3

Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire:

Reshuffling the Chronological Cards 1

Nikolaos Papazarkadas

Methodological problems, chronological

questions and new(ish) answers
The story, long and convoluted, is no doubt well-known, but a synopsis
may not be out of place. It was the publication of the monumental Athenian
Tribute Lists that arguably marked the single most important develop-
ment in our understanding of the Athenian Empire.2 But informative as it
was, the four-volume work by Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor contained
the treacherous seed of what was going to be one of the most misleading
obsessions that has ever haunted any period of Greek history: the three-
bar sigma lettering criterion. The authors of ATL assumed that no Athe-
nian public document containing this letter form, as opposed to the more
familiar sigma of the Ionic script, could postdate the year 446, when a
three-bar sigma appeared for the last time in the long series of the
aparchê-inscriptions (in IG I3 265).3 A similar argument was also made in
relation to the tailed rho, but at least in that case sweeping pronounce-
ment was withheld. The three-bar sigma criterion acquired an almost
axiomatic validity; major works were shaped on this basis: from Meiggs’
The Athenian Empire to the authoritative corpus of pre-Euclidean Attic
inscriptions, IG I3. It seemed that fifth-century Athenian history was
entirely occupied by the three-bar sigma legionnaires. Not entirely: one
lone scholar of indomitable spirit still held out against the invaders. Away
from the prestigious academic centres of Loxbridge and the Ivy League,
Mattingly fought for years a seemingly lost cause to show that the three-
bar sigma criterion was a severely flawed concept that gave unwarranted
priority to technical assumptions of a disputable value rather than to
plausible historical considerations.4 And then came the year 1990 and the
publication in the Zeitschrift für Papylogie und Epigraphik of a short, but
ground-breaking, article by Chambers, Gallucci and Spanos. Using photo-
enhancement and laser scanning techniques, this small interdisciplinary
group forcefully argued that the name of the archon on the Egesta decree
(ML 37 = IG I3 11), which contained both three-bar sigmas and tailed rhos,
was Antiphon, the eponymous archon of 418/7, as had already been
suggested more than once by Mattingly.5 Predictably the orthodox camp

67
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
refused to capitulate without a fight despite the scientific verdict.6 But the
mirror had cracked and soon more corroborating evidence started to come
to light.7 To cut a long story short, the beginning of the third millennium
has seen a dramatic reversal. Mattingly’s views appear to be the new
orthodoxy; however, this applies solely to his epigraphical observations,
not necessarily to their possible historical ramifications, which remain to
be investigated.
The idea for this paper was first conceived in the form of some simple
questions: what would, for instance, P.J. Rhodes’ and David Lewis’ chap-
ters on the history of the Athenian hegemony look like in a future version
of the Cambridge Ancient History? How up-to-date is Meiggs’ fundamental
monograph on the Athenian Empire, and does it still do justice to its
subject? More practical concerns soon arose: when we ask our students to
consult the texts and accompanying commentary in Meiggs and Lewis’
paramount Greek Historical Inscriptions, are we sending them to the right
place or are we misleadingly reproducing the same old erroneous doc-
trines? To provide a straightforward linear narrative of the Athenian
empire is, for the time being, practically impossible. Most of the subtle
arguments underlying the reconstruction below have long been presented
either by Mattingly, or, ironically, by his opponents in their efforts to
deconstruct Mattingly’s reasoning. Thus I must from the start that my
paper has no claim to absolute originality. For obvious reasons, the focus
is on the most controversial fifth-century historical documents, especially
those included in Meiggs and Lewis’ landmark collection. Despite the title
of the paper, I have not only attempted to reshuffle the chronological cards,
but also to add a couple of new ones to the deck of the Athenian empire.
But before embarking on an epigraphical exploration, a concise list of
dating criteria has to be offered.

(1) Historical contextualisation should always take precedence over

other considerations.
(2) Grammatical observations can be good guidelines: similarity in
diction, syntax, idioms and similia offer good comparison anchors.
(3) Archon names appear in the prescripts of Attic decrees from 421/0
onwards. Clearly, something caused the Athenians to reorganise their
bureaucratic protocol and one can think of nothing better than the Peace
of Nicias.8

In 441/0 Athens became involved in a fierce military confrontation with

one of her most significant allies, Samos.9 The punishment for the rebel-
lious islanders was harsh: demolition of the city-walls, surrender of the
fleet, payment of war-indemnities, confiscation and subsequent consecra-
tion of Samian land to Attic divinities. The last is amply attested in a
series of boundary-stones in Attic script, some of which do have three-bar
sigmas.10 Samos’ subjugation marked both calendrically and conceptually

68
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
the commencement of the 430s. Before the decade had come to an end,
most of the Greek world would be entangled in a war destined to change
the political map for ever. We know from Thucydides the four aitiai, the
reasons that gave rise to Sparta’s fear of Athens’ increasing power and
eventually led to war: incidents involving Corcyra, Poteidaia, Megara and
Aigina. Epigraphically, the most famous document assigned to this period
has so far been the first decree of Callias (ML 58). Cavanaugh recently
made a strong case for another well-known text to be placed in the same
period: on the basis of a detailed analysis of the Eleusinian nomenclature
she concluded that the First-fruits decree (ML 73) should probably be
placed in the mid 430s.11 In the Eleusinian text the Athenians still respect
the authority of the Delphic oracle, which sanctions Athens’ decision to call
on her allies to provide the first-fruits of their grain for the glorification of
the Eleusinian sanctuary. Quite importantly, a similar polite request is
made to all the Greek cities, though none is compelled to comply.12 Fortu-
nately, there is no serious reason to dissociate the first decree of Callias
from this period, although scholars still dispute the exact year: 434/3, or
433/2? It really makes little difference. On either date Athens was tidying
up her finances in anticipation of the imminent war.13 The diplomatic
exchanges between Athens and Sparta, famously immortalised in Thucy-
dides’ first book, were simply a procrastination of the inevitable. But
significantly, it seems that yet another of those three-bar sigma docu-
ments belongs to this period: IG I3 32, the Epistatai-decree, thus named
because of the creation of the homonymous board with the aim of control-
ling the finances of the Eleusinian sanctuary. Therein, just as in Callias’
first decree, the Athenian polis appears resolved to transfer control of her
sacred finances from local executives to the central administration.14
Once the Peloponnesians invaded Attica in 431, all hell broke loose.
From the war front new material has now come to light: the pertinent
piece of evidence is a hitherto unpublished funerary stele from the exca-
vations for the new Athens metro.15 The stele contains an epigram and two
seemingly separate lists of dead cavalrymen arranged, in good fifth-cen-
tury fashion, under tribal headings – the first (inscribed on the lower part
of the monument) in Attic script, the other in Ionic. This concurrent
existence of two different scripts is another good argument against expec-
tations of an exceedingly rigid development of fifth-century Attic lettering.
Now, the Attic-alphabet list enumerates 21 cavalrymen who, on the
evidence of the heading, fell at Tanagra and Spartolos. According to the
provisional interpretation offered by the excavator, the toponyms refer to
the two well-known battles fought in 426 and 429 respectively.16 Yet it
seems at least odd that casualties from two different encounters separated
by three years would have been recorded together.17 Either, then, the new
monument is an oddity – and there are indeed several irregular traits in
it.18 Or, what I consider to be more likely, the two battles were fought in
the same year (429 or 426), in which case either Tanagra or Spartolos will

