1

What impact do re-dated Atheniandecrees have on our understanding of

Athenian Imperialism?

Thomas M. Leane

History BA

2

Spring 2015Birkbeck, University of London

Dr Serafina Cuomo & Dr Christy Constantakopoulou

3

Καὶ ἐς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἴσως τὸ μὴ μυθῶδες αὐτῶν ἀτερπέστερονφανεῖται: ὅσοι δὲ βουλήσονται τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφὲςσκοπεῖν καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ποτὲ αὖθις κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινοντοιούτων καὶ παραπλησίων ἔσεσθαι, ὠφέλιμα κρίνειν αὐτὰ

ἀρκούντως ἕξει. Κτῆμά τε ἐς αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸπαραχρῆμα ἀκούειν ξύγκειται.

(Thucydides I.22.41)

Introduction

When the Athenian Tribute Lists was first published by Meritt, Wade-

Gery and McGregor in 19392 it was viewed by many, and still is

today, as a major advance in our thinking and understanding

about the Athenian Empire3. However, the very same work gave

rise to one of the most basic misunderstandings of ancient

history, that of the ‘three-bar sigma criterion’, with

subsequent controversy and debate. This dissertation will

examine the impact of re-dating several Athenian decrees on

our understanding of the Athenian Empire; to do so, it will

make use of up-to-date epigraphical sources, contemporary

texts and current historiographical work. Through analysis

and re-evaluation of several Athenian decrees from the end of

1 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (Translated by Hobbes, 1989), p13-14.2 Meritt, Wade-Gery, McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, Volume I (1939). NB. This shall be referred hereinafter as the ATL.3 Papazarkadas, “Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire: Reshuffling the Chronological Cards” in: Ma, J., Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R., Interpreting the Athenian Empire (2009), p67.

1

the fifth century BC which may have been incorrectly dated, I

will determine the impact this erroneous dating would have on

our understanding of the Athenian Empire. Fragments discovered

recently throughout the Aegean have prompted recent scholars

to question long accepted and respected interpretations made

by Meritt, McGregor, and Wade-Gery. Additionally, recent

discoveries of new pieces of the ATL, some of which have been

published, some not as yet, as well as a large chunk of a

decree that this dissertation will look at in more detail (The

Tribute Reassessment decree, ML 694). This helps to establish

that restorations previously widely believed to be accurate,

could quite feasibly be wrong.

When studying Athenian history, in particular the period

between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, the majority of

primary source material and data is acquired from epigraphical

inscriptions, inscribed and carved onto marble and stone stelai.

Many of these inscriptions lose their full value as sources of

information if they cannot be dated accurately5. Furthermore,

transliterations often occur between one scholar and another, 4 Meiggs & Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C. (1969), p188. Hereafter cited as ML.5 Meiggs, The Dating of Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions (The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 86, 1966), p86.

2

when attempting to translate corresponding characters from a

different language’s alphabet, which in turn can lead to

various misinterpretations of the same text, as well as other

inconsistencies. Using the three-bar sigma letter criterion as

a paradigm, many of the previously dated decrees from the 440s

can be re-dated to the 420s, and vice versa. As many later

decrees will need to be backdated, re-dating both earlier and

later has significant implications for our understanding of

the Athenian Empire.

Ancient Greek historian Thucydides, is unquestionably the

prime literary source for the Peloponnesian Wars, as well as

for other significant imperial moments of Athenian history.

However, at several pivotal moments, he is silent on the issue

of decrees; combined with other inaccuracies, this is

perplexing and is now known as ‘the Thucydides problem’6. We

will never be able to know if he deliberately decided not to

mention individual Attic decrees, or whether he presumed that,

as they were generally on display to the public, they were of

little concern. It is also quite feasible, that he could have

decided that individual decrees were not directly pertinent to6 De Ste, Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972), p51.

3

his Pentecontaëtia, initially written to recount the outbreak of

the war, and to illustrate Athens’ expansion and supremacy,

events which were contemporary to him. Since his work was

incomplete, it is also conceivable that he intend to revise it

at some point, perhaps appending important documents and

decrees. Other contemporaneous authors such as Herodotus,

Isocrates, and Plutarch7, in his late account can occasionally

be relied on to corroborate Thucydides' narratives. Late

Attic drama is also a versatile tool that an epigraphist can

utilise because it contains material that ties in with

Thucydides. Thucydides' silence is frustrating; however, we

should continue without being overly distracted by it.

It was the prevailing belief, that inscriptions containing a

sigma engraved with three lines (ϟ) must pre-date 448/7 BC, the

year they stopped being used. They were replaced by a Σ

(four-barred sigma8). Evidence for this comes in many forms,

for example: it could be coincidental, but the date they

stopped being used was also the same time that the Athens and

her allies’ oaths’ were taken, when forming the Delian League9. It7 Papazarkadas, (2009), p788 Ibid, p67.9 Kallet, “Democracy, Empire and Epigraphy in the Twentieth Century” in: Ma, Papazarkadas, & Parker, Interpreting the Athenian Empire (2009), p48.

4

was at a similar time too, that the League’s treasury was

moved from Delos to Athens, perhaps indicating a new regime.

And finally, the reason that most epigraphists concurred with,

was that as the last three-barred sigma was discovered on a

decree that Athens made with Colophon, in 448/7 BC (ML 4710),

it provided a solid basis for other decrees, if found with the

older style sigma, could be dated by11.

Professor Harold Mattingly was the most enthusiastic and

steadfast opponent of the traditional epigraphic dogma12; he

was the “lone scholar of indomitable spirit”13 who refused to

go along with accepted wisdom on the subject. In his

posthumous collection of works: ‘The Athenian Empire

Restored’14 he appeared to be the only historian brave enough

to challenge the ATL editor's suppositions and in turn

challenge the traditional orthodoxy of Athenian studies. He

believed that as long as there “are good historical grounds”15

then many Athenian decrees can be down-dated. Mattingly made

use of detailed epigraphical studies, and orthographical, 10 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p123.11 Kallet, (2009), p50.12 Ibid, p54.13 Papazarkadas, (2009), p67.14 Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored, Epigraphic and Historical Studies (1996), p1.15 Ibid, p1.

5

archaeological and literary sources16, suggesting that it was

wholly possible that three-barred sigma’s were being used late

in the mid-420s17. A more up-to-date example of a renaissance

in ancient Greek epigraphy, that uses the latest advances and

techniques, are the works by Professors’ Nikolaos Papazarkadas

and John Ma (Interpreting the Athenian Empire, 2009)18, who both, like

Mattingly, believe that it is time to review and challenge the

traditional orthodoxy.

In brief, the ATLs were marble stelai that listed the amount of

phoros (tribute) paid by the members of the Delian League to

Athens each year after 454BC, when the treasury was

transferred from Delos to Athens19. They do not show the exact

amount paid, as not a single piece showing that has yet been

discovered, instead they show the one-sixtieth percent that

was each ally’s aparchai (first-fruits) offered to the goddess

Athena20. The amounts listed are normally referred to as the

‘tribute quota’; the lists indicated who had and who had not

paid their aparchai. The first fifteen years (454/3-440/39)21 16 Kallet, (2009), p54.17 Ibid, p54.18 Ma, Papazarkadas & Parker, Interpreting the Athenian Empire (2009), p1.19 Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (1972), p109.20 Meritt, et al. ATL, Volume I (1939), p vii.21 Meiggs, (1972), p109.

6

were engraved on a huge slab of Pentelic marble, over three and

a half metres tall, now housed at the Epigraphical Museum of

Athens; it is referred to as the Lapis Primus (The First Stone).

The next few years (439/38-432/31)22 are inscribed on a

slightly smaller stone, named- the Lapis Secundus (The Second

Stone). From 431 BC to 414/3 BC the quota lists were engraved

on individual stelai, after each year’s Dionysia festival, when the

various allied states would have their phoros inspected and

calculated. The stelai were given pride of place in Athens, in

front of the Acropolis23, presumably this was to demonstrate

the power and might of their archê, and to act as a physical

reminder of the hegemony Athens held over one and all.

The Athenian allies’ aparchai payments records provide a vital

source of information about the economic, social and political

history of the Athenian Empire. Taken in conjunction with

contemporary literary sources (Thucydides et al.) and

epigraphical evidence, we can piece together the development

and expansion of Athenian imperialism during the second

quarter of the fifth century BC. The works of Merritt, Wade-

22 Meritt, et al. ATL, Volume I (1939), p67.23 Meiggs, (1972), p109.

7

Gery and McGregor on the ATLs remains an enormous achievement;

and their work has become the mainstream conventional view.

But new discoveries, modern techniques and advances in the

field mean that there is still the possibility of different

interpretations and new theories. This dissertation will

construct a new Athenian timeline, demonstrating the impact

re-dated decrees will have on our understanding of imperial

Athens.

