iot 31:E[Qi ~oE]0Eia£ E a[A]Ao 'tt n:go[0]1:ano[v]'tE£ 'tf(JL31:0AECJL E [31:EQL o]cj>ov[E] 31:EQL 'tOV 31:0A.EOV' ho 'tL a.v ovoµao'ti 31:EQL 't[E£ 31:0A.E ]0£ 't€[£] ME0ova(ov cj>oEcj>Ltov'tm 'tO'U'tOJtQOOE['XEV U'lJ'tOL]£ 't[a] OEa.A.A.a µE, a.A.A.a cj>'UA.E't[Egavau'tov t]v 'tOL'tE'tayµtvm ov1:ov. This clause clearly allows for incidental mention of Methone in the course of a general imperial decree. We can see what is meant by considering the clause of Kleonymos' Tribute Decree that deals with the special obligations of Samos and Thera.39 May we not legitimately assume that a general decree was passed in 426/5 B.C. dealing with the defence of the Thraceward area and that one clause covered the maintenance of Athenian agxov'tE£ in Methone?4° They may have disposed of a garrison and small naval squad36. Compare D21, 4-8 with D4, 34-41 and see D3, 19ff.: fiiv Me0ovaloi; ,:fa 0aAOQOV OO'XEL 'tCt't'tEV'tOVosµo[v au,;(x]a µaAa e tx[o]aQ'XEVa'll'tOL~ 'tEAEV h6oov ,:fa 0E[6t a:Jto,;]6 6Qo ty(yyEw hov ,:oi~ JtQO'tEQOL~ Ilav[a0]E[va(m~] E'tE'taxaw q>EQEV, ,;6 OEaAAo O.'tEAE~ tva[ t-]. Notion well illustrates the first possibility (see n. 16). 48. Thuc. 2. 29. 6. See on this ATL iii. 323 ff. West put Methane's accession in 432/i (op. cit., pp. 443f.), the ATL date is 434 B.c. (iii. 136 and 319). My view would eliminate the postulated assessment in 428/7 B.C. The new names and quotas in IG i2. 214/15 (+225) could go back to the assessment of 430 B.C., though Lysikles and Paches may have added new tributaries, as generals did in the 43o's (see ATL iii. 82 and 84 on the Thracian &,,;axwt and my nn. 27, 29, and 31). 49. For tv ,;s[tot aav(a]t see ATL iii. 15f. For tm[xoesv o.Jt6,;]axo],:ttc1>E~, but scrupulously conceded that the letter was more probably a chi and so wrote x,.There is no evident restoration here and none has been attempted to my knowiedge. 52. Tod acutely noted this point in his Greek Hist. Inscr. i, 57, but retained the date 454/3 and cited Diodoros xi, 86. Raubitschek proposed 458/7 (Habron) in Trans. Amer. Phil. Ass. lxxv (1944), 10 n. 3 and this was accepted in ATL iii, 304. S. Accame wanted to date the first Leontini and Rhegion Treaties even as early as c.

100

The Athenian Empire Restored

whether there are any alternatives. Now two archons of the 420s have names ending in -on, whereas there are no such in the 440s and 430s. The choice here lies between Epameinon (429/8) and Aristion (421/0). We may first note that a certain Euphemos proposed a rider to the probouleuma for Segesta. It is tempting to identify him with the Euphemos who seems to have been a member of the Council in 420119and was special Athenian envoy at Kamarina in 414. Here he had to conduct a comprehensive defence of Athenian policy in Sicily against the allegations of Hermokrates. Clearly he would have been an excellent choice for this ticklish mission if in fact he had helped make the fateful alliance with Segesta.53 Was this concluded in 429/8 when Athens was moving gradually towards a policy of direct intervention in Sicilian affairs? It is time to consider the evidence from the stone itself. I began by careful study of Woodhead's photograph of JG i2, 19 and found possible traces of two letters immediately before ov in line 3.54 Encouraged by discovering that others had seen the same traces I then turned to Pritchett' s detailed survey of the problem and here give a summary of his results.55 Klaffenbach' s alpha-in the third letter-space to the left of ovcannot be seen on the stone, which is here perfectly smooth.5 6 2. Raubitschek's beta is equally suspect. The vertical stroke two spaces to the left of ov is in exactly the right position for iota or the upright of tau or phi. Pritchett, however, followed Vanderpool in regarding it as an accidental scratch, since it was deeper cut than the certain letters. 3, In the space immediately left of ov 'one or two curving scratches are barely discernible . . . in the left part of the letter-space rather than the right'. This rules out Raubitschek' s rho. But Pritchett regards these traces too as chance scratches, not part of any letter. 1.

