Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Thomas M. Leane
History BA
Spring 2015
Birkbeck, University of London
2
Καὶ ἐς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἴσως τὸ μὴ μυθῶδες αὐτῶν ἀτερπέστερον φανεῖται: ὅσοι δὲ
βουλήσονται τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ποτὲ αὖθις
κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τοιούτων καὶ παραπλησίων ἔσεσθαι, ὠφέλιμα κρίνειν αὐτὰ
ἀρκούντως ἕξει. Κτῆμά τε ἐς αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα 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
Through analysis and re-evaluation of several Athenian decrees from the end of 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.
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
1
Reassessment decree, ML 694). This helps to establish that restorations previously
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
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
Ancient Greek historian Thucydides, is unquestionably the prime literary source for
decrees; combined with other inaccuracies, this is perplexing and is now known as
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 to his
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), p 86.
6
De Ste, Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972), p51.
2
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
Attic drama is also a versatile tool that an epigraphist can utilise because it contains
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. It 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.
(2009), p48.
10 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p123.
11
Kallet, (2009), p50.
3
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
historian brave enough to challenge the ATL editor's suppositions and in turn
there “are good historical grounds”15 then many Athenian decrees can be down-
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
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
12 Ibid, p54.
13 Papazarkadas, (2009), p67.
14 Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored, Epigraphic and Historical Studies (1996), p1.
15 Ibid, p1.
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.
4
fifteen years (454/3-440/39)21 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
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
imperialism during the second quarter of the fifth century BC. The works of Merritt,
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
5
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
sociological context as well as the inscribed words. Only when all these elements are
The timeline I shall construct is for the last years of the Empire, from the mid-420s, to
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.
6
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
that the first inventory records the payments for the year 454/337. Consequently,
correctly dating Athenian decrees is fundamental for studying their empire; these
7
Six Athenian Decrees.
I shall begin with Thoudippos’ Decree (ML 6938) dated to 425/4 BC, and now housed
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
allied states' tribute payments. Although more than half the decree is still lost and
(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
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
8
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
their phoros (φόρος-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
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
would have severely affected lots of cities, many of which had their phoros doubled
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
9
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
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
“the Boule [may judge immediately] whet||her they do not appear [to be performing
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
began again. As we shall see this decree is very similar to the Coinage decree (ML
10
4558) with its strict punishments and consequences, the language is laden with heavy
procedure, to obtain tribute, however there is not enough information to judge its
the need for extra funds, from all allies; a unilateral decision made democratically at
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
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.
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
58
Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p110.
59 Kallet-Marx, (1993), p167.
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.
11
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.
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:
“timber from one place, iron from another, copper from another, flax from another,
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
12
The main content of this decree are the details of how the new Athenian tribute
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
hellenotamiai (treasures) would make a yearly report on who had and who had not
“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 about the necessity of installing
decrees (Ψήφισμα) in general76. As we shall see the mid-420s was a time of-
13
“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
the details about Athens publicising their decrees in front of the Acropolis, can be
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 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
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
14
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 decree85.
“should be put in at 426/5 B.C. or a closely following year. The problem of the
himself.”87
His other motivation is the decrees final clause seen at stoichoi 6188, which
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
addition, although this may be purely coincidental, the exact same stoichoi (2291)
83 Ibid, 166.
84 Hornblower, Thucydides, Vol III, Books V-VIII (2002), p99.
85 Kagan, The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition (1981), p63.
86 Mattingly, (1999), p316
87
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.
91
Meritt, et al. ATL, Volume II (1949), p46.
15
“any other city which was assessed to bring money [to] Athens. This decree (shall be
“the Athenians [made known] which cities paid the tribute money in full and which fell
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,
interpretation, dating the decree at: “later than the second 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).
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
16
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,
managing the collection process, in any case that would have been the Athenians
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,
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
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, especially if they were not asking for extra or more tribute, but just to
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
17
end of the 420s when Athens was engaged in in several different conflicts and not
the late-440s.
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 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
100
Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p138.
101 Ibid, p138.
102 Meritt, et al. ATL Volume II (1949), p70-2.
103 Papazarkadas, (2009), p73
104
Fornara, (1977), p113.
18
“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”
Dates have been proposed for it from 446/5 to 424/3106, a huge range insecurely
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
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
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
19
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
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 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
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
20
insurgency and revolts, and after signing the decree they would have been under
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
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, either
(Habr)on, the recorded archon of 458/7 BC120, (Antiph)on dated to 418/7 BC121 or
21
(Figure I, Egesta Decree123.highlighted (ON), top right)
In the late 1980’s, Professor Mortimer Chambers led a team (more scientific than
Chambers concluded that the eponymous archons name was (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
123 Athens, Epigraphical Museum (Inventory EM 6568) Subject: Athenian treaty with Egesta.
124 Chambers et al, p42.
125
Ibid, p55-56
126 Fornara, (1977), p202.
127 Chambers, (1992), p28.
128 Ibid, p28.
129
Chambers et al, p41.
22
assumed to pre-date 448/7, and has since been used as a key diagnostic technique
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 at 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
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.
130
Henry, The Sigma Enigma (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 120 (1998), p46.
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
23
(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 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
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.
137
Henry, (1992), p137.
24
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
“now we do have a decree with three-bar sigma for which I think 418/7 must be
accepted.”140
The decree itself records the regulation of oaths exchanged between Athens and
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
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
perhaps one of Cleon’s associates, had convinced the demos that Egesta was ripe
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,
25
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 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
The final decree under consideration concerns Athenian coinage (ML 45142) and is
also known as the Athenian Standards Decree143. Arguably one of -“the most
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 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
26
epigraphist who would like to examine it148. When all pieces are combined it forms a
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
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
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
evidence for this particular decree can be found in Aristophanes' drama Birds, in
27
which he lampoons the decree, first performed at the city’s Dionysia in 414, it states
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
The arguments about the dates have substantial repercussions, especially when
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
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 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
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.