The precise dating of Athenian decrees is a highly complex

process. Many factors are involved, for example: the

historical context of the decree, its purpose, and its

intended recipients. Often, they omit what would be most

useful to us, as well as material that was common knowledge at

the time and therefore not included. Overcoming this

‘knowledge gap’ is one of the greatest and most common

challenges faced by epigraphists; in order to extract as much

meaning as possible from an Athenian decree, we need to

understand its historical, political and sociological context

as well as the inscribed words. Only when all these elements

are taken into consideration can a proper textual

8

reconstruction of a decree be accepted. The timeline I shall

construct is for the last years of the Empire, from the mid-

420s, to 404 BC, which was a fascinating time for the archê.

From the Peace of Nicias in 421 BC a transformation can be

perceived in the Athenian attitude towards their allies24; it

also became routine for decrees to include the name of the

eponymous archon that the Boule had elected as magistrate for

that calendar year, which in turn was added to the prescripts

of all later decrees. Virtually all Athenian decrees were

credited to a specific citizen, usually identified as the

proposer of the decree. Many later decrees are also written

to a standardised formula25. However, before the Peloponnesian

Wars this practice was unusual and quite sporadic; the

alliances with Egesta, Leontini and Rhegium (Inscriptiones Graecae

(IG) I2 1926, ML6327& ML6428) were dated according to this

practice, but then again the treaty with Hermione (SEG x 1529)

was not.

24 Meiggs, (1972), p340.25 Rhodes & Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States (1997), p27.26 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p80.27 Ibid, p171.28 Ibid, p175.29 Hornblower, Commentary on Thucydides, Volume II, Books IV-V (1996), p204.

9

The settlement Athens imposed on Chalcis after their

overwhelming defeat in the revolt is not dated (ML5230),

although earlier regulations for the political exclusions of

Miletus (ML4331) including the archon’s name are. Nicias’ Peace

however lasted only three of the proposed fifty years;

Thucydides describes that in the summer of 418/732 Athens sent

a squadron of the fleet to assist their allies of Mantinea and

Argos, as agreed in their decrees, to engage with Sparta.

This did not mean that formal hostilities had resumed

immediately, but it certainly indicated that the Peace of

Nicias was over33. Sometimes a single archon's name will date a

whole series of records, for example: the first tribute list

is unequivocally dated by archon, unfortunately nowadays these

names have been lost, and the lists following are instead

numbered only in relation to that very first one34. The archon

though is recorded at the thirty-fourth list, his name being

preserved as Aristion archon of 421/035 (there was also an

Ariston for the year 454/336), we can therefore safely infer

30 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p138.31 Ibid, p105.32 Hornblower, Commentary on Thucydides, Volume III, Books V-VIII (2008), p75. 33 Meiggs, (1972), p343.34 Meritt et al, ATL, Volume I (1939), p128-9.35 Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (1931), p 8-9.36 Fornara, Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, Vol I (1977), p201.

10

that the first inventory records the payments for the year

454/337. Consequently, correctly dating Athenian decrees is

fundamental for studying their empire; these examples will

demonstrate just how convoluted an issue it can be.

37 Meritt et al, ATL, Volume I (1939), p19.

11

Six Athenian Decrees.

Reassessment of Tribute Decree.

I shall begin with Thoudippos’ Decree (ML 6938) dated to 425/4

BC, and now housed at the British Museum. It is composed of

forty-three pieces of pentelic marble, twenty of which have been

reconstructed using plaster. As this is the only securely

dated stele this seems to be a sensible place to start. The

decree is also commonly referred to as the Reassessment of

Tribute Decree, devised to reassess all of the allied states'

tribute payments. Although more than half the decree is still

lost and many aspects of it depend on a quite insecure

restoration, because of its stoichedon (aligned vertically and

horizontally) lettering pattern the main points are clear39.

It can be securely dated because it was created in the

archonship of Stratokles, the eponymous archon of 425/440 (seen

in stoichoi/line 58).

38 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p188.39 Ibid, p192-3.40 Fornara, (1977), p155.

12

As this is the only securely dated decree for the period, its

importance for a new Athenian timeline is essential. It

inform us that heralds are to be sent out from Athens to re-

assess the allies' tribute payments, we can infer that the

Athenian’s made this particular reassessment to raise much

needed funds for the various wars they were engaged in at the

time. The previous line of thought was that it was proposed

during Cleon's demagogy because it reflected his harsh and

imperialistic nature41, and must have been approved soon after

his dramatic victory at Sphakteria42 (Thuc: IV.13.443), when he

was at the pinnacle of his popularity44. The decree can also

be associated with Aristophanes’ satirical play Knights45,

written in 424; it not only mentions the decree but it also

rather ruthlessly satirises Cleon as one of the central

characters46.

Allied cities were required to send their representatives to

Athens by Μαιμακτηριών (Maimakterion, November/December, the end

of sailing season) in order to have their phoros (φόρος-41 Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford University Press, 1945-56), pIII, 500.42 Hornblower, Volume II, Books IV-V (1996), p167.43 Thuc: IV.13.4, p319.44 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p194.45 Aristophanes, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol 2, Knights (Translated by Sommerstein, 1981), p15.46 Aristophanes, Plays I (Translated by Dickenson,) Knights: 235-241, p61.

13

tribute) contributions re-assessed. Below the main text of

the decree all the cities are listed with their new assessment

amounts beside them. However, what is most frustrating is

that at the bottom of the tablet, the very first letter for

the grand total is missing, meaning that we cannot be exactly

certain how much tribute the whole empire was paying47, which

would have been very informative. Two possibilities emerged,

either 980-1000 Talents, or 1460-1500 Talents, since the ATL

was first published the editors believed that the evidence

pointed to the larger total48. Approximations that-”tribute

had been raised even to eight hundred talents prior to 425”49-

means that either way this was a dramatic increase, that would

have required a spectacular readjustment. This reassessment

would have severely affected lots of cities, many of which had

their phoros doubled or even in some cases trebled50.

It can be assumed that they were imposing higher tribute at

that time because Athens was suffering some kind of financial

crisis (stoichoi 19)51. Another reason why it is so exceptional 47 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p193.48 Meritt et al, ATL, Volume I (1939), p33.49 Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides' History 1-5.24 (1993), p165-6. & Merritt et al. ATL Vol I, (1939), p249.50 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p194.51 Fornara, (1977), p154.

14

is because we know that 425 BC was not a Panathenaic year, which

was a traditional time to pass decrees52. It goes on to

mention the Great Panathenaia which occurred every four year, a

clause was introduced requiring new panathenaic obligations for

the allies, a ‘cow and panoply’ was to be brought to Athens,

presumably as well as their tribute payment (stoichoi 59-6053).

The decree also establishes very strict punishments for those

who failed to obey it; including the loss of Athenian

citizenship, and “a fine of ten thousand drachm|as54”.

It gives very specific details pronouncing the amount of

tribute Athens would like to be receiving, but not in fact

what they were actually getting, thirty Talents’ from the

Parians, twenty from Naxos, and fifteen from Melos55, which

seems quite unrealistic. This decree tells us much about

imperialism in Athens, predominately that this was an

exceptional and “extraordinary”56 reassessment, written

incredibly harshly and categorically unilateral. There was to

52 Meiggs, (1972), p240.53 Fornara, (1977), p156.54 Ibid, Stoichoi 36, p155.55 Fornara, Stoichoi 62-65, p156.56 Meiggs, (1972), p240.

15

be no argument, evidently very domineering, the tone almost

bullying-

“the Boule [may judge immediately] whet||her they do not appear

[to be performing their duties] correctly.” (stoichoi 39-42,

Fornara 136)57.

Furthermore, only the richest city states would have been able

to afford to attend the Great Panathenaia, and the process of

appeal, for what they may have deemed was an unfair

reassessment; including the high costs of staying in Athens

until the Dionysia in Ἑλαφηϐολιών (Elaphebolion- March/April),

when the sailing season began again. As we shall see this

decree is very similar to the Coinage decree (ML 4558) with its

strict punishments and consequences, the language is laden

with heavy and imperialistic overtones. Essentially, it is a

very elaborate and bureaucratic procedure, to obtain tribute,

however there is not enough information to judge its effects

or its significance59. The decree is imperialistic because

Athens determined the need for extra funds, from all allies; a

57 Fornara, p154.58 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p110.59 Kallet-Marx, (1993), p167.

16

unilateral decision made democratically at Athens, assuring

democracy in action through Athenian courts60.