460 (Rev. di Fil. N.s. xxx (1952), 132££.), since they must necessarily precede alliances in the far west of Sicily. For these other two treaties see further p. 105 and n. 73. 53. See IG i2, 19, 15; SEG xii, 29, 4 (= IG i2, 149, as revised by Meritt in Hesp. xxi (1952), 344££.; 429/8 or 420/19); Thuc. vi, 75, 4 and 81-88. For his year on Council seen. 73. 54. Hesp. xvii (1948), Pl. 24. 55. Amer. Journ. Arch. lix (1955), 58£. with Pl. 33 A and B. 56. Klaffenbach evidently read this from a Berlin squeeze; see the note in SEG x, 7, which reports his reading [h]al)[Q]Qv.

The Growth of Athenian Imperialism

101

Pritchett indeed concluded that the stone could no longer answer our doubts about the archon. Historian and epigraphist alike must reconcile themselves to this unwelcome fact. I wonder whether we should be content with such pessimism. The traces may be chance scratches, but it is odd that they should twice appear exactly in line with ov and at the points where we should expect the letter itself. The vertical stroke indeed is in the exact centre of the letter-space. If it is not a scratch, the 450s are at once ruled out, but we can still take our choice of Epameinon (iota) or Aristion (tau).57 The stone's curved traces, however, in the next space cannot represent either nu or iota. But it may be premature to dismiss them as accidental markings. Kohler published the traces as a broken omicron in the first edition of the Segesta Treaty and Kirchhoff embodied this in IG i2, 20 with a puzzled footnote.5 8 Lolling later studied the stone minutely and decided in Pritchett's sense, since the traces did not correspond closely in size with the other round letters of the inscription.59 This is certainly true, if we think only of omicrons and thetas. Judging by Woodhead' s photograph I would say that the 'letter' is shaped like a slightly flattened balloon, its top lying definitely below that of the faint omicron to its right. It could well be a phi which has had its downstroke worn away. There are only two examples of phi in IG i2, 19. Unluckily one is half broken away at the beginning of line 11. But Woodhead's photograph reveals that it corresponds fairly well in shape and size with the traces in line 3, as indeed does the undamaged phi in line 15. Moreover phis can vary considerably in one inscription. Thus whereas the 'letter' in line 3 resembles the phi in ATL ii, D 7, 9, in lines 32, 34 and 39 of this decree the phis are much less bulbous. 00 May we not then tentatively supply a dotted phi? The consequences are so alarming that it is small wonder that no one has ever suggested this. Whether we read -~cpovor -- cpov the archon's name can only be completed as 'Avncpov (418/17)!

Before dismissing this out of hand the sceptical reader should remem57. IG i2 , 19 is strictly stoichedon in arrangement, which makes Pritchett's observation (checked by accurate measurement) all the more noteworthy. 58. See Hermesii (1867), 17 and Kirchhoff's note 'quum quae ante wv restare traduntur litterae rotundae vestigia in archontum huius aetatis quos cognitos habemus neutiquam conveniant'. 59. ~e11.1:. 'Aex (1891), 106; quoted by Pritchett, 59 n. 6o. See Pl. ii in ATL ii. The 'phi' in IG i2, 19 would certainly not seem to be of archaic type (aVELOE µaxn VLXflOUV'tE£ µeyaAriv a.nrivtyxav-ro o6;av nQo£ a.vOQE(av. Ephoros evidently conveyed more clearly than Thucydides the Theban pride in this victory, their boast of sheer physical superiority.3° It is this boast, I believe, that the epigram explicitly rejects. Neither Athenian morale nor Athenian pride could allow it. More than ever defeat must be ascribed to divine agency. This was the Spartans' recourse after Leuktra. Pausanias indeed passes on from reflections on Leuktra to the play of divine power at Delion 28. For the epigram see Kyparissis and Peek, Ath. Mitt. lvii (1932), 142-6 (with photograph) and S.E.G. x. 410 (text and bibliography). For Delion see pp. 26t f. of my article in Historiaxii (1963). 29. I adopt the text approved by Bowra in Problemsof GreekPoetry(1953), pp. 93ff. (a reprint with minor changes of his article in C.Q. xxxii [1938]). Bowra read ()mµov(o; as the adverb (p. 95): in this he was followed by A. Cameron (Harv. Theo[.Rev. xxxiii [1940], 99ff.), who, however, preferred aeAJt[i:o;](adv.) in line 1. He allowed that o.eA.1ti:o~ µ6.xll could imply that the Athenians were taken by surprise, as indeed at Koroneia (p. 99). In this sense the adjective would be still more applicable to Delion: seep. [262] of my article with n. 25. Cameron agreed with Bowra that the correction ewo()ov possibly replaced an original eoo()ov and that we should read t;-hoMv rather than the internal accusative foo()ov (pp. 105-9). 30. The narrative follows Thucydides closely (4. 96-97. 1), but with much added colour; some of this (e.g. the cavalry victory) must be rejected, as Gomme noted (op. cit. iii. 568).