69
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
refer to some hitherto unattested military operation.19 Two things, then,
we have to keep in mind: first that the Athenian cavalrymen not only
participated in the defence of Attica as part of the Periclean strategy, but
that they also shed their blood in long-distance operations. Secondly that
Thucydides could not, in fact he did not intend to, give us a full account of
every single skirmish of the Peloponnesian War. This is not a criticism,
only the realisation that there is a limit to what a historian, however
meticulous, would choose to relate.
Take for instance Thucydides’ scattered references to Athens’ opera-
tions in the Argolid. In 430 the Athenians ravaged the coastal area,
targeting in particular Epidauros, Troizen, Halieis and Hermione – a
seemingly un-Periclean venture instigated by Pericles himself.20 Now the
430s campaign was almost replicated in 425. I say almost, because one
particular area was spared: Hermione.21 In what was probably his last
piece of work, the late Michael Jameson convincingly showed why this
was so: because of the immunity Hermione enjoyed by virtue of the
alliance IG I3 31 (unmentioned by Thucydides), which has been tradi-
tionally dated to the 450s on account of its three-bar sigma, whereas
now it has to be placed in the early 420s. A year later, in 424, Halieis
followed the example of Hermione, by entering a similar alliance with
Athens, recorded in IG I3 75.22
As it transpires, Thucydides’ silence may be disquieting, but not culpa-
ble. But what about instances where the historian does provide adequate
information? Here, the unmistakable example is Thucydides 3.34. The
year was 427 and the Athenian general Paches, alarmed by a Peloponne-
sian fleet under Alcidas, was operating in the eastern Aegean. Making the
best of his presence there, Paches interfered in the territory of Colophon,
which had been suffering from stasis since 430, and made a settlement
favourable to the Athenians, who subsequently sent a colony.23 The story
offers a formidable context for the Athenian decree concerning the Colo-
phonians ML 47 (IG I3 37), a context that, needless to say, was promptly
ruled out because of the three-bar sigmas.24 This is not the only ‘eastern’
document that has to be brought down in the Archidamian War. Consider
the decree regulating Phaselis’ relations with Athens, the well-known IG
I3 10. Few, if any, would question the importance of this document for our
understanding of Athens’ treatment of her allies, judicial procedures etc.
When the Phaselis decree was first discovered its Ionic lettering misled
scholars into dating it to the fourth century, and it was only Wilhelm’s
legendary genius that moved it back to its real fifth-century setting.25
Wilhelm might have failed, though, by insisting that the decree belonged
to the middle of the fifth century. The date has barely been contested, no
doubt because a plausible historical context could be found in the cam-
paign at Eurymedon, when the Athenians brought the Phaselitans over to
the Delian League. Jameson, however, aptly moved the decree to its
rightful setting: the Archidamian War, or a date a bit earlier. The proposer

70
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
of ML 31 can be plausibly identified with the orator Leon of the Hermione
treaty (IG I3 31). But, as we have already seen, the latter dates to the early
420s. Leon is also to be identified with one of the oath takers of the truce
with the Peloponnesians in 422.26 One last feature seems to reinforce the
low chronology. The script may be Ionic, but the language is certainly
Attic. In line 5 the short dative plural Fashl8taij is indicative of a low
date: such short forms are very rare before the 420s.27 We have then to stop
thinking of the Phaselis decree as a source of information on the early
history of the Athenian empire, or even of the nature of the Ephialtic
reforms, as has so often been done in the past.
The third ‘eastern’ decree that certainly belongs to the same turbulent
stage of the Archidamian War is that concerning Miletos (IG I3 21).
Amongst other things the decree stipulated the contribution of Milesian
soldiers to Athens’ allied forces, trials of Milesians at Athens and so on.28
IG I3 21, with its three-bar sigma, is a prime example of the historical
crimes committed in the name of the notorious lettering criterion. At least
one unequivocal reference to the archon Euthynos, of 426/5, should have
left no doubts about the date of the inscription. Yet the three-bar sigma
criterion led epigraphists to go to such great lengths as to suggest that the
archon list of Diodorus was flawed and that Euthynos was also the name
of the archon in 450/49, which Diodorus – or his sources – had erroneously
misspelt into the similarly sounding Euthydemos.29 As a matter of fact, we
do have the indirect consequences of the Miletos decree in Thucydides’
account of the campaign in Corinth in 425: the Athenians, the historian
tells us, were accompanied by their allies, prominent amongst which were
the Milesians. Also noteworthy is the substantial contribution of the 2000
Milesian hoplites in the capture of Cythera in the following summer.30 The
425 and 424 campaigns are the first time we explicitly hear of Milesians
participating in Athenian expeditions, and this is surely not coincidental.31
Last, a brief mention has to be made of a document that was recently
published in the latest volume of Die Inschriften von Miletos:

[R]esolved b[y the boule and the assembly, Aka ]

mantis was the pr[ytany, so and so - - - - - - - - - ]
[wa]s the epistates, E[- - - - - - - - was the archon ]
[Here is] what the syn[grapheis drafted; the Mile]
[s]ians should ser[ve? row? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
etc.32

71
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
The German editors recognised it as the Milesian copy of a set of Athenian
regulations concerning the Ionian city, although they did not go as far as
to suggest that this is the Milesian counterpart of IG I3 21. Such an
identification is undoubtedly difficult, albeit not impossible. There seems,
however, to be some overlap between the decree’s provision for Milesian
military (nautical?) service (ll. 4-5) and the similar provisions in IG I3 21.
There are some other problems about the restored prescript of the decree,
and it has now been reasonably suggested that a secretary, rather than
the eponymous archon, should be envisaged in line 3.33 At the least the new
Milesian document reminds us that unexpected epigraphical gems may
often appear outside Athens.
The allegedly imperialistic content of the regulations about the Mile-
sians invite us to reassess a series of other seemingly ‘imperialistic’
decrees. One such document is the so-called Coinage decree, the most
substantial part of which stipulated the obligatory use of the Attic silver
coinage, but also of the Athenian standards and weights, by members of
the Delian League (ML 45 = IG I3 1453). Fragments of the decree have been
found in Aphytis, Cos, Syme, Siphnos, Olbia (?), Hamaxitos, and another
one, nowadays lost, was seen in Smyrna in the mid-nineteenth century,
although it certainly came from elsewhere.34 In 2004 the Coinage decree
was the object of a highly specialised, albeit fruitful, Oxford conference
that was called following the discovery of a new fragment at Aphytis.35 The
verdict was unanimous: pace most previous opinions, the decree probably
dates to the mid-420s at the earliest, though some would favour an even
later date because of an allusion to the decree to be found in Aristophanes’
Birds from 414.36 Here is the place to mention a recently published late
fifth-century decree, the rather defective editio princeps of which was
considerably improved by Gauthier in the Bulletin Epigraphique and
Stroud in SEG.37 At first glance, the text in question is yet another
inconspicuous proxeny-decree. Its importance, however, lies in the penul-
timate line, where one has to restore either some form of katall£ttw or of
the cognate noun katallag. The verb katall£ttw, ‘exchange money’,
has unambiguous monetary connotations and has so far appeared only
in the Coinage decree and the so-called Second Coinage decree (ÉG I3
90, l. 14). We might take a bold, but not unreasonable step: one could
plausibly assume that the honorands are given the privilege of exchang-
ing money at the same rate as Athenian citizens rather than as
ordinary foreigners.
If so, what we have here is the first reverberation of the otherwise
elusive Coinage decree. But with it we have already entered the economic
realm. The similar phraseology between the Coinage decree and Cleinias’
decree for the tightening of the tribute collection (ML 46) drags almost
effortlessly the date of the latter. The reconstruction of Athens’ financial
dealings is then as follows: in 426 it was decided to rationalise the
tribute-collecting system. Individual collectors were to be appointed in