Again this would have seemed very imposing for the allies

perhaps making them somewhat begrudge Athens. From this date,

Athens was to be perceived as the heart of the Aegean, the

mother-city, whether or not the allies were Ionian was of

little concern. The fact that the decree was irrevocable and

unilateral makes one speculate that there must have been an

atmosphere of resistance/resentment to the Athens' leadership

of the league. The impact it has on our understanding of

Athenian imperialism is the very fact that it was completely

neglected by Thucydides, heavily implying that this decree had

no significant effect on the empire at all61. If this

reassessment was as beneficial as Athens had wished it to be,

then it would powerfully contradict Thucydides' narrative

about the fiscal powers of Athens during the wars62.

Appointment of Tribute Collectors Decree.

60 Billheimer, Amendments in Athenian Decrees (AJA, Vol. 42, No. 4 (1938), p464.61 Kallet-Marx, (1993), p169.62 Thuc: II.13.1, p97-8.

17

This decree is the earliest of this sample, made up from

thirteen pieces of marble, the latest piece unearthed by the

Acropolis and is also now housed at the British Museum63. It

was proposed by Kleonymos (ML 6864) and dated to the second

prytany of 426 BC65. We can be almost certain of this date

because the decree informs us that Kekropis held the prytany and

that Polemarchos was the secretary66. Its appearance is

slightly different other Athenian decrees because it had a

decorated relief on the uppermost section, showing sacks,

jars, and bags presumably this was what the allies’ phoros would

have been collected in67. It is often called the Appointment

of Tribute Collectors Decree68. The tribute the allies had to

pay often varied dramatically from one region to another, some

cities that were unable to pay with coin, often provided

remunerations in other ways, as the anonymous Old Oligarch

informs us, Athenian tribute came in many different forms:

63 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p184.64 Ibid, p184.65 Fornara, (1977), p149. 66 Ibid, p150.67 Ibid, p149.68 Meritt et al, ATL Volume II (1949), p52.

18

“timber from one place, iron from another, copper from

another, flax from another, wax from another.”69

Another instance was cities that provided military equipment

and personnel as their tribute (such as triremes and rowers), the

majority though paid with whatever currency they could offer.

Consequently, as seen in the previous decree, a huge amount

was collected by Athens; one primary purpose was the

expenditure from military initiatives, and wars did not come

cheap. What we can gleam from this decree is that there

certainly was a need to have the leaks in tribute payments

plugged and for tribute to be more regimented.

The main content of this decree are the details of how the new

Athenian tribute commissioners were elected and their primary

responsibilities70. Kleonymos seemed anxious that the amount

of tribute paid to Athens should be collected in each city in

full, aiming for transparency and accountability, whilst at

the same time holding the newly chosen tribute collectors

individually responsible71. The Athenian hellenotamiai

69 Pseudo-Xenophon, “The Old Oligarch” Constitution of the Athenians (Cambridge, 1984), 2.11.70 Fornara, Stoichoi 22-35, p149.71 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p187.

19

(treasures) would make a yearly report on who had and who had

not paid the correct amount of tribute72.

“If anyone schemes to [render void] the tribute decree…a

charge [of treason shall be lodged against] him by any man

from that city” (stoichoi 42-45, Fornara 133)73.

The language used is very similar to the next decree in this

study, that of Kleinias (see below), which essentially makes

this an earlier, and perhaps a failed, attempt to tighten up

on tribute collecting. It is know that the Kleonymos who

proposed it was a councillor that year74 and was highly active

in the Boule during the same prytany, it is almost certain that

this is the same Kleonymos who set up a very favourable decree

with Methone (ML6575). We can also accept that Athens was

pleased with the outcome of those negotiations and their new

ally, both as a useful military outpost and a strong

diplomatic base. The importance of this decree is not so much

about what it tells us about Athenian imperialism, but more

72 Ibid, p187.73 Fornara, (1977), p149.74 Mattingly (2006), p41175 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p176.

20

about the necessity of installing decrees (Ψήφισμα) in

general76. As we shall see the mid-420s was a time of-

“intensive public record”77-stelai were not just erected out of

necessity, but also as a lasting legacy of Athens' relations

with other cities. Re-dating this decree any earlier is

problematic, as historical context harmonises effortlessly to

this date, imperially the details about Athens publicising

their decrees in front of the Acropolis, can be regarded as a

clear example of Athens' demonstrating their dunamis78.

Payment of Tribute Decree.

The Kleinias' Decree (ML 4679), comprises of four marble

fragments engraved in Attic lettering, in a 23 stoichedon

pattern80, with a large space at the top right-hand corner

which may have been left vacant for a painting81. This decree

is yet another Athenian attempt to receive tribute from her

allies on time; this one has supplementary measures of control

76 Liddel, The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th Century BC to the 3rd Century (AD Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 2003), p79.77 Mattingly, (1996), p7.78 Liddel, (2003), p80.79 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p117.80 Meritt, et al. ATL, Volume II (1949), p50.81 Meiggs and Lewis (1969), p117.

21

added for those required to pay. It was done by issuing

unique identification seals to each polis, in order to stop

fraud when tribute was being collected (indicating that such a

practise existed?) and transported to Athens. Fraud can be

perceived as the main reason for concern, but as with much of

Athenian history it does not specify who was suspected; their

wealthy allies and/or the Athenians strategoi (generals).

Esteemed Athenian historian Russell Meiggs had previously

dated this decree to 448/7 BC82, primarily because when the

latest piece of stelai was discovered in 1936, it informed us

that a certain Kleinias was its proposer. Because that was

such an unusual name, it was assumed that he was the father of

Alcibiades, who was listed as being killed during Athens'

crushing defeat at the battle of Coroneaie, in 447 BC83.

Indecently his grandfather was also called Alcibiades, an

important enough figure in Athens to be ostracized in 460 BC84,

implying that his father Kleininas, was a close associate of

Pericles, and therefore the most likely proposer of the

82 Meiggs, (1972), p599. 83 Ibid, 166.84 Hornblower, Thucydides, Vol III, Books V-VIII (2002), p99.

22

decree85. Harold Mattingly nonetheless strongly objects to

this hypothesis86, he considered that by utilising the most up

to date evidence in addition to prosopographical

(investigating common characteristics) techniques, the decree

is much better placed in the 420s, adding that it:

“should be put in at 426/5 B.C. or a closely following year.

The problem of the silence of Thucydides remains baffling, but

only as baffling as the historian himself.”87

His other motivation is the decrees final clause seen at

stoichoi 6188, which threatened all allies who refused to pay

their obligation89.

Again, this is a decree on exactly how the allies' tribute is

to be processed, leading to doubts that previous decrees for

the same problem were successful. The language and tone used

is very similar to the previous decree (Kleonymos' ML 6890)-in

85 Kagan, The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition (1981), p63.86 Mattingly, (1999), p31687 Mattingly, The Athenian Decree for Miletos (Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, (1981), p117.88 Fornara, (1977), p149.89 Mattingly (1999), p284-5.90 Meiggs & Lewis, p184.

23

addition, although this may be purely coincidental, the exact

same stoichoi (2291) was used to express related points:

“any other city which was assessed to bring money [to] Athens.

This decree (shall be inscribed) on a stele. Kleonymos Decree

(stoichoi 22-23, Fornara 133)92.

“the Athenians [made known] which cities paid the tribute money in

full and which fell short”. Kleinias’ Decree (stoichoi 21-22,

Fornara 98)93.

Likewise in stoichoi 5894 it again refers to Kleonymos' decree; a

provision having been inserted that registers the names of

cities that defaulted in their payments95. Although this

decree does contain a 3-bar sigma, which as previously

discussed, indicated an earlier conception date, currently

this decree is unsecured date-wise: “epigraphically the case

remains precarious”96. I concur with Mattingly’s

interpretation, dating the decree at: “later than the second 91 Meritt, et al. ATL, Volume II (1949), p46.92 Fornara, (1977), p149-0.93 Ibid, p107.94 Ibid, p108.95 Mattingly (1999), p317-8.96 Ibid, p316.

24

prytany of 426/5”97 as it fits a lot more easily when placed into

the mid-420s, the language and letter arrangements suit the

420s, as well its historical context as opposed to an earlier

date. What’s more, a later date strengthens the relationship

between the measures it proposed and those of the Coinage

decree which will be discussed shortly (ML4598).

Additionally, Kleinias' decree similarly mentions the

panathenaic obligations imposed on the allies99, the infamous

‘cow and panoply’ requirement, which also make it difficult to

place it any earlier; it must surely be expected to come just

a short time after Thoudippos' decree. One clear problem with

this decree, is that it poses more questions than it answers,

for example: why impose an elaborate and highly bureaucratic

means of collecting tribute, when that issue has already been

clearly dealt with by several earlier decrees? Perhaps the

older decrees were not working, additionally it would have put

increased pressure on Athenian finances by micro-managing the

collection process, in any case that would have been the

Athenians hellenotamiai (public treasurers) who were

97 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.98 Ibid, p111.99 Mattingly (1999), p317-8.