The Athenian Empire Restored

124

(3. 6. 1): µaALO'ta.M, :7tC0£ f:l'tl,rt'ta(oµamv E0EAEL µEyaAOL£ :7tQOacj>atQEL00m 'tOVriyeµova 6 6a(µcov, xa0a 6iJ xai 'A01']VULCOV QOV [yag hortecj>ga]6EM,oµaxov aygav EX.0QOL£ 0EQEUOU£ [0eocj>amvh]uµE'tEQOL ouv xax6t EXOE'tEAEOOE, j3QO'tOLOL 6E rtdot 'to AOLrtov cj>gatEo0m Aoy(ov :l'tLITTOV E0EXE'tEA.0£. ......

The hero trapped the prey for Athens' enemies, as he had foretold. Bowra must be right in claiming that the words 6uoµaxov aygav ex0go'i; 01']QEuoa;paraphrase part of the oracle, but I would prefer to translate rrg6cj>gcov 'readily', 'of his own accord' rather than 'with seeming good intent' .32 As Bowra himself noted, oracular shrines did occasionally 31. As Cameron observed (pp. 102 f. and 121), it was normal in epitaphs to attribute defeat to divine intervention-this is 'a kind of topic of consolation'. But the epigram goes well beyond the norm in this. For the omens and oracles before Leuktra see Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 2-3 and 7: Diod. 15. 53. 4-54. 4: Plut. Pelop.20. 3-22: Paus. 9. 13. 4 and 14. 3. The contemporary Theban view is bluntly expressed in the famous epigram (I.G. vii. 2462+ . 7f.: Tod ii. no. 130):

'E>rij3afotxgdooove~ Eµ :rroMµwt' XClQ'UOOEL AEUXtQOL~ vixaq>oga 6ougl, tg6:rrma . . . The Athenians subsequently managed to take a more realistic view of Delion: see Thuc. 5. 14. 1. 32. Op. cit. 98£. Cameron's interesting thesis (op. cit. 102-21) must be stated, if only to be refuted. He held that (a) 'our text offers not the record of an actual epiphany, but rather a post eventum interpretation of defeat' (p. 104) and (b) that there is no basis for assuming a consultation of Orion or any other hero before the battle; the Athenians went out on campaign in defiance of a current Myiov and were punished by heaven as a warning to mankind. The agent was an unspecified local hero, not to be more nearly identified. I think that his first point may be granted and that he is right in insisting that Aoy(wv (line 8) means 'oracular utterances ... preservedand circulated'(so R. A. Neil in his Knights [1909], p. 22) and not 'a particular response' (for which XQfl0µ6~is correct). He

Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea

125

make pronouncements without being consulted and this is precisely what Herodotos records of Amphiaraos, in whose territory the battle of Dellon was fought.33 Explaining why no Theban could consult the hero he recalls an old oracle (8. 134): txtAEUOEmj>ta£ o 'Aµte aUa te llQYUQoMyn xat n:EQLEn:AEL, xat tfjt; KaQ(at; Ex Muouvtot; xtA; this hardly suggests that he reached the Hellespont as well (A. T.L. i. 197). Paches could look after that area. Aristophanes may have had Lysikles in mind, when he made the prosecutor complain of the dog Labes (Wasps924 f.): 00tLt; n:eQLn:Aeuoat;t~v 0ue(av tv xuxAQ:> Ex tmv n:6Aeoovtov iJc>oxev. 59. See A. T.L. i ('Register'}, 250 f. It is just possible that BQuxot; stood immediately before 'EteoxaQn:a0toL. The A. T.L. map shows what a close neighbour it was to Saras.