72
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
each city or each tributary territory. An amendment stipulated the elec-
tion of epimelêtai for the supervision of possible judicial action taken
against intransigent payers (ML 68). This was promptly followed by
Thoudippos’ reassessment decree in 425/4 (ML 69). Athens’ optimism and
arrogance following the unexpected capture of Pylos had reached unprece-
dented heights. The third part of the new financial policy, clearly the
response to earlier inadequacies, was probably Cleinias’ decree. Tradition-
ally dated to 447, ML 46 is part and parcel of Athens’ financial
experimentations in the Archidamian War.38
There still remains a document that seems firmly fixed in its traditional
chronological setting, namely 52 (IG I3 40), the famous decree concerning
Athens’ relations with Chalcis. It is almost unanimously accepted that the
Euboean revolt following Athens’ defeat at Coroneia and its subsequent
crushing by Pericles offers a very satisfactory historical background.39
Oaths are exchanged between the two cities, with the Chalcidians being
forced to remain loyal to Athens, to abstain from any machinations and to
pay as much tribute as appropriate. An amendment contains Athens’
vague reply to a previous request: the situation of the hostages will remain
as it is for the time being (ll. 47-9). Things appear to be so straightforward
that attempts at downdating this text defy common sense. There is a
fundamental problem, however. Once we start lowering the datings of
other decrees, the Chalcis settlement suddenly becomes a one-off, an
isolated case floating in an inscriptional vacuum. Mattingly thought that
the decree could indeed be placed in the Archidamian War, and connected
it to an expedition in Euboea allegedly reported by Philochorus.40 He also
adduced a very compelling prosopographical argument. In Aristophanes’
Peace, produced in 421, Hierocles, a character in the play, is dubbed ‘the
oracle-monger from (Euboean) Oreos’ (crhsmolÒgoj oØx ,Wreoà), and the
temptation to connect him with the Hierocles who offers oracle-sanctioned
sacrifices on behalf of the Athenians in ML 52 (ll. 64-6) is hard to resist.
Interestingly, a year earlier, Eupolis had staged a comedy entitled Cities,
in which he had mockingly referred to Hierocles as ‘the best lord of oracle
chanters’.41 Clearly this was a period when Hierocles qua oracular expert
was active enough to merit two derisive references by the two greatest
comic playwrights.42
More recently Mattingly returned to ML 52 with further technical
arguments – epigraphical parallels concerning phraseology and nomencla-
ture, as well as prosopographical links.43 There have been two further
arguments in support of this theory. First is IG I3 418, an Athenian list of
sacred estates located at Euboea. Ever since Raubitschek’s editio princeps
the inscription has been placed in the period between 430 and 410 on the
basis of the lettering, and this dating has hitherto remained uncontested.
Raubitschek saw the list in question as due to expropriation of properties
following the Athenian expedition in Euboea recounted by Philochorus.
The other piece of pertinent evidence is also Aristophanic: a joke in the

73
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
Knights makes the Chalcidians appear as prone to revolt.44 Now the
Knights was produced in early 424. Does the chronological proximity give
more credibility to Philochorus’ Athenian invasion in Euboea in the ar-
chontic year 424/3? It certainly could. The events of 446 can be instructive
not as a context for the decree, but as a parallel for its context. Troubles
and Athenian defeat in Boeotia led to widespread unrest and eventual
revolt in neighbouring Euboea, in a way that might anticipate the events
of 424/3 following Athens’ defeat at the battle of Delion. Admittedly, the
major problem in downdating the Chalcis decree was, and continues to be,
Thucydides’ silence. Could the great historian have possibly overlooked
such a major event? After all, the overtly imperialistic overtones of the
decree, most historians believe, suggest the response to a major upheaval.
One cannot negate the impact of such obvious points as the Athenians’
sadistic refusal to resolve the hostages’ fate. What may strike one as
particularly lenient, though, is the punishment clause at the end of the
Chalcidian oath: ‘Whoever does not take the oath is to be deprived of his
civic rights and his property shall be confiscated and the one tenth shall
be the sacred property of Zeus Olympios.’ Now, we are not explicitly told
who was to benefit from such a confiscation. We are told, however, that the
tithe had to be paid into the sacred treasury of Zeus Olympios. But this is
the sacred treasury of what was presumably the most important deity in
Chalcis: according to the publication clause in lines 61-63, the Chalcidian
stele containing the oath was to be erected in the shrine of Zeus Olympios.
It appears then that the one-tenth of the property of the potential violator
was to benefit not the sacred treasury of Athens, but that of Chalcis – not
a very predatory resolution on behalf of the Athenians. It is a fair guess
then that the fund to benefit from the 9/10 of such properties would have
been the demosion, the public treasury, of Chalcis.45 At all events, it seems
that Athens trusted at least one sacred establishment that was not under
her direct control. Perhaps the whole notion of ‘a widespread Chalcidian
revolt crushed by unforgiving Athens’ is seriously misleading. Perhaps one
should pay fresh heed to the diallag2, the reconciliation mentioned in line
51, and think in terms of a Chalcidian stasis, with the victorious party
supporting Athens.46 The active po2sosi, instead of the middle po2sontai,
arguably portrays the Athenians as relatively impartial arbitrators,
rather than as one of the parties involved. There is, however, not much
point in isolating specific clauses that might strengthen the lower dating
of the Chalcis decree: the process could go on for ever. We can only conclude
that an Archidamian War context is not out of the question.47
In 422 the Athenians passed yet another of their numerous honorific
decrees for a Siphnian benefactor called Polypeithes. Abundant prosopog-
raphical evidence establishes that the honorand’s family had a constant
entrepreneurial presence in Athens over a period of two centuries, a
striking reminder that honorific decrees, far from being superfluous for-
malities, often reflected very tangible links.48 In any case, few in the