25

responsibility. Essentially, Athens had a reason to tighten

up their collections; they did it by regulating them with new

specific clauses, clarifying exactly how their precious

tribute was to be gathered. One overreaching aim is for

transparency and accountability, one envoy brought the sealed

sack of money, and the other brought the tribute documents

with their exact seal. Afterward, both seals would be opened

at the same time in front of the Boule, with the assembly

listening and the hellenotamiai composing accounts of who had, and

who had not paid.

Lastly, this decree is incredibly harsh, which is also hard to

justify at an earlier date, but not so much later on, under

Cleon and his cronies, there is some circularity here-the

reputation Cleon had for harsh imperialism is sometimes based

on attributing to him the harsh decrees. The threats of

firmer penalties, (similar to those in Thoudippos’ decree)

resonate with Cleon’s temperament. The ekklésia (assembly)

witnessed the collection then immediately judged whether or

not the tribute amount was correct. Therefore the bigger

question must be, why would the Athenians make such a decree,

26

especially if they were not asking for extra or more tribute,

but just to pay at post-Thoudippos levels? Certainly, if

transparency against potential or actual fraud was their main

concern, then this decree can be seen is an elaborate measure

to ensure that tribute arrived in Athens, when presumably they

needed it most, at the end of the 420s when Athens was engaged

in in several different conflicts and not the late-440s.

Athenian Relations with Chalkis.

The Chalkis Decree (ML 52100) is a slab of marble first

discovered actually built into the southern wall of the

Acropolis. It is probably the middle section of a triptych of

decrees, the other two now lost. 101, the other two are now

lost. It is an Athenian decree regulating terms with and an

exchange of oaths with Chalkis102. The historical background

is that this decree was a direct consequence of Chalkis'

revolt at Euboea which happened after Athens was defeated at

100 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p138.101 Ibid, p138.102 Meritt, et al. ATL Volume II (1949), p70-2.

27

Coroneaie103. It has many similarities to the Egesta decree,

both in tone and language. It contains two oaths, one between

the Boule and the Dikasts, and one between the Chalcidians and

Athens, which all Chalcidians had to take. It uses very harsh

and imperialistic language throughout:

“I shall not rebel against the People of Athenians…I shall pay

tribute to the Athenians…and as an ally I shall be the best

and truest possible…and defend them if anyone does injury to

the People” (stoichoi 22-29, Fornara 103)104.

It has strong un-democratic elements:

“I shall obey the People of Athens…all without exception.

Whoever does not take the oath is to be deprived of his

citizen-rights | and his property shall be confiscated”

(stoichoi 31-36, Fornara 103)105.

Dates have been proposed for it from 446/5 to 424/3106, a huge

range insecurely substantiated since it has no named archon.

103 Papazarkadas, (2009), p73104 Fornara, (1977), p113.105 Ibid, p113.106 Meritt, et al, ATL Vol II, p70-2.

28

However, Thucydides reported that there was a revolt in

Chalkis in 446, which was quickly crushed by Pericles; this

indicates a period of stasis, and not the best of times to

form an alliance, in this instance an earlier date seems

improbable. Epigraphically, a four-bar rho is present, which

at one time would have been taken as evidence of an early

date; however, many modern day scholars, including Mattingly

and Ma, discount an early date, their justification being that

there are no other dated decrees from the period of the

440s107. Furthermore, Mattingly, applying orthographic

research techniques, believed that there are some distinct

phrases and word endings used in this decree that correspond

with others from the 420s108, in particular the decree of

Hephaisteia from 421/0109. This decree used the same pattern in

the introduction, similar letters, forms and other stylistic

features only found in Athenian treaties110. Mattingly

suggests that the wording used in the Chalkis decree reflects

that of the above decrees of Thoudippos and Kleonymos111

Mattingly maintains that-“prosopographically 424/3 suits”.112

107 Mattingly, (1999), p378-9.108 Ibid, p374-5.109 Low, The Athenian Empire (2008), Ig i2 84, p91.110 Mattingly, (1999), p161-2.111 Ibid, p164.112 Ibid, p377.

29

The main evidenced argument for a later date rests on the fact

that in the 424/3 civil unrest was rife in Euboia113, and

Athens intervened swiftly and with military force; the harsh

terms of the decree may have arisen from Athens’ need and

desire for recompense114. The decree recounts an exchange of

oaths with a former ally of Athens and the consequences that

befell an ally who revolted. It is punitive in tone, with

Athens laying down the terms. Although there appears to be

some reciprocity at the beginning of the oath, with Athens

swearing not to treat Chalkis like Hestiaia, and vowing to

save their city, this is only dependent on the Chalcidians

swearing an oath of obedience to Athens. Nor does it

expressly say that the Athenians will save Chalkis, rather

that they will not “devastate the city”- stoichoi 5115.

The decree demonstrates the status of Chalkis as the subject

of an imperial power; not only must the Chalcidians obey

Athens, but also her allies; and, for the first time, the

Chalcidians must promise to pay Athens tribute. In the ATL

113 Thuc: IV.121.2-4, p298-9.114 Mattingly, (1999), p63.115 Fornara, (1977), p113.

30

there is no record of Chalkis being on the lists of 445/3

(before the first revolt), but we know that they paid 5

Talents and then only 3 Talents when their name reappears in

the lists in 441 BC and 339 BC respectively 116, there does not

seem to be a meaningful pattern in this. The decree being re-

dated to 424/3 does not have a huge impact on our

understanding of Athenian ambition and imperialism. Dating it

twenty years later than its previous date places it at a time

when Athens needed all the support in the wars that they could

get. Declaring an alliance with Chalkis, which was not only

strategically well positioned in the Aegean, but which would

also have been a useful ally, would have been a pragmatic

tactic for Athens. Chalkis had a history of insurgency and

revolts, and after signing the decree they would have been

under complete control by Athens.

The Alliance of Athens with Egesta.

116 Meritt, et al, ATL, Volume I (1929), p297.

31

The Egesta Decree (ML 37117) is perhaps the most famous and

scrutinised of all Attic inscriptions. The dating of the

decree is highly contentious issue with many disagreements,

some epigraphists even dating it as early as 458/7BC118. It

records an Athenian alliance with Egesta, in Sicily, that

regulated the exchange of oaths between Athens and their

supposed new allies in Egesta. The lively debate about this

inscription has increased in recent years. The stele has

seriously eroded over time, in particular its latterly use as

a doorstep (See figure I below). Because of the arrangement

of the stoichedon lettering, it is still possible to discern

where the now indistinct letters must once have been. The

section crucial to dating the stele is mid-way through the third

stoichoi119, where the last two letters in the name of the

presumed eponymous archon could just about be perceived as

‘ON’ (ΩΝ). The letters directly preceding are almost

indistinguishable; when deciphered they reveal that the name

of not one, but three different archons could conceivably fit,

117 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p80.118 Bradeen & McGregor, Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy (1973), p75.119 Chambers, Gallucci, & Spanos, Athens' Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 1990), p38.

32

either (Habr)on, the recorded archon of 458/7 BC120, (Antiph)on

dated to 418/7 BC121 or (Arist)on listed at 454/3 BC122.

(Figure I, Egesta Decree123.highlighted (ON), top right)

In the late 1980’s, Professor Mortimer Chambers led a team

(more scientific than historical), to comprehensively re-

examine the stele124. The stone was subjected to hi-tech laser

scanning procedures and photographical enhancements125, and

Chambers concluded that the eponymous archons name was

120 Fornara, (1977), p201.121 Ibid, p202.122 Ibid, p202.123 Athens, Epigraphical Museum (Inventory EM 6568) Subject: Athenian treaty with Egesta.124 Chambers et al, p42.125 Ibid, p55-56

33

(Antiph)on the archon from 418/7 BC126. This finally proved

that Mattingly had been correct for all those years127, and

that three-barred sigma’s were still in use up to the end of the

archê. One might assume, that this discovery would irrevocably

put an end to the controversy behind three-barred sigmas128, but

this was not the case. Whoever was responsible for inscribing

the stone used two distinct letter forms; a rho that had a tail

(ρ) and the notorious three-barred sigma (ϟ)129, which, as

disscussed, were usually assumed to pre-date 448/7, and has

since been used as a key diagnostic technique for dating all

later Greek inscriptions.

Traditional historians have been so convinced about the dating

of this decree, that even though just a single fragment (the

piece from Kos) has the three-barred sigma, they stubbornly

refused to allow any other date criteria, except for the

440s130. To this day Chamber's results have not been

unilaterally accepted; William Pritchett expressed his would

expect it to be. doubts over 40 years ago that any letters at126 Fornara, (1977), p202.127 Chambers, (1992), p28.128 Ibid, p28.129 Chambers et al, p41.130 Henry, The Sigma Enigma (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 120 (1998), p46.