132

The Athenian Empire Restored

428/7 B.c., I submit, or paid too late for inclusion in that year's list; the

record was then brought up to date by the two payments registered in List 26, which will have to be dated 427/6 B.c. We have already seen that Lysikles visited Anaphe. May he not have tried to force neighbouring Thera into the Empire? In 431 B.c. Thera and Melos were the only two of the Cyclades outside the Athenian alliance, but early in 426/5 B.c. Thera is found saddled with a war-indemnity comparable to that of Samas. In Lists 26 and 25 it is recorded as paying a tribute of 3 T.00 I suggest that the island refused Lysikles' demands in 428/7 B.c. and that he could do no more than ravage its territory. Thera was now regarded as an open enemy. In spring 427/6 B.C., however, it capitulated and paid tribute, hearing rumours of the large expedition intended to coerce Melos. Thus Melos was left quite isolated, when Nikias sailed forth in May. 61 If List 26 then is to be dated 427/6 B.c. for these two reasons, List 28 must be dated before 27. Its probable order of districts links it closely with Lists 27 and 26 and one small consideration suggests that it would anyway be best to make it the first of the three. 62 The editors restored Klazomenai's tribute in 28. 6 as [f" .L..]4[.6.1-]H-ll,since it pays 6 Tin List 27. This is a great rise from the pre-war 1½ T, but it prepares the way for the jump to 15 Tin the Assessment of 425/4 B.c. The editors very plausibly ascribe the first rise to Athens' desperate need of money in 428/7 B.c. 6J Now this unfortunately renders their whole position precarious. If a new fragment should chance to reveal that the first figure was really H, their dating of List 28 is impossible; a payment of only 1 T must presuppose the pre-war tribute. On the other hand, if the figure should prove to be we can still date List 28 430/29 or 429/8 B.C., since the big rise may well have occurred at the Assessment of 430 B.c. It would be useless to pretend that my view is free from formal objections. I have tried to answer these elsewhere, but we must remember that the lists of the 420' s are seriously defective and we must not expect to be

r,

60. Thuc. 2. 9. 4: A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2. 65+), 22£.: List 26. iii. 23 and 25. ii. 54 (a probable supplement: see A. T.L. i. 193). 61. Thuc 3. 91. 1-3. Melos succeeded (at least till 416/i5 B.c.) where on my view Thera had failed. 62. For the order of districts (only one column survives in part) see A.T.L. i. 99 and 199. 63. i. 197. The 15 T is known only from A. T.L. ii. 39. i. 39 (416/i5 B.c. ?), but it must go back to A 9.

Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea

1 33

able to solve all problems. 64 One final argument moreover recommends putting List 25 in 426/5 B.C. We find in it the last explicit registration of btu)>oga, but even this is the overdue fine for late payment the previous year. Two Thracian cities, however, pay a concealed btu)>oga, which is simply added to their normal tribute. 65 There is no sign of btu)>oga in List 26, but this is no reason for wavering back to the A. T.L. order. In the more complete List 23 there is after all only one surviving occurrence of btu)>oga. Moreover the two payments of previous year's tribute in List 26 may have included bnogafor all that we know. 66 Now, with my date for List 25, we may associate the disappearance of bnogavery closely with the Tribute Decree of 426/5 B.c., which introduced tighter methods of control. As preserved the decree does not actually mention emoga,but the word occurs in a contemporary measure that instituted the specially equipped tribute-collecting squadrons. 67 D 8 instructs the Hellenotamiai to inform the people shortly after the Dionysia which cities had not paid tribute or not paid in full. Five men were then to be sent to the defaulters in order to extract the tribute, no doubt with a standardized fineperhaps half the previous maximum. 68 We may surely now regard 427/6 B.C. as a firm date for List 26. If this is allowed, we can hardly refuse to put the first Methane Decree in the same year. It granted Methane the privilege of paying the aparche only and List 26 shows that the concession was shared by Dikaia and Haison. Methane and Dikaia were on the fringe of Macedonian territory and exposed to Perdikkas' pressure.69 The latter may have been suffering 64. See C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), [158-60]. The changes between S.E.G. 25 and 28 and A. T.L. ii. 26 and 25 justify the degree of freedom which I there claimed. See further p. 184 n. 1. 65. See A.T.L. i. 196 and 452f. 66. Despite A. T.L. i. 196 we are free to restore [ . . . . . . tmcpoQa]i; in 26. iv. 33, as in S.E.G. v. 25; but this obviously cannot be pressed. For the backpayments see iv. 10 and 45; no figures survive. In List 23 emcj>oQasurvives only in i. 54. 67. See A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2 • 65+) and Meritt's study in his Documents of Athenian Tribute, pp. 3-42: I.G. ir2.97 (Tod i, no. 76), 3f. and Meritt's convincing reinterpretation of the decree in Studies presentedto D. M. Robinson, ii (1953), 298303 (S.E.G. xii. 26 gives his text). 68. Lines 11-18. For the rate of tmcpoQa and its basis see A. T.L. i. 452f. 69. For this date for D 3 see my further arguments in C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), [1604] and for Methone's anomalous position (oµoQOV'tTIMaxeoovi/OQOV.

