1

What impact do re-dated Athenian decrees

have on our understanding of Athenian
Imperialism?

Thomas M. Leane

History BA
Spring 2015
Birkbeck, University of London

Dr Serafina Cuomo & Dr Christy Constantakopoulou

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

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 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

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
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, 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 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

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. 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.

7 Papazarkadas, (2009), p78

8
Ibid, p67.
9 Kallet, “Democracy, Empire and Epigraphy in the Twentieth Century” in: Ma, Papazarkadas, & Parker, Interpreting the Athenian Empire

(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

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,

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

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

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-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.

21 Meiggs, (1972), p109.

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

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

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 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.

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

examples will demonstrate just how convoluted an issue it can be.

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

7
 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).

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

38 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p188.

39
Ibid, p192-3.
40 Fornara, (1977), p155.
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.

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

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-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 is because we know that 425 BC was not a Panathenaic

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.
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.

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

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 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

52 Meiggs, (1972), p240.

53
Fornara, (1977), p156.
54 Ibid, Stoichoi 36, p155.
55 Fornara, Stoichoi 62-65, p156.
56 Meiggs, (1972), p240.
57
Fornara, p154.

10
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 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.

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.

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:

“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.

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.
69
Pseudo-Xenophon, “The Old Oligarch” Constitution of the Athenians (Cambridge, 1984), 2.11.

12
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 (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 about the necessity of installing

decrees (Ψήφισμα) in general76. As we shall see the mid-420s was a time of-

70 Fornara, Stoichoi 22-35, p149.

71 Meiggs & Lewis, (1969), p187.
72 Ibid, p187.
73
Fornara, (1977), p149.
74 Mattingly (2006), p411
75 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p176.
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.

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

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 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

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.
82
Meiggs, (1972), p599.

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.

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

addition, although this may be purely coincidental, the exact same stoichoi (2291)

was used to express related points:

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

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 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

92 Fornara, (1977), p149-0.

93 Ibid, p107.
94 Ibid, p108.
95
Mattingly (1999), p317-8.
96 Ibid, p316.
97 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.
98 Ibid, p111.
99
Mattingly (1999), p317-8.

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,

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 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, 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

17
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 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:

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”

(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. 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

105 Ibid, p113.

106 Meritt, et al, ATL Vol II, p70-2.
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.

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

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 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

113 Thuc: IV.121.2-4, p298-9.

114 Mattingly, (1999), p63.
115 Fornara, (1977), p113.
116
Meritt, et al, ATL, Volume I (1929), p297.

20
insurgency and revolts, and after signing the decree they would have been under

complete control by Athens.

The Alliance of Athens with Egesta.

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, 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.

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.
120 Fornara, (1977), p201.
121 Ibid, p202.
122
Ibid, p202.

21
 (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 (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

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 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

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.

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

Epigraphik, (1992), p 137.

133
Henry, (1992), p140.

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

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

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

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.

141
Thuc: VI.11.1-2, p382-3.

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

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 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

142 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p111.

143 Whitehead, The Athenian Standards Decree ‘The (?) Preceding Decree which Klearchos Proposed’ (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie &
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.
147
Fornara (1977), p105.

26
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 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

148 Hadji & Kontes, (2005), p263.

149
Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p112-3.
150 Mattingly (1996), p407.
151 Fornara, (1977), p105.
152 Ibid, p105-106.
153
Ibid, p105.

27
which he lampoons the decree, first performed at the city’s Dionysia in 414, it states

that-“Cloudcuckoovillians shall use Athenian 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 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

mixed up collections of varying different denominations; some were 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

159 Figueira, (1988), p558.

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.

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

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 finances 164.

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 ebb”166-they

decided to introduce a eikoste (a 5% harbour tax) perhaps to replace tribute, and

undoubtedly linked to this decree.

163 Osborne, The Athenian Empire (LACTOR 1, 2000), p8.

164 Samons, Empire of the Owl, Athenian Imperial Finance (2000), p330.
165 Papazarkadas, (2009), p72.
166
Thuc: VII.28.4, p 459.

30
 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 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.

167 Meiggs and Lewis, (1969), p117

168
Millford, A Lexicon, Abridged Greek-English (1926), p188.

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:

Year Significant events

426/5171. Kleonymos Decree, rationalising tribute collections. Demosthenes victorious

against Brasidas at Olpae172 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 Lacedaemonians181.

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.
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.
181
Thuc: V.118.1, p321-2.

32
 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; 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.

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.
193 Thuc: VIII.82.1-2, p549.
194
Thuc: VIII.92.11, p550.

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

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 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

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.
200 Ibid, II.1.6-7, 98.
201 Diodorus, XIII.76-9, p170.
202 Xenophon, Hellenica I.7.35, p35.
203
Meiggs, (1972), p317.

34
was: “adopting a harder attitude”204. Cleon was perceived as the leader of 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 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

204 Ibid, p316.

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.
210 Bruce, "Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography" History and Theory (1970), p 88.
211 Fornara, (1977), p143-144
212
Aristophanes, Knights: 295-298, p39.

35
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 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 primarily

concerned with fraud, may not have been so far off the mark.

213 Kallet, (2009), p43.

214 Fornara, (1977), p202.
215 Aristophanes, Plays II, Birds: 1474-1481, p64-5
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.

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

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 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

221 Meiggs & Lewis (1969), p188.

222
Thuc: 2.65.7-8, p 125.
223 Thuc: IV. 1.1, p229.
224 Thuc: IV. 2.1, p30.
225 Thuc: IV.28.2-3, p246.
226
Kegan, The Archidamian War (1974), 249.

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.

However later that summer Mende, a Chalkidiki city abundant in resources,

(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

numerous revolts themselves. Cleon went as far as recommending that the

227 Aristophanes, Plays I, p5.

228
Ibid, p2.
229 Aristophanes, Wasps: 18-52, p 196-170.
230 Thuc: V.26.5 p328
231 Aristophanes, Knights: p47
232
Mattingly, (1996), p63

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

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.

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,

233 Thuc: IV.122.6, p299.

234
Thuc: IV.122.5-6, p299.
235 Aristophanes, Wasps: p165.
236 Ibid, Wasps: 138-144, p173
237 Thuc: II.13, p97-98.
238
Thuc: III.86-89, p207-9.

39
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.

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

239 Thuc: VI.6.2, p413.

240
Meritt et al, ATL, p363.

40
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).

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).

41
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.

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).

42
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.

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).

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).

43
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).

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).

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

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).

45
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).

46