28
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
Kyzikene states, some were non-Attic silver; it has even been suggested that some
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
Lysander (the Spartan general) acquired 475 Talents of Athenian coins, which he
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
29
entering the city, especially at a time when forgery was rife. In addition it has an
extra amendment added to the Bouleutic oath, concerning currency offences which
Loren J Samons II, considered many differing viewpoints and concluded that this
decree would have had very little impact on Athenian imperial finances 164.
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
demonstrates that a civilized economic policy existed in the fifth century BC, it can
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 ebb”166-they
30
Summary of the decrees
Athens in the mid-420s would have looked economically something like this: in 426
individual collectors were assigned for individual territories. This was rapidly
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
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
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
31
New Athenian Timeline, 426 BC- 404 BC
Re-dating the above decrees results in a new Athenian timeline for the later years of
the Empire:
425 Sparta invade Attica, Cleon reacts by fortifing Pylos and capturing Sphacteria,
425/4. Athens crushed at Delium175, Brasidas captures and holds Amphipolis &
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
423. Decree regulating terms with Chalkis179. One year peace between Athens
422. Cleon re-captures Torone, then both he and Brasidas are killed at the second
421. Peace of Nicias, fifty year allaince between Athens and Lacedaemonians181.
32
420. Boeotia makes allegiances with Sparta182; Athens responds with a quadruple
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
of mutilating the sacred Hermaes at Athens188; the recall and flight to Sparta of
Alcibiades.
413. Athens introduces a 5% eikoste192. Spartans invade Attica; seize and fortify
Decelea, a decisive blow against the Athenians, who at the same time were
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
410. Athenian victory at Cyzicus. Full democracy restored at Athens194, then Athens
33
409. Athenian strategos Thrasyllus captures Colophon, The city of Rhodes is
founded195.
408. Alcibiades returns to Athens after seven year absence196, leading procession of
406. Spartan naval victory at the Battle of Notium197, resulting in the fall of
405. After the Battle of Arginusae, Athenian fleet is destroyed by the Spartans under
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
34
was: “adopting a harder attitude”204. Cleon was perceived as the leader of the strong
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
any and all mistakes, often suggesting oligarchy and conspiracies208. However this
Cleon divided opinion and certainly had detractors; for instance, dislike and
disapproval towards him runs through Thucydides’ writing, and hatred from
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
35
procedures from Cleon’ demagogy213, it is possible to discover just how Athens
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).
the League. Later that summer, Demosthenes, the strategos, launched offensive
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 primarily
concerned with fraud, may not have been so far off the mark.
36
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
can accept that this was perhaps because they were anxious to avoid a full scale
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
“Cleon seized the opportunity to make Athens financially able to carry on the war for
37
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 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.
(primarily ship building timber) was recovered from Brasidas, the city being returned
to full autonomy by Cleon232, thus allowing them to deal with the instigators of the
38
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
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
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
Conclusion
Re-dating the decrees examined above results in a revised timeline which does not
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
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,
39
and two more before the second, establishes that Athens was actively considering
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.
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
a time when it was too late to have made a real difference. Applying historical
This dissertation began with a discussion of the authors of the Athenian Tribute List,
“With her money gone, her allies disaffected and her fleet lost at Aigospotamoi, the
40
Bibliography:
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).
Constanakopoulou, C., The Dance of the Islands, Insularity, Networks, the Athenian
Dawson, S, E., The Egesta Decree "IG" I³ 11 (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
De Ste, Croix, G, E, M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (Duckworth, 1972).
Figueira, T., The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire
Fornara, C, W., Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, Vol I (Johns
1945-56).
41
Hadji, A., & Kontes, Z., “The Athenian Coinage Decree: Inscriptions, Coins and
Alfaro, C., Marcos, C., & Otero, P., edited, 2005) (pp. 263-267).
Henry, A., The Sigma Enigma (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 120
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 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
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)
Ma, J., Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R., Interpreting the Athenian Empire (Edited,
Duckworth, 2009).
42
Martzavou, P and Papazarkadas, N., Epigraphical Approaches to the Post –
Mattingly, H, B., The Athenian Decree for Miletos ("IG" I2, 22 & "ATL" II, D 11)
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
Mattingly, H, B., The Athenian Empire Restored, Epigraphic and Historical Studies
Meiggs, R., and Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of
Meiggs, R., The Dating of Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions Author (The Journal of
Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian Tribute Lists,
1939).
Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian Tribute Lists,
Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian Tribute Lists,
Meritt, B, D., Wade-Gery, H, T., McGregor, M, F., The Athenian Tribute Lists,
43
Millford, H., A Lexicon, Abridged Greek-English (Liddell and Scott’s, Oxford
Miller, M, C., Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural
Osborne, R., The Athenian Empire (LACTOR 1, 4th Ed, London association of
Chronological Cards” in: Ma, J., Papazarkadas. N., and Parker, R., Interpreting the
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
Samons L, J, II., Empire of the Owl, Athenian Imperial Finance (Franz Steiner Verlag
Stuttgart 2000).
Vickers, M., Fifth Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree (The Journal of
44
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:
Aristophanes, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol VI, Birds (Edited and Translated
Aristophanes, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol II, Knights (Edited and Translated
Press).
Press).
(Blackwell, 1970).
Diodorus Siculus, The Persian Wars to the Fall of Athens: Books XI-XIV.34 480-
45
Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume III, Books V-VIII (English
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-
1969).
46