Methodology in Fifth-Century Greek History

In this period we simply must combine epigraphic, numismatic, artistic and literary evidence and hence difficult methodological problems face us continually. Considerable experience in the field has forced me to establish certain guiding principles, which I shall hope to illustrate in the following pages. We owe much to the sheer expertise of the epigraphist. David Lewis recently took a very broken Ionic text found at Delos and showed that it was the opening of an Attic decree, probably proposed by Aristophanes' butt Kleonymos; Kleonymos was busy as a Councillor in 426/5 B.c. That was a good rescue operation, but we can safely go further. 1 In 426/5 B.C. Athens "purified" Delos and set up the four-yearly Delian festival. We may now surely associate Kleonymos with this policy and hope that further fragments may turn up in the island, where a second copy of the decree was naturally placed. 2 Epigraphists understandably often interpret their material for themselves; but they need watching. Pouilloux and Salviat, following a suggestion from Lewis, identified the Liches Arkesileo of 398/7 on the Thasian theoroilist as the famous Spartan. Since Thucydides knew of Lichas' s death, the historian must have been still alive and writing in the middle-to-late 39os.3 Paul Cartledge has demolished this theory in a

Reprinted from Echos du Monde Classique32 (1988) 321-328, with necessary corrections. 1. See ZPE 60 (1985) 108. He observed that "it would be hazardous to guess about its context." 2. For Athens and Delos see Thuc. 3.104. One copy of the proxeny decree for Leonides of Halikarnassos (IG P 156.23-29) was to be set up in his own city: so too the Eteokarpathians were to display a copy in their temple of Apollo (Tod ii, no. 110, 34-38 = SIG3 129). 3. CRAI 1983, 376-403.

The Athenian Empire Restored

[.322)

devastating short paper. 4 Their basic methodological flaw lies in their forced treatment of Thucydides 8.84.4-6, the meaning of which looks plain enough: "the Milesians were angry with him [Lichas] both for this reason and other similar behaviour and when he subsequently died of disease they would not let him be buried where the Spartans present desired." Further on we find that Tissaphernes, bent on travelling to Aspendos to collect the Phoenician ships, urged Lichas to come with him; but soon from Aspendos he was asking for someone else and was sent Philippos, who reported back in very gloomy terms. This narrative section suggests that Lichas was prevented from accompanying Tissaphernes either because of severe illness or by death.s We are driven back upon internal evidence for any chronology of Thucydidean composition and that really must still start with 5.26.1 and 4f. 6 We face the same challenge with Herodotos. Many scholars have assumed from a few late passages that he was living and writing at Athens in the 420s. In one Herodotos asserts that the demesmen of Dekeleia enjoyed special privileges at Sparta and that Athens agreed with Sparta on the legendary cause. Even in the Peloponnesian War, while the enemy ravaged the rest of Attica, they kept off Dekeleia. This was possibly written after the invasions ceased with the capture of the Spartan hoplites on Sphakteria in 425 B.c.7 In his seventh book Herodotos records the capture and execution of two Spartan envoys, which Thucydides narrates under 430 B.c. with some variation-but none of any substance. The Spartans' fate was attributed at Sparta to divine wrath which the state had incurred in 491 B.C. Now in wartime Athens how would Herodotos have learned what Spartans felt? In the summer of 425 B.c. the Spartans-despondent after Pylos-sent an embassy to treat for peace at Athens and others followed; Herodotos could surely have talked with one or other of these men. 8 In 5. 77 he describes the 4. LiverpoolClass. Monthly 9 (1984) 98-102. 5. This point is essentially made by Cartledge (above, n. 4) 101; J. and L. Robert, REG 1984, 468-70; Gomme, Andrewes and Dover, Thucydides5 (1981) 85, 279f., 289, .342on Thuc. 8 ..39.2; 84.4-6; 87.1 and 6; 99. 6. See Gomme, Andrewes and Dover, Thucydides 4 (1970) 11-15. The war lasted twenty-seven years, his exile twenty. 7. See Hdt. 9.7.3; Thuc. 4.41.1 (execution of all hostages threatened, should the enemy invade). 8. Hdt. 7.1.3T Thuc. 2.67 and 4.41..3-4 (:rtoAAaxt~cpottwvtu.lV).For recent discussions of Herodotos and Athens in the Archidamian War see C. W. Fornara, JHS 91 (1971) .32-.34(his work first known at Athens shortly before 414 B.c.); A. J.