74
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
assembly would have noticed the proposer, yet in less than a decade his
name was to be in everybody’s lips, mostly for the wrong reasons. The
arrogant young proposer was struggling to make an impact on Athenian
political life, or so Thucydides informs us, but for the time being he had to
content himself with this inconspicuous piece of external politics. His
name was Alcibiades and the new decree is the earliest evidence for the
flamboyant politician’s participation in Athens’ public domain.49 Inciden-
tally the association of the secretary Archicles with the eponymous archon
Alcaios, as attested in the Alcibiades decree, requires two proxeny decrees
to be brought up to this year, whereas most scholars other than Mattingly
placed them in the 410s.50 One of them acquires thereby an enlightening
historical context. The proxeny of Callippos from the Thessalian city
Gyrtone, which, one ought to note, was passed on a gnèmh strathgîn, a
proposal by the generals,51 can now be very satisfactorily associated with
the Thessalians’ blocking of the Peloponnesian expeditionary force led by
Ramphias in 421 (Thuc. 5.13).52
There is little need to emphasise that the text that has featured most
heavily in the discussion about the chronology of Athenian public docu-
ments is IG I3 11, Foedus Atheniensium cum Segestanis. Both the
classificatory label and the Latin caption prove to be misnomers; not only
because the number 11 places the text very early in the series of Athenian
decrees – in the archonship of Habron, in 458/7 – but also because the text
is not in fact an alliance, but an exchange of oaths between the Athenians
and the Egestans.53 After a long-standing fierce debate the matter has now
been settled to most scholars’ satisfaction, and few would refuse to place
IG I3 11 in the archonship of Antiphon in 418/7.54 The picture that emerges
concerning Athens’ action on the western front before the ill-fated Sicilian
expedition is the following. In 433/2 envoys from Rhegion and Leontinoi
arrived at Athens, exchanged oaths and signed two separate alliances in
perpetuity (ML 63 and 64). I note that these were first-time alliances, not
renewals of pre-existing ones. In the summer of 427 the Athenians were
called by Leontinoi and their allies to help them in their war against
Syracuse on the basis of their kinship and of an older alliance (Thuc.
III.86). We surely have to understand that the older alliance is that of
433/2. A contingent of 20 ships was readily dispatched under Laches. It
now becomes all but certain that it was on that occasion that the Atheni-
ans concluded a treaty with the Egestans.55 In 418/7 oaths were exchanged
between the two parties, clearly a renewal of the 420s alliance.56 At
approximately the same time the Athenians made a treaty with another
Elymian city, Halicyai, which they inscribed on the same stone as that of
the oaths with the Egestans (IG I3 12). Clearly the Athenians were
strengthening their network of alliances with Sicilian cities at least three
years before their gigantic expedition of 415. The new reconstruction
acquits Thucydides of the accusation that he failed to mention the alliance
of 418/7. It also provides a more nuanced picture of what was going on

75
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
during the Peace of Nicias, by allowing for a longer spawning period for
the Sicilian expedition.
Epigraphically Athens’ western engagement per se has won nothing
new, and in fact it may have been deprived of something if Kallet is right
in her claim that the content of ML 78 – the fragmentary decrees that are
thought to refer to the Sicilian Expedition – cannot be reconciled with
Thucydides’ account, at least not with that of the assembly of 415.57 But
the aftermath of Sicily is now reputed to have acquired a new crowning in
the form of a recently published casualty list, arguably the most important
new text concerning the Peloponnesian War. Discovered near the Erian
Gate, the casualty list in question preserves two separate catalogues of
names, all probably of the tribe Erechtheis.58 It is worth noting that
whereas the lower catalogue has three-bar sigmas, the upper one does not.
Although no titular designations are preserved, onomastic evidence, espe-
cially patently Boeotian names, has led the excavator to connect the list to
the dead of the Sicilian expedition. Her interpretation is mainly based on
Pausanias’ description of the DhmÒsion SÁma (the Public Cemetery). Such
Boeotian names as Hieroitades, Melidoros, Cleimelos etc., the editor be-
lieves, belong to the Plataeans honoured along with the Athenian fallen
soldiers after Sicily.59 It is hard to say whether this analysis is right. The
editor’s tentative identification of Callistratos with the homonymous hip-
parch who died in Sicily is patently erroneous because the tribal affiliation
is wrong.60 She seems, however, to be right in arguing that the new list
belonged to the same monument as the funerary epigram IG I3 1163; but
the latter is thought to have been inscribed either for the dead of the battle
of Coroneia (446) or for those who fell at Delion (424). The whole question
ought to be revisited.61
Less dramatic has been the impact of redatings on the last stage of the
conflict between Athens and Sparta, the so-called Ionian War. Here be-
longs one of the lengthiest Athenian documents, the honorific naval
catalogue IG I3 1032, that enumerates the crews of eight triremes. With its
extensive entries of slave rowers the record in question had long been
thought to refer to the battle of Arginousai, but Graham masterfully
provided an earlier context, the naval expedition of the general Strom-
bichides in the eastern Aegean in 412.62 If, as I believe, Graham is right,
not only do we gain a unique glimpse into what was in effect the earliest
Athenian attempt at securing the empire following the first desertions of
413/2, we can also correct a major misunderstanding concerning the
manning of the Athenian fleet. Slaves, accompanying their masters, were
employed en masse as rowers even before the battle of Arginousai.63 The
thranitês leos, the bench-mob of Athenian drama, appears to be an ideo-
logical construction, at least as concerns its alleged civic exclusivity. Last
but not least, the unpublished casualty list from the Athens Metro exca-
vations mentioned above, or at least part of it, could also find a
chronological fix in this period. Following the excavator’s provisional

76
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
remarks, we might accept that the list in Ionian script along with its
accompanying epigram commemorate the successful Athenian invasion of
the Megarid of 409/8.64 Once more, we must plead for a prompt full
publication which will allow proper historical analysis.
Greek scholars may be familiar with Sigeion either in a late Archaic
context, or from historical accounts of the Ionian War. Nevertheless, it has
long been thought that 451/0 was the year when Athens decided to honour
the citizens of Sigeion for their goodwill, as well as to offer them protection
against any possible wrongdoings perpetrated by people in the Continent
(presumably Asia Minor). Revealingly, the crucial text is IG I3 17, or Agora
XVI no. 1; in other words, it appears to be the earliest extant decree from
the American excavations of the Athenian Agora. But the traditional
restoration that has the archon An[tidotos] of 451/0 can be readily dis-
missed: an archontic formula has no place in the prescript of such an early
Athenian decree. Predictably Mattingly opted for the archon An[tiphon] of
418/7. The fact that the Sigeion decree seems to have been cut by the same
mason who carved the treaty with Hermione, from the early 420s, as I
have already mentioned, seems to support Mattingly’s interpretation.65
But there is yet another late-fifth-century archon whose name can be
supplemented in IG I3 17, namely An[tigenes] of 407/6. I hope to show
elsewhere that the latter has to be preferred on epigraphical and historical
grounds. The Sigeion decree then would be the by-product of the constant
state of emergency Athens found herself in throughout the Ionian War. It
is almost a world apart from the imperialistic mentality of the 420s, but a
world visibly reflected in a series of lenient settlements found in other
contemporary inscriptions.66 Political weakness and realism meant that
late fifth-century Athens had been transformed into a very humble and
grateful ruler indeed.

Some provisional conclusions

With this first conclusion, treatment of individual documents will have to
stop. It was selective, and at places insufficient, given the self-evident
space restrictions. For instance, no mention has been made of the Athe-
nian Tribute Lists, the most important Attic inscriptions ever discovered,
as Stroud branded them in his recent David Lewis Memorial Lecture at
Oxford.67 At least I hope to have shown that, occasional new finds aside,
the extant documents with no internal chronological indications need to
be reviewed in their totality. I also hope to have made clear that such a
review has the potential for a domino-effect, which is hardly surprising
given that the system of chronological classification is of an interactive
structure: once we rearrange a considerable number of parts of this
structure others will have to follow. Consequently, the question that arises
perforce is: how do the new chronological cards affect our understanding
of the Athenian empire, if at all? To begin with, there is a rather unfortu-