34

all could definitively be read preceding the ON131, perhaps an

overly cautious and gloomy view. Alan Henry in 1992 in

addition saw-“doubtful elements of the case for Antiphon”132-

and wrote a complex paper stating his many objections. He

believed that as the initial traces of letters from the first

squeeze were so faint, the possibility of a letter was visible

in space 36 that corresponded closely to those in the

photograph (see Figure II, below). A comparison with the form

of rho four letter spaces later, and in the next space on the

line above, excludes a rho: Henry accepted that it was

difficult to see anything other than phi in this letter space133.

The preceding gap before letter space 36 was even more

problematic for him, as the vertical mark, which seems to

belong to a carved letter, is not on the left hand side of the

space, but in the middle, where one would expect it to be.

131 Pritchett, The Three-Barred Sigma at Kos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 87, Livraison 1, 1963), p21.132 Henry, Space-age technology and the Egesta decree. Through a Laser Beam Darkly: (I.G. i³ 11) (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, (1992), p 137.133 Henry, (1992), p140.

35

(Figure II The Egesta Decree, with horizontal lines added134).

The detailed measurements taken by Chambers and his team

indicate that the letter in the next space is what could be

left of an iota135. The corresponding letter space in stoichoi 2

contains an epsilon which is aligned a little further to the

left than the vertical in stoichoi 3. A good comparison can

also be made with epsilon and iota in letter spaces 35 and 36 of

stoichoi 16 on the lower edge of the stone136; the iota here is also

aligned very much on the left side of its space, supposing

134 Bradeen, & McGregor, Studies in Fifth Century Attic Epigraphy (1973), p73. 135 Chambers et al, p55.136 Dawson, The Egesta Decree "IG" I³ 11 (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 1996), p248-9.

36

that the mason was either left handed, or perhaps it the stele

was completed by apprentice still under tutorage. Henry

concluded that yet-“more ink will be spent on this debate”137.

Whereupon Mattingly, not to be left out of the debate,

retorted that he found it rather depressing, that after

spending most of his life’s work-“trying to free scholars from

the tyranny of the 'before c. 445’ rule”-Henry had neglected

to account for historical context: “the existence of other

strong evidence for the 418/7 and 425/4 datings”138.

In summary, Chambers’ work provides arguably reliable evidence

that the archon that fits the reading best is (Ant)iphon,

meaning that finally we can place a new secure date on this

stele139-

“now we do have a decree with three-bar sigma for which I think

418/7 must be

accepted.”140

137 Henry, (1992), p137.138 Mattingly, What Are the Right Dating Criteria for Fifth-Century Attic Texts? (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, (1999), p 117.139 Chambers et al. (1990), p48.140 Rhodes, After the Three-Bar "Sigma" Controversy: The History of Athenian Imperialism Reassessed (The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 2 (2008), p503.

37

The decree itself records the regulation of oaths exchanged

between Athens and Egesta, and the beginning part of an

amendment to a possibly earlier decree. It would have been

highly unlikely for Thucydides to omit this significant decree

from his introduction to the Sicilian expedition (VI.11.1-

2)141, but if this proposed date is wrong then it could suggest

yet another example of his unreliability.

Lastly it has also been suggested that this was not an

alliance but a treaty of friendship, preparing Sicily for its

later subjugation. In terms of the Empire, a later date would

suggest that Athens was more imposing than traditionally

thought; it indicates that towards the final years Athens

became a lot more dominant and authoritarian. Our

understanding of Athenian imperialism is affected considerably

by a later dating, providing evidence of superior strength and

power. Somebody, perhaps one of Cleon’s associates, had

convinced the demos that Egesta was ripe for overthrow, and so

a decree signifying friendship was anything but friendly.

The consequences of this new re-dating for this as well as for

other reconstructions, concerning Athenian history are still 141 Thuc: VI.11.1-2, p382-3.

38

as yet to be fully evaluated. It certainly does not mean that

all other dates can be ruled out, just because certain letter

forms no longer ‘fit’ with the older doctrine.

The Athenian Standards Decree.

The final decree under consideration concerns Athenian coinage

(ML 45142) and is also known as the Athenian Standards Decree143.

Arguably one of -“the most controversial texts in the history

of Greek epigraphy”144. The decree itself is a multifaceted

text made up of several smaller pieces (eight in total),

discovered at wide range of locations throughout the archê145.

Although highly complex, fourteen separate clauses have been

identified and restored. Because the Athenian empire was a

thalassocracy (an empire ruled by the sea)146, clause ten

indicated that the decree was to be-“erected by the governors

142 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.143 Whitehead, The Athenian Standards Decree ‘The (?) Preceding Decree which Klearchos Proposed’ (Zeitschrift fürPapyrologie & Epigraphik 118, 1997), p 169.144 Hadji & Kontes “The Athenian Coinage Decree: Inscriptions, Coins and Athenian Politics” in Actas del XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática, Madrid, Alfaro, Marcos, & Otero, edited, 2005), p263.145 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.146 Constanakopoulou, The Dance of the Islands, Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire and the Aegean World (2007), p91.

39

of all tribute paying cities across the empire147”. It is

inscribed in Ionic lettering, apart from one piece found at

Kos, carved in Attic script, which frustratingly also

contained several three-barred sigmas. Regrettably, that

fragment is now missing, and until located must be examined

using published photographic images only; another example of

the tribulations faced by an epigraphist who would like to

examine it148. When all pieces are combined it forms a 57

stoichoi non-stoichedon text149.

The decree requires all members of the archê to use Athenian

coins, weights and measures. Independent silver coinage was

to be banned and local mints closed down, surviving copies of

the decree’s various stelai show that no exceptions were to be

made. Interestingly, the decrees introduction has the same

phrase that was used in Kleininas’ earlier tribute decree150.

The importance of this decree can be best demonstrated by the

severe punishments imposed against those who did not comply,

expressed in harsh and unforgiving language: loss of

147 Fornara (1977), p105.148 Hadji & Kontes, (2005), p263.149 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p112-3.150 Mattingly (1996), p407.

40

citizenship (clause three)151, the confiscation of property,

hugely unrealistic financial penalties, stipulating arrest and

even (clause eight)152 possible death for anyone who disobeyed.

Curiously clause six153 announces that after the new coins were

minted, they were to be sent straight away to the strategoi, and

not, as you would expect to the hellenotamiai; this indicates

clearly that the decree was passed at a time when significant

funds, doubtless for the war, were needed quickly.

While we can be certain of the main lines of the decree many

more specific details are ambiguous, for example, the precise

terms and fees that were charged for the exchange of non-Attic

coins. It is more than likely that these details would have

fluctuated subject to economic conditions, in which case they

may have been inscribed on more ephemeral wooden boards

instead. A key piece of literary evidence for this particular

decree can be found in Aristophanes' drama Birds, in which he

lampoons the decree, first performed at the city’s Dionysia in

414, it states that-“Cloudcuckoovillians shall use Athenian

151 Fornara, (1977), p105.152 Ibid, p105-106.153 Ibid, p105.

41

measure, weights and decrees”154. In 1880, Ulrich Wilamowitz-

Moellendorf proposed a lower date of chronology, his evidence

was based solely on this brief allusion by Aristophanes155.

Dating issues remain polarized, with supporters of a higher

date citing the three-barred sigmas found on the piece from Kos

as evidence 156.

The arguments about the dates have substantial repercussions,

especially when attempting to interpret purpose of the decree.

Numismatist William Pritchett attempted to use numismatic

dating methods on the Athenian coins themselves, to try and

raise some light on the dating incongruities; these techniques

were employed to examine the Laurion mined silver, that was

stamped with the Athenian owl symbol that signified

tetradrachms157. Pritchett endeavoured to trace if there were any

perceptible increases in coins being minted between the

various dates proposed158. Unfortunately, the dating of

Athenian coins proved more problematic than first anticipated,

mainly because the dating aspects relied so heavily on the 154 Aristophanes, Birds (Translated by Sommerstein, 1987), p127-9.155 Figueira, The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire (1981), p3.156 Hadji & Kontes, (2005), p263. 157 Pritchett, The Three-Barred Sigma at Kos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 87, 1963), p21.158 Pritchett, (1963), p21-3.

42

date of the standard decree itself. The rationale behind the

decree was essentially, was to maintain and expand the

circulation of Athenian coinage, and more importantly to do it

publically, the early date has very clear echoes of the spirit

of Cleon and his associates.

Thomas Figueira believed that the principles of the decree

were more moderate, he proposed that when read conservatively

there was not enough substation e.g. how did the Athenians

intend on confiscating old/used coins from individual

citizens? Figueira maintains that the decrees main purpose

was for Athens to demonstrate the hegemony they held over

their subjects and allies alike159. However, Michael Vickers a

proponent of the earlier date suggested a slightly different

purpose for the decree, contending that it was implemented to

address the inconsistent way in which the yearly phoros was

paid by the allies. It would have been such a convoluted and

time consuming system for Athens, to have to categorise, sort

and exchange all of the different tribute that arrived.