Methodology in Fifth-Century Greek History

bronze chariot from Athens' victories of about 506 B.c., which had become separated from the chains also dedicated then. "It stands on the left," he writes, "immediately as you enter the Propylaia on the Acropolis." Mnesikles' Propylaia was completed in 433/2 a.c. and, since two passages attest Herodotos' presence in Athens about 425 a.c., the reference must surely be to this and not any previous gateway. 9 For Athenian policy in the 420s B.C. epigraphists have long adduced a decree once published as from the early fourth century (IG 1128), but now definitively reattributed as IG P 227. It is seen as the renewal about 390 B.c. of a fifth-century decree. A certain Herakleides was hailed as proxenos and euergetes, given ateleia and the specially valuable right to own house and land in Attica (enktesis).10 Walbank has recently proved that the honorand was Herakleides of Klazomenai, not of Byzantion. 11 This man was known to have been made an Athenian citizen and, according to "Aristotle" Ath. Pol. 41, he raised Assembly pay to two obols in the 390s a.c. 12 His decree stresses his services to Athenian envoys negotiating peace with the Great King. Kohler linked this with the so-called Peace of Epilykos, for which Andokides 3.23 is our only evidence. Andokides' uncle was probably First Secretary of Council in 424/3 B.C. and could have headed the embassy this same year. Though elaborately developed by others, Kohler's theory runs into serious difficulties.1J The formula for the enktesis grant is that which is normal from the start of the fourth century. The only sure fifth-century grant-in 410/9 a.c. to Phrynichos' assassins-is couched in completely different terms, which are actually unique in the whole record. 14 Nor is this all. We now Podlecki, in K. H. Kinzl (ed.), Greeceand the Eastern Mediterranean... (1977) 256f. and 259-261 (sceptical). 9. See A. E. Raubitschek, Dedicationsfrom the Athenian Acropolis(1949) no. 173; Meiggs and Lewis, GHI, no. 15, p. 29 for discussion of the problems. The former argues for an early gateway within the Acropolis, the latter two prefer a "pre-Mnesiclean" Propylaia-the Propylon that underlies the Propylaia on a different axis. 10. For the general view see Meiggs and Lewis, CHI, no. 70, 201-203. 11. He found that IG 11265 fitted onto the bottom of JG II28. It should be read r [.. _c.s_••• ]/ [rtQO;e]vo x.al [E'UEQYE'W]/ [KAa~oµ]EVlO.See ZPE as ['HQUX.A]E(()O 48 (1982) 261-263 and 51 (1983) 183 f. 12. For citizenship see also Plato Ion 541 d. 13. Kohler, Hermes27 (1892) 68-78; Wade-Gery, Essays(1958) 208. 14. See Jan Pecirka, The Formulafor the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (1966) 139 and 152-157, Table; my review of JG Pin AJP 105 (1984) 349-352; IG P 102.30-32 (410/9 B.C.).

The Athenian Empire Restored

know that Herakleides' stele had his name, titles and ethnic inscribed below the decree bestowing the honours. Walbank declared that "such postscripts were not uncommon." The only comparable fifth-century example is JG P 106 from 409 B.c. From the fourth century the only strict parallels that I know are JG IP 39, 54, 64 and 168. No. 54 from "before 387/6 B.c." is the closest. On this and on JG P 227+ (= JG IP 65) the postscript is separated from the text of the decree by the generous allowance of about 0.030 m. vacant space. 1 5 Formally the Herakleides decree belongs to the early fourth century. "Aristotle" (Ath. Pol. 41) must have wrongly associated this Herakleides with Assembly pay. The right context for JG P 227 is 387/6 B.c., just after the conclusion of the King's Peace. Athens in autumn 387 B.c. was still able to be friendly and conciliatory to Klazomenai, but by the peace the island reverted to Persia. A pro-Athenian Klazomenian like Herakleides might prefer to emigrate and enktesis in Attica would have been specially suitable for him. 16 The Herakleides deEwas a wholly legitimate reading in 159, 8. The rest all follows from that, although so little text survives.