77
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
nate side-effect: as it happens, the notorious Pentekontaetia becomes even
less-documented. To mention only some of the least controversial redat-
ings, the Coinage, Miletos, and Egesta decrees tell us nothing whatsoever
about the period preceding the Peloponnesian War. Sad as it is, we have
to learn to live with an even more defective knowledge of pre-430s Athe-
nian history. At least we still have Thucydides’ first book, Diodorus and
Plutarch’s (problematic) accounts, and echoes of the Athenian political –
some might even call it imperialistic – discourse in Attic drama. There is
also some good epigraphical evidence, namely casualty lists, financial
accounts, the early series of the Tribute Lists, and some other inscriptions
that are firmly fixed in the pre-Peloponnesian War period. The most
notable such example is the regulations concerning Erythrai (ML 40). One
can hardly feel confident enough to pronounce on a text that has not been
seen since Fauvel copied it more than two centuries ago. Instinctively, I
regard it as rather unlikely that one single ‘imperialistic’ text was pro-
duced in the 450s, and I wonder whether the Erythrai decree could not be
placed along with those concerning Colophon, Miletos and Phaselis near
or in the Peloponnesian War.
In his introduction to Mattingly’s Athenian Empire Restored, Chambers
noted that the Athenian Standards decree in its low chronological setting
advocated by Mattingly is ‘part of a policy of the strict administration of
the Athenian Empire that probably began in the 420s, not in the 440s’.68
This is questionable, however. To use a cliché, the absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence. The fact that very few ‘imperialistic’ documents
predate the Peloponnesian War does not mean that before 431 Athens was
a peace-loving benevolent polity that sought to promote democracy and
protect liberties against the dark forces of oppression and backwardness.69
It is misleading to see any substantial difference between Periclean and
Cleonian Athens. After all, in his last speech to the Athenian assembly,
Pericles could blatantly and unequivocally state to his audience that ‘by
this time your hegemony has become like a tyranny’.70 But if so, how are
we to account for the evident increase in the number of decrees produced
from the 420s onwards? My impression is that we have to look for a
bipartite answer. Part of it may lie in the proliferation of the so-called
epigraphical habit.71 The Athenians started recording increasingly larger
numbers of their public resolutions on permanent material. Here the same
old questions will arise: should we see the Athenian demagogues, the
scorned successors of Pericles, behind this tendency? In other words, is the
expanded epigraphical habit the outcome of the proliferation of radical
democracy?72 Or, alternatively, did Athens’ new habit result from the
parlous war conditions? Or even, did the two go hand in hand together?
The other possibility, not incompatible with the possibilities I have just
mentioned, is that the Athenians actually passed more decrees in this
period. Here we can briefly focus on one specific category: it is my convic-
tion that a fresh re-examination of all fifth-century Athenian decrees, an

78
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
undertaking I could not possibly carry out in these pages, will bring down
the chronology of numerous proxeny decrees.73 To be fair, this exercise has
already been undertaken by a German scholar whose work has been
unjustifiably overlooked.74 Of course, proxeny was not a new institution.
But, somehow I suspect that it underwent a dual, qualitative and quanti-
tative, transformation in this period. Those enjoying the honour of being
proxenoi and benefactors of Athens increased in number, but the overall
status of such men probably dropped. No longer the old upper-class
aristocrats, at least not in their majoriy, the new proxenoi were Athens’
henchmen, the people who secretively helped Athens administer an em-
pire in constant turmoil.75 It was not an easy job, and many of them would
have provoked the hatred of their less servile compatriots, as the abundant
protection clauses preserved in proxeny decrees make clear.
Of course this cannot be the end of the story. John Ma, for instance, has
provocatively spoken of epigraphical snapshots.76 Is this then what inscrip-
tions boil down to, mere snapshots? To an extent the answer will be in the
affirmative. Still, these are snapshots that allow for a more nuanced
picture of fifth-century history. And once we put the fragments together
we can hopefully aim at providing a more reliable answer to the question
what the postmodern, postcolonial, post-Cold-War, post-Iraq-War, and
even neocon Athenian empire is about. Historiographically, the twenty-
first century Athenian Empire has the potential to be an excitingly novel
entity.77 Chronologically, however – and this is the paradoxical conclusion
of this paper – it stands much closer to some nineteenth-century models
than does its post-ATL predecessor.

Notes
1. I wish to thank A. P. Matthaiou and R. Stroud not only for their help, but also
because their recent work on the epigraphy of the Athenian empire was my main
source of inspiration. I also owe gratitude to P.J. Rhodes for sharing with me his
article ‘After the three-bar sigma controversy: the history of Athenian imperialism
reassessed’ (Rhodes 2008) before publication. I am glad to say that, although our
conclusions are not identical, they, more often than not, overlap.
2. ATL.
3. The authors of ATL were not the first to advocate this principle. Köhler (1867)
17 is an early example; for a fuller treatment see Rhodes (2008). The fame of their
work, however, was such that all but silenced any dissident voices. In his review
of ATL, the great Marcus Tod saw it coming; Tod (1949) 106: ‘Before leaving this
decree (i.e. the Coinage decree), may I appeal to the experts, and primarily the
authors of this book, to reconsider its date before the weight of their authority gives
unquestioned validity to their present view?’ Alas, Tod’s appeal was effectively
ignored and the rest is, as they say, history.
4. His relevant contributions have been conveniently collected in Mattingly (1996).
5. Chambers, Galluci, Spanos (1990); cf. Chambers (1993). Previous advocates
of the low chronology include, apart from Mattingly, Smart (1972), Wick (1975),
and Cataldi (1984).

79
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
6. In particular Henry (1992), (1998) and (2001), who still stands for the old
cause with admirable and valiant spirit, adducing some admittedly cogent argu-
ments.
7. See below, p. 000. The results of Chambers, Galluci, Spanos had sufficed to
convince a few, e.g. Vickers (1996). Even (a previously cautious) Stroud (1999) 132
appeared receptive to the new redatings. See now Rhodes (2008), a self-confessed
convert.
8. Mattingly (1974a) 90-3, 102; response by Henry (1979) (‘Archon dating is
regular, but not mandatory, after 421 BC’); and now J. Morgan apud Henry (2001)
98-9. See also Sickinger (1999) 84-5.
9. Concise account in Shipley (1987) 113-20; for the chronological particulars
see Fornara and Lewis (1979).
10. IG I3 1492-9. For the low, post 439, date of these three-bar-sigma horoi see
Tod (1949) 106; Mattingly (1961) 149-50; Tsakos (1977) 76-8; Smarczyk (1990)
73-83; and now Gallo (2005) 250-2.
11. Cavanaugh (1996) 29-95, with copious secondary bibliography.
12. IG I3 78.30-6, esp. l. 33, 1>n bÒlontai (‘if they wish’).
13. 434/3 is the orthodox date. Samons (2000) 129-33 favours early 432, whereas
Kallet (1989) thinks of the summer of 431. There are still some, however, who
challenge the opinio communis; see, e.g., Kennelly (2003) (either before 437, or
during the Peace of Nicias). And Humphreys (2004) 137-9, while accepting the
traditional date, dissociates the decree from any security concerns.
14. See Cavanaugh (1996) 19-27.
15. What follows is based on the long preliminary report provided by Parlama
(2000). Ho8de ,Aqena8on Hippej ¢p2qano[n] 1n Tan£grai ka< 1SpartÒlo[i] (‘the
following Athenian cavalrymen died at Tanagra and at Spartolos’) is the text
offered by the excavator.
16. Tanagra (Athenian victory): Thuc. 3.91.3-5, with Gomme (1956) 394; Diod.
Sic. 12.65.3-4. Spartolos (Athenian defeat): Thuc. 2.79, with Fantasia (2003) 537-9.
17. Cf. Meiggs (1966) 86: ‘We know that war casualties were recorded by the
state for each year’s fighting.’ The fact that the two battles would have been
recorded in reverse chronological order is equally disconcerting.
18. Cf. Low (2002) 104.
19. I note that the chronological reconstruction offered by Badian apud Moreno
(2007) 100-1n.114, though considerably different (Tanagra = Delion, Spartolos =
unattested battle, both 424/3 BC), is based on similar premises, thus reinforcing
my main argument.
20. Thuc. 2.56.5. As Westlake (1945) has long shown, such raids were actually
central to Periclean strategy, but have often been overlooked because of Thucydides’
tacit disapproval of them. For a more nuanced view see Holladay (1978), esp. 400-3.
21. Thuc. 4.45.2.
22. Unsurprisingly, Mattingly (1961) 173, was the first to argue for the low
chronology of IG I3 31, only to be dismissed by Meritt and Wade-Gery (1963) 103.
Jameson (2000-3) 27-8 seems to have settled the issue for good. Amongst modern
Thucydidean commentators, Hornblower (1996) 204 was impressed, but not won
over by Mattingly, whereas Fantasia (2003) 451-2 now favours the reconstruction
of events advocated here, independently from Jameson.
23. Thuc. 3.34.3: ‘(Paches) then gave Notion to the Kolophonians other than the
Medising party. Later the Athenians sent founders and settled Notion under
Athenian laws, collecting all the Kolophonians from the cities’ (translated by
Rhodes (1994)). The Thucydidean ‘founders’ (o9kist£j) would arguably be the