Numerous payments that reached Athens were mixed up

collections of varying different denominations; some were

159 Figueira, (1988), p558.

43

electrum, like Kyzikene states, some were non-Attic silver; it

has even been suggested that some states paid their levies in

Persian silver160.

One issue that we can be more confident with is that the

decree did not in fact end the minting of coins by the allies,

many polis continued to use their own currency, some non-Attic

coins continued to be used even inside the archê161.

Additionally, although we must be wary of Plutarch (because he

was a much later historian and subject to inaccuracies) he

recorded in the life of Lysander that in 404 BC162, Lysander (the

Spartan general) acquired 475 Talents of Athenian coins, which

he allegedly misappropriated from what were supposedly

Athenian controlled cities, presumably stockpiled to be used

as tribute. What’s more, Athens in 375 BC circulated another

decree on weights and measures that was incredibly similar to

this decree; the main difference between them being that the

later one did not forbid the use of non-Attic coinage. Leading

to the idea that Athens initial concern was money entering the

city, especially at a time when forgery was rife. In addition 160 Vickers, Fifth Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree (JHS Vol. 116, (1996). p172. 161 Samons II, Empire of the Owl, Athenian Imperial Finance (Verlag Stuttgart 2000), p330-1.162 Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens, Nine Greek Lives (Translated by Scott-Kilvert, 1960), XVI.1 p301-2.

44

it has an extra amendment added to the Bouleutic oath,

concerning currency offences which imply imperialistic

superiority163.

Loren J Samons II, considered many differing viewpoints and

concluded that this decree would have had very little impact

on Athenian imperial finances164. Furthermore, we are left to

speculate on exactly how Athens economy strategy operated at

the time, because of the highly imperialistic overtones

additionally with the similarly to other decrees in this

sample it is appealing attractive to re-date. The phraseology

is so alike to Kleinias' decree, meaning the re-dating can be

done quite naturally165. Regarding the effects on Athenian

imperialism, re-dating, this decree demonstrates that a

civilized economic policy existed in the fifth century BC, it

can clearly be supplementary to both the tribute reassessment,

and Thoudippos' decree. Thucydides neglects to mention this

decree, but, he does describe in his seventh book, that in

Athens crisis year of 413 BC with Athens- “at a very low

163 Osborne, The Athenian Empire (LACTOR 1, 2000), p8.164 Samons, Empire of the Owl, Athenian Imperial Finance (2000), p330. 165 Papazarkadas, (2009), p72.

45

ebb”166-they decided to introduce a eikoste (a 5% harbour tax)

perhaps to replace tribute, and undoubtedly linked to this

decree.

166 Thuc: VII.28.4, p 459.

46

Summary of the decrees

Athens in the mid-420s would have looked economically

something like this: in 426 BC Kleonymos' streamlined and

rationalised Athenian tribute collecting methods, individual

collectors were assigned for individual territories. This was

rapidly followed by Thoudippos’ tribute reassessment decree of

425, and then, with Athenian confidence still high, the

Kleinias decree of 425/4 (previously incorrectly dated to 447

BC167). Perhaps at the time Athens was experimenting with

their finances, techniques they had learnt during the

Archidamian wars. However, after re-dating the three above

decrees, there is still one important decree remaining, that

of Chalkis, which would have previously seemed chronologically

accurate, so to re-date it would seem counter intuitive,

except, that by down dating the others, it would be left alone

in an epigraphical abyss. Mattingly also hints that it was

used by Aristophanes in the Peace, written in 421 BC, some

twenty five years after its old date. Once again, Thucydides'

neglecting to mention it is quite galling, therefore the most

167 Meiggs and Lewis, (1969), p117

47

appealing option available, in my opinion, based on the

evidence, is to place it at 424/3 BC.

Mortimer Chambers with his laser scanning team, as well as the

abundance of accurate historical evidence, placed the Egesta

decree, firmly and finally at 418/7 BC. The final decree

examined in this dissertation, the Athenian standards decree,

could be dated at 414/3 for a variety of reasons, principally

because this is the date of the eikoste (5% harbour tax168) that

Thucydides mentions169, and because Aristophanes’ Birds170, first

performed in 414, alludes to the decree.

New Athenian Timeline, 426 BC- 404 BC

Re-dating the above decrees results in a new Athenian timelinefor the later years of the Empire:

Year Significant events426/5171

.Kleonymos Decree, rationalising tribute collections.

Demosthenes victorious against Brasidas at Olpae172

168 Millford, A Lexicon, Abridged Greek-English (1926), p188.169 Thuc: VII.28.5-6, p459.170 Aristophanes, (Ed. Sommerstein) Birds: 1041-1043, p127-8.171 Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, p173.172 Thuc: III.104.7-8, p217-8.

48

Purification of Delos173.

425 Sparta invade Attica, Cleon reacts by fortifing Pylos and

capturing Sphacteria, Thoudippos' Reassessment Tribute

Decree174, Athens refuse the Peloponnesian offer of peace,

Cleon increase the pay of Athenia juries.

425/4. Athens crushed at Delium175, Brasidas captures and holds

Amphipolis & Torone. Kleinias tighting up of tribute

payments Decree176.

424. Thucydides blamed for the defeat of Athens at Amphipolis

(first battle) and is exiled for twenty years177.

Conference at Gela, resulting in all Athenian forces being

withdrawn from Sicily178.

423. Decree regulating terms with Chalkis179. One year peace

between Athens and Peloponnese, Cleon ‘advises’ on the

execution of the Scionians180.

422. Cleon re-captures Torone, then both he and Brasidas are

killed at the second battle of Amphipolis, Athens sues for

peace.

421. Peace of Nicias, fifty year allaince between Athens and

173 Thuc: III.104-5, p216-8.174 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p188.175 Thuc: IV.101.1, p287.176 Fornara, (1977), p149.177 Thuc: V.26.5-6, p328.178 Thuc: IV.58-65, p261-5.179 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p138.180 Thuc: IV.122.6, p299.

49

Lacedaemonians181.

420. Boeotia makes allegiances with Sparta182; Athens responds

with a quadruple alliance with Mantineia, Argos and Elis

organised by Alcibiades183.

419. Alcibidas and Nicias become strategos.

418. Spartan victory over Argos at Mantinea, biggest land

battle of the wars184.

418/7. Egesta decree with Sicily185, Oligarchy established at

Athens, 50 year alliance between Athens and Argos.

417. Hyperbolus ostracised, alliance between Athens and Argos

renewed.

416. Athens deals with Melos, Melian dialogue186.

415. Athens expedition to Syracuse, in Sicily187, Andocides

imprisoned on suspicion of mutilating the sacred Hermaes

at Athens188; the recall and flight to Sparta of Alcibiades.

414/3. Athenian standards decree189, siege of Syracuse190 in

Sicily191.

413. Athens introduces a 5% eikoste192. Spartans invade Attica;

181 Thuc: V.118.1, p321-2.182 Thuc: V.42.2-3, p339.183 Thuc: V.44.5, p340.184 Thuc: V.75.2-3, p359.185 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p80.186 Thuc: V.84-116.187 Thuc: VI.20.1, p389. 188 Thuc: VI, 27, p348.189 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.190 Diodorus, XII-XIV.34 480-401BC: XIII.8.4, p170.191 Thuc: VI. 102.1-2, p438. 192 Thuc; VII.28.5-6, p459.

50

seize and fortify Decelea, a decisive blow against the

Athenians, who at the same time were being crushed in the

Sicilian expedition.

412. The revolt of the Athenian allies. Sparta and Persia

reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

411. The revolution of the 400 at Athens, Government of the

5000, the Army and fleet at Samos are faithful to

democracy193.

410. Athenian victory at Cyzicus. Full democracy restored at

Athens194, then Athens refuses Spartan offer of peace.

409. Athenian strategos Thrasyllus captures Colophon, The city of

Rhodes is founded195.

408. Alcibiades returns to Athens after seven year absence196,

leading procession of the Sacred Mysteries; is appointed

commander of the fleet, and granted autocratic powers.

Darius II of Persia funds the Spartan fleet.

407. Athenian strategos Thrasybulus recaptures Abdera and Thasos.

406. Spartan naval victory at the Battle of Notium197, resulting

in the fall of Alcibiades198. Athens later win the battle

of Arginusae199. Callicratidas of Sparta lays siege to

193 Thuc: VIII.82.1-2, p549.194 Thuc: VIII.92.11, p550.195 Bickerman, (1968), p173.196 Thuc: VIII.83.1, p558.197 Xenophon, A History of my Times, Hellenica (Translated by Warner, 1969), I.5.16, p76.198 Ibid, I.5.17, p77.199 Ibid, I.6.1-18, p78.

