What impact do re-dated Atheniandecrees have on our understanding of
Athenian Imperialism?
Thomas M. Leane
History BA
2
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
Top Related