80
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
same as the ‘founders’ (l. 40, o9kista8) of the inscription (Mattingly (1961) 175).
This reconstruction is now accepted by Rubinstein in Hansen and Nielsen (2004)
1078 (s.v. Colophon).
24. On the traditional dating (summarized in ML 47), we should duplicate
Athens’ colonial undertakings in the area of Colophon, certainly an uneconomical
assumption (but see Rhodes (2007) 22, and Bolmarcich (2007) 32, both defending
the high chronology). Pace Meiggs and Lewis, the decree does not prove that
Colophon (as opposed to Notion) was in Athenian control.
25. Good synopsis in ML 31.
26. Jameson (2000-3); for Leon see Thuc. 5.19.2, with Hornblower (1996) 489.
27. Threatte (1996) 96-9.
28. Gorman (2001) 226 offers a good summary of the various interpretations,
but herself remains agnostic.
29. It is a regrettably forgotten fact that the first editor to deal with the
inscription, Koumanoudes (1876) 82-5, very reasonably assigned to it a date after
426/5. It was only with Kirchhoff in IG I Suppl. 22a that emendation of the archon
list started. Regrettably, Oliver (1936) 182 took Kirchhoff’s chronology for granted,
and others have followed suit. Wade-Gery and Meritt (1957) 183 is a clear case of
methodological double-talk (they use the evidence of IG I3 21 as a proof that
Diodorus was wrong, but of course this begs the question); see also Bradeen and
McGregor (1973) 65. The latest adherent to the high chronology is Gorman (2001)
225-6. Matthaiou (2004) 120, and Stroud (2006) 17, now urge a return to Kouma-
noudes’ date. Last but not least, it has to be made clear that the archonship of
Euthynos provides not the date of IG I3 21, but a terminus post quem. The
restoration of an archontic formula in line 3 of the decree is far from certain:
re-examination is badly needed.
30. Thuc. IV.42.1: ‘of the allies men joined them (i.e. the Athenians) from
Miletos, Andros and Carystos’; IV.53.1: ‘The Athenians in the same summer
campaigned against Cythera, with sixty ships, two thousand hoplites and a few
cavalry, and taking from the allies Milesians and some others’; 54.1: ‘With ten
ships and two thousand Milesian hoplites they captured the coastal city called
Skandeia’ (translated by Rhodes 1998). Commenting on these passages Gomme
(1956) 489 astutely observed: ‘Doubtless Ar. Eq. 361 is an allusion, obscure to us,
to their (sc. the Milesians’) present activities’. I think that the connection can
stand, but is indirect. The Aristophanic verse (¢ll, oÙ l£brakaj katafagën
Milhs8oij klonseij) makes better sense in the context of IG I3 21, even though
the allusion remains as obscure today as it was to Gomme.
31. The counter-argument of Meritt and Wade-Gerry (1963) 101-2n.14 is
irrelevant.
32. Inschriften von Milet VI 3, 1021. The stonecutter appears to have applied
syllabification across lines; toÚtwi in line 7 is tempting. More interestingly, the
sequence of letters KATO in line 6 could belong to some form of the verb
katÒmnumi. If so, an oath is envisaged. But Matthaiou (2008), who also ponders
some form of the verb katoik2w, may well be right.
33. See Thonemann (2007) 545 and, in more detail, Matthaiou (2008), both of
whom restore l. 3 as E[!.c.8!. 1gramm£teue]. This small point has implications
for the date of the inscription.
34. The old fragments can be found in IG I3 1453, the copy from Hamaxitos in
Mattingly (1993); new (second) fragment from Aphytis: Hatzopoulos (2000-3).
35. Hatzopoulos (2000-2003), strengthening the low chronology and discounting
many of the theories advocated by Figueira (1998).

81
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
36. Ar. Av. 1040-1041: crÁsqai Nefelokokkugi©j to!j aÙto!j m2troisi ka<
staqmo!si ka< yhf8smasi kaq£per ,OlofÚxioi, with Dunbar (1995) 567-9. See
also Kallet (2001) 218 with n. 133, for a rather diffident support of this very low
chronology.
37. Editio princeps: Inglese (2002) 231-2. As reported in SEG LII 43, the text
will soon be fully published by Matthaiou.
38. 424 seems to be a reasonable date: see Mattingly (1961) 153; Mattingly
(1970) 131-2; Samons (2000) 188-93.
39. In the latest major exploration of the decree Ostwald (2002) 136 affirms:
‘That the date of the decree is 446 BC is almost universally agreed.’
40. S in Vespas 718: <t>> per< t]n EÜboian dÚnatai ka< aÙt> sun®dein ta!j
Didaskal8aij: p2rusi g>r 1p< ¥rcontoj ,Is£rcou 1str£teusan 1p, aÙtn, æj
FilÒcoroj. ‘The events concerning Euboea can also be reconciled with the perform-
ance (of the Wasps); for it was in the previous year, in the archonship of Isarchos
(424/3), that they (sc. the Athenians) campaigned against it (sc. Euboea), as
Philochorus (attests)’.
41. Kassel and Austin F 231. For the date see Storey (2003) 216-17 (but
Kyriakidi (2007) 20-1 prefers the year 420 BC).
42. Ar. Pax 1046-7; cf. Flower (2008) 62-3, who, however, prefers the high
chronology for ML 52.
43. Mattingly (2002).
44. Ar. Knights 236-7: tout< t8 dr? tÕ CalkidikÕn potrion; oÙk 4sq, Ópwj oÙ
Calkid2aj ¢f8staton. The ancient scholiasts were uncertain as to whether the
Euboean Chalcis or Chalcidice is implied here. Sommerstein (1981) 155 thinks of
the former, citing the evidence of the Chalcidian drinking-cups kept in the Parthe-
non (e.g. IG I3 299, ll. 50-1; 301, l. 23; 350, l. 81 etc.; cf. Harris (1995) 101).
45. Cf. the neat note by Balcer (1978) 72, who, however, did not draw the
present inference.
46. The dominant yet unsatisfactory view (diallag as a renewal of hostages)
is that of Garlan (1965) 332-8, who, while providing ample testimonia for the use
of diallag as reconciliation, refused to endorse that interpretation, no doubt
because he was exclusively thinking of a confrontation between two cities. But,
ever since Dreher (1995) 113-31 has convincingly argued that the term diallaga8
(plural) in RO 29 can only refer to an interstate agreement mediated by the Second
Athenian League (cf. Low (2007) 49), Garlan’s rejected premises received further
support. It is noteworthy that Dreher (1995) 119 could only cite one example of the
term diallag designating an international arbitration, that of the Chalcis decree
(on the authority of Garlan).
47. Just to bring some outside authority, Knoepfler (2001) 73n.285 now believes
that the redating might fit better the developments in late fifth-century Eretrian
history.
48. Editio princeps: Matthaiou 2000 (SEG L 45).
49. Criticism of Alcibiades’ young age: Thuc. 5.43; for the statesman himself see
Hatzfeld 1940.
50. IG I3 91 and 92, with Mattingly 1974a, 91, who made the simple observation
that the absence of an archontic formula from the prescripts of the two proxenies
excluded any date post 421 (cf. p. 000 above).
51. That is, the context of IG I3 92 must have beem military. The introductory
formula is extremely unusual, but one might wish to consider Thuc. 2.12.2 (Ãn
g>r Perikl2ouj gnèmh prÒteron nenikhku!a kruka ka< presbe8an m]
prosd2cesqai Lakedaimon8wn 1xestrateum2nwn), which certainly refers to a pro-