51

Lesbos.

405. After the Battle of Arginusae, Athenian fleet is destroyed

by the Spartans under Lysander at the Battle of

Aegospotami200201. Spartan King Pausanias, lays siege to

Athens while Lysander's fleet blockades Piraeus, starving

Athens.

404. Athenian leader Cleophon still resits Peloponnese

dominance, subsequently arrested and executed202; Athens,

weakened by plague and starvation, capitulates and so the

Peloponnesian War ends.

Notes on the timeline:

In 426, Athens was looking to Cleon, who, after Pericles’

death, had become the dominant power and a new force in the

demos. Moreover, it seems that he had an uncanny ability to

influence the ekklesia (assembly), which in turn helped

establish a new chapter in Athenian political and

constitutional legislation203; in essence Athens was: “adopting

a harder attitude”204. Cleon was perceived as the leader of 200 Ibid, II.1.6-7, 98.201 Diodorus, XIII.76-9, p170.202 Xenophon, Hellenica I.7.35, p35.203 Meiggs, (1972), p317.204 Ibid, p316.

52

the strong pro-war faction, reinforced in his demagogy by

Kleonymos, Thoudippos, and Hyperbolus. On his death at the

battle of Amphipolis205, he was succeeded by Cleophon, then

Archedemus206. Although all votes at the Athenian assembly

were supposedly free votes, there was a strong sense that

Cleon as demagogue was somehow able to manipulate the Athenian

democratic process that they were so proud of207. He did this

by using the law-courts as a weapon; primarily, via the

obligatory inspections required of all public officials after

one year of service; he was a master in the art of sycophancy,

casting aspersions on their character, punishing any and all

mistakes, often suggesting oligarchy and conspiracies208. However

this could well be anti-Cleon propaganda.

Cleon divided opinion and certainly had detractors; for

instance, dislike and disapproval towards him runs through

Thucydides’ writing, and hatred from Aristophanes in his

plays209. Theopompus also critiqued Cleon (although he was

known to have a strong anti-Athenian bias, shown by a

205 Thuc: V.10.9, p318.206 Meiggs, (1972), p317.207 Pseudo-Xenophon, “The Old Oligarch”, 8-9.208 Mattingly, (1996), p45.209 Aristophanes, Knights: 864-867, p84, Wasps: 664-712, p191.

53

contemptuous attack on the demagogues of Athens), in the tenth

book of his Philippika210 he goes as far as mentioning that the

Knights despised Cleon; believing that he had disrespected them

when they were charged with desertion211. Nevertheless, Cleon

was reputed to be a fine orator212 with the unique ability to

persuade the populace, whilst still managing to dominate his

opposition; even Thucydides and Aristophanes grudgingly

acknowledge his ‘persuasive’ skills. By examining the

legislative and judicial procedures from Cleon’ demagogy213, it

is possible to discover just how Athens became so powerful in

the mid 420’s.

A good place to begin is the first prytany of 426/5BC, Euthynos

was archon214, and a certain Kleonymos was highly active in the

Boule and ekklesia at the time (it is of note, that Kleonymos was

one of Aristophanes’ favourite satirical targets, often

portrayed by the dramatist as a pathetic coward who dropped

his shield in battle215). As mentioned earlier he was a

210 Bruce, "Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography" History and Theory (1970), p 88.211 Fornara, (1977), p143-144212 Aristophanes, Knights: 295-298, p39.213 Kallet, (2009), p43.214 Fornara, (1977), p202.215 Aristophanes, Plays II, Birds: 1474-1481, p64-5

54

Councillor who moved in favour of Methone216 joining the

League. Later that summer, Demosthenes, the strategos, launched

offensive operations against the Lacedaemonians and Peloponnesians

in response to their hostilities at Olpae217 (Amphilochian Argos

in Acarnania).

The Acarnanian allies immediately requested assistance from

Demosthenes, Hierophon and Aristoteles218, Thucydides goes to

great lengths detailing their reaction; he narrates the whole

confrontation, explaining that although Demosthenes lost

around 200 men, the Athenian strategos was victorious219. He also

details that after the spoils had been divided fairly with the

allies, that: “The Athenians’ part was lost by sea”220; which

seems incredible, that after days of hard fought battle, they

could be so careless as to simply lose their prize. Perhaps,

what is far more likely is that the Athenian strategos had not

lost it, but instead they had ‘appropriated’ it for their own

cause. This signifies that the Kleinias decree which was

216 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p188.217 Thuc: III.106.1-2, p219.218 Thuc: III.105.2-3, p218.219 Thuc: III.112.7-8, p222.220 Thuc: III.114.1, p223.

55

primarily concerned with fraud, may not have been so far off

the mark.

Kleonymos' decree must have been made in the second prytany of

426/5221 soon after the moral boosting victory at Olpae, and

it is probable that Kleonymos' political agenda was very

similar to Cleon’s; personal ambition and their own success

were more of a priority then what was best for Athens and her

allies. If they achieved their own objectives then honour and

glory went to individuals (not to Athens), if they failed it

was the reputation of Athens (as a whole) that suffered,

making them seem weak to their enemies. Incidentally Pericles

had specifically warned against this behaviour many years

before222.

That following spring Massane in Sicily revolted against

Athenian domination, we can accept that this was perhaps

because they were anxious to avoid a full scale Athenian

invasion, which to them seemed imminent223. Simultaneously the

Peloponnesians again invaded Attica, laying waste to large

221 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p188.222 Thuc: 2.65.7-8, p 125.223 Thuc: IV. 1.1, p229.

56

swathes of the countryside224. Here we can clearly see just

how much Cleon differed from Pericles, while the latter

allowed the Peloponnesians to desolate Attica each summer, the

former decided right away to launch an expeditionary force to

Pylos to counter the threat225. About two months later in the

third prytany of 425/4, a certain Thoudippos proposed his

decree, immediately approved by the ekklesia, arranging for a

new assessment of tribute to be carried out, demonstrating

that

“Cleon seized the opportunity to make Athens financially able

to carry on the war for victory he believed necessary.”226

That winter Aristophanes produce Acharnians227 for the Lenaia,

this his earliest surviving play, and now the oldest complete

Greek comedy228; Kleinias proposed a decree tightening up

tribute payments, and Athens were routed at Delium, when

Kleonymos was ‘alleged’ to have famously dropped his shield in

the battle229. After the summer fighting season Brasidas 224 Thuc: IV. 2.1, p30.225 Thuc: IV.28.2-3, p246.226 Kegan, The Archidamian War (1974), 249.227 Aristophanes, Plays I, p5.228 Ibid, p2.229 Aristophanes, Wasps: 18-52, p 196-170.

57

besieged the city of Amphipolis, a key Athenian cleruchy (colony)

in Thrace, Athens, in looking for somebody to take the blame

decided to pin the defeat Thucydides who was subsequently

exiled:

“I was banished from my country for 20yrs, after my charged

at Amphipolis…I could at leisure the better learn the truth of

all that passed” 230

Aristophanes wrote Knights, for the winter Lenaia in 424, which

is his most consistent and vicious attack against Cleon,

written when Cleon was at the peak of his prowess in Athens.

It portrays Cleon as the favourite slave of the demos

(people).231

The following year is where I believe the Chalcis decree now

fits best, assumedly after the announcement of a one year

armistice between Athens and Sparta. However later that

summer Mende, a Chalkidiki city abundant in resources,

(primarily ship building timber) was recovered from Brasidas,

230 Thuc: V.26.5 p328231 Aristophanes, Knights: p47

58

the city being returned to full autonomy by Cleon232, thus

allowing them to deal with the instigators of the numerous

revolts themselves. Cleon went as far as recommending that

the Scionians involved be put to the ‘sword’ and executed233.

It was accepted that they were a practical confederate because

Mende safeguarded the Athenian trade routes along the Thracian

coast. It is also noteworthy that this is one of the very

rare times that Thucydides references a decree, stating

that-“Whereupon, by the advice of Cleon, they made a decree”234

Because of the long running feud between Cleon and

Aristophanes the latter wrote and produced Wasps for the city

Lenaia in the winter of 422, Aristophanes using his nom de plume

of Parabasis235. Furthermore, almost as if to alienate Cleon

even further, he named the two central characters Philocleon

and Bdelycleon (Cleon-liker and Cleon-hater)236. That summer

both Cleon and Brasides were both killed at Amphipolis,

meaning Cleon never had a chance to respond.

232 Mattingly, (1996), p63233 Thuc: IV.122.6, p299.234 Thuc: IV.122.5-6, p299.235 Aristophanes, Wasps: p165.236 Ibid, Wasps: 138-144, p173

59

Conclusion

Re-dating the decrees examined above results in a revised

timeline which does not alter our understanding of Athenian

imperialism as dramatically as one might think.