512

The Athenian Empire Restored

It recurs intermittently between 403/2 and 387/6 and then virtually disappears. 2 7 Its natural use with multiple publication should probably be discounted for dating, as in the pre-war Eleusinian epistatidecree (IG ir332, 32-34), where no less than three separate locations are involved. 28 It is worth noting that the fuller form-"inscribe on a stone pillar and set up on the Acropolis"-is used for the plain recording of proxenoiin 422/1 and 421/0, which confirms the change in usage in decrees about this date. 2 9 Only JG ir311 disturbs this pattern, on accepted dating (458/7'). But Mortimer Chambers has now virtually proved that the archon of the Egesta Treaty must be Antiphon (418/7).3°For those still unconvinced there is a powerful formal argument in its favour. The Egestan envoys are invited for hospitality Ee;i:ov voµL~6µEvovxg6vov instead of the almost invariable Ee;aUQLOV (lines 14f.). The one parallel is in IG i3 165 (lines 14-16), a decree datable on its lettering and the anomalous feminine dative plural 6gaxµai:m c. 420 and so listed in IG ir3.31I submit that the two uses of the exceptional periphrasis mark reaction to a recent deviation. In the last prytany of 418/7 we are back to the regular Ee; augwv (IG ir385, 3 f.). Not long before that, however, we may put the troublesome decree for the Eretrians (IG i3 149: 433-412), which provides in lines 14 f. for hospitality in the Prytaneion for once not just on the morrow, but for a somewhat vague period-foe; a:vt[m6Eµom?]. In the

27. See IG ii2 1, 66-68 (403/2); 17, 8-11 (394/3); M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 58 (1989) p. 72 f. no. 2, 13-15 (c. 394-2); 55, 6-8 and 56, 1-3 (before 387f6). Tod, GHI ii no. 110 (Athens and Karpathos), has the telescoped form in lines 34-38 and is normally dated c. 393. But Lewis would put it back to c. 430 and will so publish it in IG i3 2. Twolocations are involved, as with Sthorys' decree (IG ii2 17). However in IG i3 156, 19-26 (c. 428?), 71, 22-25 (425) and 78, 48-51 (c. 422?) the fuller form is used for the posting of decrees in two places. See next note for the problem of triple posting. 28. The compressed form is used also in the treaty between Athens and Argos, Mantineia and Elis in 420/t9 (Thuc. 5.47. 11). The Elean copy was a bronze pillar set up jointly by all parties. 29. See IG i3 92, 9-13 and 174, 5-11 (422ft); So, 12-18 and probably 81, 17-19 (421/0). 30. See the article by Chambers, Gallucci and Spanos in these Acta ('Athens' Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon'). 31. See my arguments in AJP 105 (1984) pp. 342-344 (review of IG i3 ). The only sure parallels to the anomaly are IG i3 84, 10, 17 and 20 (xt11.imm, mµimm and µugiEm: 418/7) and 78, 20 (xt11.imm).

[118]

Some Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphic Hands

early part of 418/7 this would be twice implicitly censured by Assembly orators.J 2 The publication formula of JG i3 159 then also suggests that it should be dated no earlier than 4221'1.At this point in the argument WadeGery' s admission in 1933 could become very relevant. He noted that the preamble of 159 could be restored exactly as in the Kallias Decrees. But he fairly also admitted that the prytany might be read as [htrt]rtQ[0ov-r(c;] and not [Kex.]~Q[rttc;].If Kekropis really could be read, the Kallias Decrees might have to be dated 422/i rather than 434/3.33 But Walbank seems to have clinched this matter. Careful scrutiny of the stone convinced him that we must read IIO and not PO in line 2 and this would impose Hippothontis. I fear that he is probably right, though even his good photograph is disappointing at the crucial point.34 My study, however, weakens the accepted dating of the Kallias Decrees in other ways. The 430/29 dating suggested for the Golden Nikai record (JG i3 467) takes the Kallias dating as its base, since they are thought to be two of those authorised in the second decree.35 In fact the method of weighing and listing the Nikai-as I argued in 1974-is closer to 469 of c. 410 than to 468, the record of the two completed in 426/5. Those are surely too late to be seen as statues, whose completion was decided in 434/3.36 And the Nikai of 467 will have to be dated on principle close to the datable specimens of this mason's work, which centre on the late 42os-with a possible outlier in 408/7.37 Were they two of the Nikai authorised by Kallias u? It is time to examine the evidence on the Kallias hand. The Poteideia epigrams (JG i3 945 = i3 1179) would fit either rival Kallias dating. But the Ionic text from Thorikos tilts the balance later. It has a close formal link with the religious calendar in Attic script from the Tetrapolis (?), which was cut by 32. In IG i2 49 and Schweigert's text (Hesperia6 [1937] p. 322f.) fragments a and b are so placed as to allow reading [-- xaH]om oexal, ert:[l.xoevm .. / .... ]OeVE~'tO JtQ['U'taVel]o[v]fo~ av e[moeµEL-] or t[t 'A0evwt-]. 33. See BSA 33 (1932-1933) p. 134. Wade-Gery wanted in any case to date 159 in the late 430s. Woodhead, dating it in IG i3 c. 430, curiously printed [Kex]QQ[rt:i~] in the preamble without any note. 34." See Proxeniesp. 196f. and pl. 18 (his no. 37). 35. See E. Schweigert, Hesperia9 (1940) p. 309£. 36. See my article in OP0'.7:Tribute to B. D. Meritt (ed. D. W. Bradeen & M. F. McGregor) (Locust Valley: 1974) pp. [94-96]. 37. The Nikai record might be put c. 420 or even later. Its checker-pattern is the same as that of the Oiniades decree-not perhaps coincidence.