82
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
posal by Pericles qua general, although Thucydides’ penchant for the term gnèmh
may be at play here. But then again Thuc. 4.122.6 uses the similar expression
Kl2wnoj gnèmV peisq2ntej (persuaded by Cleon’s proposal) to describe a decree
moved by Cleon, when the latter probably served as general (cf. Mattingly 1974c,
383-4). The topic merits further investigation.
52. For some subtleties underlying this passage see Gomme 1956, 657-8, and
Hornblower 1996, 457-8. Gomme, in particular, played down the Thessalian
involvement contra Steup.
53. Matthaiou (2004) 107.
54. For a thorough treatment of the text see now Matthaiou (2004) summarised
in SEG LII 41.
55. Thuc. 6.6.2, as scrutinised by Matthaiou (2004) 113-117.
56. I note that the year of Antiphon fell ten years after the original alliance.
But, perhaps more pertinently, it was also a Panathenaic year. When in 420 the
Athenians made an alliance with Argos, Elis and Mantineia, the latter undertook
to renew it via oaths to be taken ten days before the Great Panathenaia (i.e. every
four years): Thuc. 5.47.10, with Gomme, Andrewes and Dover (1970) 61. Interest-
ingly the first renewal of oaths on behalf of the three Peloponnesian cities would
have taken place in the archonship of Antiphon. Could the Egestans have abided
by a similar clause in the original alliance of 427/6 when they sent their own envoys
to Athens in 418/7 with the aim of renewing the treaty?
57. Kallet (2001) 184-95.
58. Ed. pr: Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) = SEG LII 60.
59. Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) 94 and 98-100, citing Paus. 1.29.11-12: ‘After
those who were killed at Corinth, we come across elegiac verses declaring that one
and the same slab has been erected to those who died in Euboea and Chios, and to
those who perished in the remote parts of the continent of Asia, or in Sicily. The
names of the generals are inscribed with the exception of Nicias, and among the
private soldiers are included the Plataeans along with the Athenians’ (translated
by Jones 1918). But the passage is problematic, if not corrupt: see Pritchett (1998)
44-53; idem (1999) 59-60.
60. Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) 99, but the hipparch Callistratos, son of Empedos,
mentioned by Paus. 7.16.5-6, was of the deme Oe and therefore of the tribe Oineis
(see LGPN II, Kall8stratoj (94)), whereas the new Callistratos is listed under
the tribe Erechtheis.
61. 446 is the date of IG I3 1163 given in the corpus. Delion: Mattingly (1963)
261-2; idem (1966) 176-7, 191-2. Griffith (1988) has argued that the epigram was
composed by the Chian tragedian Ion.
62. See Graham (1992) and especially Graham (1998); an early date had already
been argued for by Jordan (1975) 71-2. Laing (1965) was the first to establish that
eight triremes were recorded in IG I3 1032, and the number fits well the informa-
tion provided by Thuc. 8.15-16.
63. Ironically, this view was dominant in nineteenth-century German scholar-
ship, but later, starting with Sargeant 1927, the opposite position (minimal use of
slaves) prevailed (see, e.g., Amit (1965) 31-7). The thesis supported here has
recently been defended by Hunt (2006) 25-9.
64. Parlama (2000) 399, citing Diod. Sic. XIII.65.1-2; one should add Hell. Ox.
(Florence, Fr. A, col. 1) with Andrewes (1992) 486. However, Badian apud Moreno
(2007) 100-1n.114 would place this Megarian skirmish in 424/3 BC.
65. Mattingly (1963) 270-1; idem (1974b) 349-51, 283-4; idem (2000) 132-9.
Accepted now by Rhodes (2008).

83
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
66. See Smarczyk (1986), esp. 5-34.
67. Stroud (2006) 10. On 26-32, the author cunningly treats another challenging
(three-bar sigma) text omitted in the present study, namely the so-called accounts
for the construction of the statue of Athena Promachos. On the numerous uncer-
tainties surrounding the traditional interpretation of the Athenian Tribute Lists
see Kallet (2004).
68. Chambers apud Mattingly (1996) x.
69. Athens and democracy: see Brock in this volume.
70. Thuc. 2.63.2: see now Meyer (2008) 23-4 with n. 53, for some earlier
interpretations.
71. Cf. Hedrick (1999), who, however, submits that the number of published
documents dwindled in the last quarter of the fifth century. His inferences may
have to be reconsidered, if my main argument is sound.
72. Epigraphy and democracy: Pébarthe (2005), a subtle discussion.
73. See, for instance, the fragmentary honorific (proxeny?) decree IG I3 30.
Disregarding the presence of three-bar sigmas, Morgan (2001) now urges the
downdating of the decree from the 450s to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War,
connecting it to an otherwise unattested operation when an Athenian expedition
under Cimon’s son Lakedaimonios forced Thera into Athens’ alliance. And Mat-
tingly (2007) 107-8 has now launched another of his fierce attacks on
three-bar-sigma documents, by lowering the date of IG I3 27 (proxeny of Del-
phians?) to c. 430.
74. Reiter (1991). Walbank (1978), who bases his reconstruction on the three-
bar sigma criterion, is certainly cited more often.
75. On that I disagree with Reiter (1991); some of the conclusions of Gerolyma-
tos (1986) seem preferable.
76. In one of his interventions at the Oxford seminar that gave rise to the
present volume.
77. Related issues are dealt with by Kallet in this volume.