By placing the first three decrees of this study in the mid-

420s, Thucydides’ narrative regarding Athenian finances during

the war will be influenced, at the start of his Pentecontaëtia he

enumerates Athens finances and reserves237. Correspondingly by

firmly placing the Egesta decree at 418/7 it too considerably

effects Thucydides’ Sicilian narrative. Nine years after

their first military adventure to the island in 427238, and two

more before the second, establishes that Athens was actively

considering renewing hostilities. Undoubtedly this conveys a

better historical perspective for their actions. 418 BC fits

seamlessly into Thucydides sixth book, when he chronicles the

visit of a delegation from Egesta visiting Athens239,

conceivably implying Athens unforgiving nature.

237 Thuc: II.13, p97-98.238 Thuc: III.86-89, p207-9.239 Thuc: VI.6.2, p413.

60

The final decree dealing with Athenian standards, when placed

at 414/3, not only gives a far more satisfactory historical

context, but it also sheds light on why the decree was so

necessary at that particular time, appearing relatively soon

after the crushing Athenian defeat in Sicily. Furthermore, I

believe that it was implemented at a time when it was too late

to have made a real difference. Applying historical

hindsight, it can be characterised as a final attempt to

reiterate hegemony over its allies when the Athens archê was at

its most fragile.

This dissertation began with a discussion of the authors of

the Athenian Tribute List, it is fitting that they also

conclude it:

“With her money gone, her allies disaffected and her fleet

lost at Aigospotamoi, the Empire of Athens came to an end.”240

240 Meritt et al, ATL, p363.

61

Bibliography:

Athens, Epigraphical Museum (Inventory EM 6568) Subject:

Athenian treaty with Egesta, dated by archon to 418BC.

Billheimer, A., Amendments in Athenian Decrees (American

Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1938),

pp. 456-485).

Bradeen, D, W., & McGregor, M, F., Studies in Fifth Century Attic

Epigraphy (Oklahoma, 1973).

Chambers, M., Gallucci, R., Spanos, P., Athens' Alliance with Egesta

in the Year of Antiphon (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik,

Bd. 83 (1990), pp. 38-63).

Chambers, M., Photographic Enhancement and a Greek Inscription (The

Classical Journal, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 1992), pp. 25-

31).

Constanakopoulou, C., The Dance of the Islands, Insularity, Networks, the

Athenian Empire and the Aegean World (Oxford University Press, 2007).

Dawson, S, E., The Egesta Decree "IG" I³ 11 (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

Epigraphik, Bd. 112 (1996), pp. 248-252).

De Ste, Croix, G, E, M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War

(Duckworth, 1972).

62

Figueira, T., The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire

(University of Pennsylvania, 1988).

Fornara, C, W., Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, Vol I

(Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).

Fornara, C, W., and Samons, L, J, II., Athens from Cleisthenes to

Pericles (University of California press, 1991).

Gomme, A, W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford University

Press, 1945-56).

Hadji, A., & Kontes, Z., “The Athenian Coinage Decree: Inscriptions, Coins

and Athenian Politics” in Actas del XIII Congreso Internacional de

Numismática, Madrid, Alfaro, C., Marcos, C., & Otero, P.,

edited, 2005) (pp. 263-267).

Henry, A., The Sigma Enigma (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

Epigraphik, Bd. 120 (1998), pp. 45-48).

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 120 (1998),

pp. 45-48Published

Henry, A., Space-age Technology and the Egesta Decree. Through a Laser Beam

Darkly: (I.G. i³ 11) (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik,

Bd. 91 (1992), pp. 137-146).

Kagan, D., The Archidamian War (Cornell University Press) 1974.

63

Kagan, D., The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition (Cornell

University Press) 1981.

Kagan, D., The fall of the Athenian Empire (Cornell University Press)

1988.

Kallet-Marx, L., Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides' History 1-

5.24 (California University Press, 1993).

Kallet, L., “Democracy, Empire and Epigraphy in the Twentieth

Century” in: Ma, J., & Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R.,

Interpreting the Athenian Empire (Edited, Duckworth, 2009).

Liddel, P., The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th

Century BC to the 3rd Century (AD Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

Epigraphik, Bd. 143 (2003), pp. 79-93)

Low, P., The Athenian Empire (Edinburgh University Press, 2008).

Ma, J., Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R., Interpreting the Athenian

Empire (Edited, Duckworth, 2009).

Martzavou, P and Papazarkadas, N., Epigraphical Approaches to the Post

–Classical Polis (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Mattingly, H, B., The Athenian Decree for Miletos ("IG" I2, 22

& "ATL" II, D 11) (Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte,

(1981) (pp. 113-117), p117.

64

Mattingly, H, B., What Are the Right Dating Criteria for Fifth-Century Attic

Texts? (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 126

(1999), pp. 117-122).

Mattingly, H, B., 'Epigraphically the Twenties Are Too

Late...’ (The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 65

(1970), pp. 129-149).

Mattingly, H, B., The Athenian Empire Restored, Epigraphic and Historical

Studies (The University of Michigan Press, 1999).

Meiggs, R., and Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the

end of the fifth century B.C. (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1969).

Meiggs, R., The Dating of Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions Author (The

Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 86) (1966) pp. 86-98.

Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford University Press, 1972).

Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian

Tribute Lists, Volume I (American School of Classical Studies

at Athens, Harvard University Press, 1939).

Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian

Tribute Lists, Volume II (American School of Classical Studies

at Athens, Princeton, 1949).

65

Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian

Tribute Lists, Volume III (American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, Princeton, 1950).

Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian

Tribute Lists, Volume IV (American School of Classical Studies

at Athens, Princeton, 1950).

Millford, H., A Lexicon, Abridged Greek-English (Liddell and Scott’s,

Oxford Clarendon Press, 1926).

Miller, M, C., Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural

Receptivity (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Osborne, R., The Athenian Empire (LACTOR 1, 4th Ed, London

association of Classical Teachers, 2000).

Papazarkadas, N., “Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire: Reshuffling the

Chronological Cards” in: Ma, J., Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R.,

Interpreting the Athenian Empire (Edited, Duckworth, 2009).

Pritchett, K, W., The Three-Barred Sigma at Kos (Bulletin de

correspondance hellénique. Volume 87, Livraison 1, 1963) (pp.

20-23).

Pritchett, W.K., Dotted Letters in Greek Epigraphy American (Journal of

Archaeology, 59, 1955) (pp. 51-61).

66

Rhodes, P, J., & Lewis, D, M., The Decrees of the Greek States

(Clarendon Press Oxford, 1997).

Rhodes, P, J., After the Three-Bar "Sigma" Controversy: The History of

Athenian Imperialism Reassessed (The Classical Quarterly, New Series,

Vol. 58, No. 2 (2008), pp. 500-506).

Samons L, J, II., Empire of the Owl, Athenian Imperial Finance (Franz

Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2000).

Samons L, J, II., The Age Of Pericles (Cambridge University Press,

2007).

Vickers, M., Fifth Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree (The Journal

of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 116, (1996) pp. 171-174).

Whitehead, D., The Athenian Standards Decree (IG I3 1453):‘The (?) Preceding

Decree which Klearchos Proposed’ (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 118, (1997) pp.169–173).

Ancient Sources:

67

Aristophanes, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol VI, Birds (Edited and

Translated by Sommerstein, A, H.,) (Aris and Phillips Ltd,

1987).

Aristophanes, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol II, Knights (Edited and

Translated by (Aris and Phillips Ltd, 1981).

Aristophanes, Plays I (Edited and Translated by Dickenson, P.,

Oxford University Press).

Aristophanes, Plays II (Edited and Translated by Dickenson, P.,

Oxford University Press).

Bruce, I, B.,"Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography"

History and Theory (Blackwell, 1970).

Diodorus Siculus, The Persian Wars to the Fall of Athens: Books XI-XIV.34 480-

401BC (Translated by Green, P., University of Texas Press,

2010).

Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume I, Books I-III

(English Translation by Hornblower, S., Clarendon Press

Oxford, 1991).

Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume II, Books IV-V

(English Translation by Hornblower, S., Clarendon Oxford

Press, 1996).

68

Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume III, Books V-VIII

(English Translation by Hornblower, S., Oxford, University

Press, 2002).

Herodotus, Herodotus (English translation by Godley, A, D.,

Cambridge University Press, 1920).

Plutarch, Lives (English Translation by Perrin, B., Harvard

University Press London, 1916).

Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens, Nine Greek Lives (New Translation,

Scott-Kilvert, I., Penguin Classics, 1960).

Pseudo-Xenophon, “The Old Oligarch” in Xenophon in Seven Volumes

(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1984).

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (Translated by Hobbes, T.,

Edited by Grene, D., University of Chicago Press, 1989)

Xenophon, A History of my Times, Hellenica (Translated by Warner, R.,

Penguin, 1969).

69