The Athenian Empire Restored

[121]

Wade-Gery' s mason. Both use horizontal lines above new entries on the left to mark paragraphing and seem organised in monthly sections.J 8 Interest in local religious life was surely revived as the bitter memories of invasion faded, especially after the Peace of Nikias. It is to this period that Lewis preferred to attribute the Ionic record of Plotheia's finances and cults (JG i3 257) and indeed documents entirely in Ionic script are rare in Attica before the 420s, except for those concerned with foreigners.39 With its five old feminine dative plurals the Thorikos calendar can still be put as late as c. 420, as my table C of old and new forms shows. But table C (which excludes square brackets, dotted letters and the rest in order to present a clear picture) will show more than this. The old forms are not known to Attic prose literature. As Dover lately observed "the rapidity and the completeness of the change from -am and -rim to -mi; in the neighbourhood of 420 point to a conscious decision and agreement, of a kind which plays no part in the evolution of literary or vernacular language." 4° JG i3 84 of 418/7 is the only decree which uses both forms and the usage of the old in lines 10, 17 and 20 is anomalous.41 Kallias A has three new forms and B one old one, suggesting the same point of final transition, and, as Kallet-Marx has ably argued, B was probably passed substantially later than A-very possibly in a new prytany and with another secretary.42 Now Dover has made it likely that either proposer or secretary or both were responsible for the actual language of decrees. He 38. See G. Daux, L' Ant. Class. 52 (1983) pp. 151-160 with pls. 1-11: JG i3 255 (after lines 11?, 14, 17, 18) with Jameson's commentary on p. 229. 39. Thus we have the Phaselis decree (JG i3 10), the settlement with Eretria (39) and Aristonoos of Larissa's proxeny (55) all dated, with wide agreement, before the Archidamian War on these grounds. JG i3 48 bis (part of a decree granting privileges to a priest) would be an exception to the rule, if the goddess (line 4) is Athena in one of her forms and the priest a citizen. But a shrine of Bendis was established before 430/29 (JG i3 383, 143)-which fits the dating evidence for 48 bis (440-430)-and her priest would be Thracian. 40. Trans. Phil. Soc. (1981) p. 4. 41. We find )CLAtmat in lines 8 and 20 of JGi3 55 from c. 431 (see Thuc. 2.22.3), but both are restorations. To repeat, in my table C I have included the readings and throughout omit square brackets, dotted letters and the rest, so as to present a clear, uncluttered picture. I am, however, very doubtful of the text of JG i3 55. Such spelling is isolated c. 430. JG i3 gives McGregor's rival text (joining the two fragments), which yields '.)CLALUOL in line 9 and probably 13; see OP07:Tributeto B. D. Meritt pp. 104-106 and pl. XV. His case seems to me cogent. 42. See CQ2 39 (1989) pp. 95-100.

Some Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphic Hands TABLE C.

Old and New Feminine Dative Plurals (434-417 B.c.) -~I,

-AI~

-E~I Floating

434/3?

IG i3 52 B, 21: i:aµ(am

c. 440-430:

256, 2£., 6£.: ,:rjm, Nuµcprim L' Ant. Class. (1980) 153£. [5]: f!QOOLVTJOL

430/29?: 429/8?: c. 430: before 420:

52 A, 6, 18, 29: EA.A.Evoi:aµ(mi;, i:aµ(mi;, a 1i; 256, 13: i:ati; Nuµcpmi;

281, col. III, 54, 60: i:atoOE 282 col. I, 11: aQxrui; 255 A, 19: Nuµcpmi; 165, 4£.: OQaxµat'm Records

420/t9: 432/1-427:

353, 50: i:aµ(am 365 [5]: hEA.t,,Evoi:aµ(am 450, 410: £1tl