Bibliography
Amit, M. (1965), Athens and the Sea: A Study in Athenian Sea-Power (Bruxelles).
Andrewes, A. (1992), ‘The Spartan Resurgence’, in Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd
edn, vol. V (Cambridge), 464-98.
Balcer, J. M. (1978), The Athenian Regulations for Chalkis. Studies in Athenian
Imperial Law, Historia Einzelschriften 33.
Bolmarcich, S. (2007), ‘Oaths in Greek International Relations’, in A.H. Sommer-
stein and J. Fletcher (eds), Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society (Exeter), 26-38.
Bradeen, D.W. and McGregor, M.F. (1973), Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigra-
phy (Norman OK).
Cataldi, S. (1984), La democrazia ateniese e gli alleati (Padova).
Cavanaugh, M.B. (1996), Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and
Politics in the Fifth Century BC (Atlanta).
Chambers, M., Galluci, R., Spanos, M. (1990), ‘Athens’ Alliance with Egesta in the
Year of Antiphon’, ZPE 83: 38-60.
Chambers, M. (1993), ‘The Archon’s Name in the Athens-Egesta Alliance (IG I3 11),
ZPE 98: 171-4.
Dreher, M. (1995), Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum Zweiten
Athenischen Seebund (Berlin and New York).
Dunbar, N. (1995), Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford).

84
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
Fantasia, U. (2003), Tucidide: La Guerra del Peloponneso. Libro II (Pisa).
Flower, M.A. (2008), The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley and Los Angeles).
Fornara, C.W. and Lewis, D.M. (1979), ‘On the Chronology of the Samian War’,
JHS 99: 7-19.
Gallo, L. (2005), ‘Samo e Atene’, in L. Breglia and M. Lupi (eds), Da Elea a Samo:
Filosofi e politici di fronte all’impero ateniese (Napoli), 247-58.
Garlan, Y. (1965), ‘Études d’histoire militaire et diplomatique’, BCH 89: 332-48.
Gomme, A.W. (1956), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Volume III: Books
IV-V 24 (Oxford).
Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K.J. (1970), A Historical Commentary on
Thucydides. Volume IV: Books V 25-VII (Oxford).
Gorman, V.B. (2001), Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia: A History of the City to 400
BCE (Ann Arbor).
Graham, A.J. (1992), ‘Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Trieremes’,
TAPA 122: 257-70.
——— (1998), ‘Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Trieremes: An
Addendum’, TAPA 128: 89-114.
Griffith, J.G. (1988), ‘The Epigram for the Athenians who fell at the Battle of
Coronea’, in Griffith, Festinat Senex (Oxford), 24-30.
Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (2004), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical
Poleis (Oxford).
Harris, D. (2005), The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford).
Hatzfeld, J. (1940), Alcibiade. Étude sur l’histoire d’Athènes à la fin de Ve siècle
(Paris).
Hatzopoulos, M. (2000-2003), ‘N2o ¢pÒtmhma ¢pÕ t]n -Afuti toà ¢ttikoà
yhf8smatoj per< nom8smatoj staqmîn ka< m2trwn’, Horos 14-16: 31-43.
Hedrick, C.W. (1999), ‘Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit’, Hesperia
68: 387-439.
Henry, A.S. (1979), ‘Archon-Dating in Fifth Century Attic Decrees: The 421 Rule’,
Chiron 9: 23-30.
——— (1992), ‘Through a Laser Beam Darkly: Space-age Technology and the
Egesta Decree (IG I3 11)’, ZPE 91: 137-46.
——— (1995), ‘Pour encourager les autres: Athens and Egesta encore’, CQ 45:
237-40.
——— (1998), ‘The Sigma Enigma’, ZPE 120: 45-8.
——— (2001), ‘The Sigma Stigma’, ZPE 137: 93-105.
Holladay, A.J. (1978), ‘Athenian Strategy in the Archidamian War’, Historia 27:
399-427.
Hornblower, S. (1996), A Commentary on Thucydides. Volume II: Books IV-V.24
(Oxford).
Hunt, P. (2006), ‘Arming Slaves and Helots in Classical Greece’, in C. L. Brown
and P. D. Morgan (eds), Arming Slaves: From Classical Times to the Modern
Age (New Haven and London), 14-39.
Humphreys, S.C. (2004), The Strangeness of Gods: Historical Perspectives on the
Interpretation of Athenian Religion (Oxford).
Inglese, A. (2002), ‘Due iscrizioni ateniesi dal portico di Eumene’, PP 57: 231-6.
Jameson, M. (2000-3), ‘Athens and Phaselis, IG I3 10 (EM 6918)’, Horos 14-16: 23-9.
Jones, W.H.A. (1918), Pausanias. Description of Greece. Books I-II (Cambridge
MA).
Jordan, B. (1975), The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: A Study of Athenian

85
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth
Centuries BC (Berkeley).
Kallet, L. (1989), ‘The Kallias Decree, Thucydides, and the Outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War’, CQ 39: 94-113.
——— (2001), Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian
Expedition and its Aftermath (Berkeley and Los Angeles).
——— (2004), ‘Epigraphic Geography: The Tribute Quota Fragments Assigned to
421/0-415/4 BC’, Hesperia 73: 465-96.
Kennelly, J.J. (2003), ‘Kallias A (IG I3 52A) and Thucydides 2.13.3’, in G.W.
Bakewell, and J.P. Sickinger (eds), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Litera-
ture, and Philosophy Presented to Alan L. Boegehold (Oxford), 284-6.
Knoepfler, D. (2001), Eretria. Fouilles et recherches XI. Décrets érétriens de
proxénie et de citoyenneté (Lausanne).
Köhler, U. (1867), ‘Attische Inschriften’, Hermes 2: 16-36.
Koumanoudes, S. (1876), ‘,Attika< 1pigrafa<’, Athenaion 5: 74-106.
Kyriakidi, N. (2007), Aristophanes und Eupolis. Zur Geschichte einer dichterischen
Rivalität (Berlin and New York).
Laing, D.R. (1965), A New Interpretation of the Athenian Catalogue IG II2 1951,
Diss. Cincinnati.
Low, P. (2002), ‘Cavalry Identity and Democratic Ideology in Early Fourth-Cen-
tury Athens’, PCPS 48: 102-22.
——— (2007), Interstate Relations in Classical Greece: Morality and Power (Cam-
bridge).
Matthaiou, A. P. (2000), ‘,AttikÕ yfisma prÕj tim]n Polupe8qouj Sifn8ou’, in
Praktik> A/ Dieqnoàj Sifna_koà Sumpos8ou. TÒmoj A/. ,Arca!oi CrÒnoi (Ath-
ens), 239-48.
——— (2004), ‘Per< tÁj IG I3 11’, in A.P. Matthaiou and G.E. Malouchou (eds),
,Attika< 1pigrafa8. Praktik> sumpos8ou e9j mnmhn Adolf Wilhelm (Athens),
99-122.
——— (2008), ‘Inschriften von Milet VI 3, 1021: A Note’, ZPE 165 (2008), 84-6.
Mattingly, H.B. (1961), ‘The Athenian Coinage Decree’, Historia 10: 148-88.
——— (1963), ‘The Growth of Athenian Imperialism’, Historia 12: 257-73.
——— (1966), ‘Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea’, CQ 16: 172-92.
——— (1974a), ‘Athens and Eleusis: Some New Ideas’, in D.W. Bradeen and M.F.
McGregor (eds), FÒroj. Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt (Locust Valley),
90-103.
——— (1974b), ‘The Protected Fund in the Athenian Coinage Decree (ATL D 14,
par. 7f)’, AJP 95: 280-5.
——— (1974c), ‘The Language of Athenian Imperialism’, Epigraphica 56: 33-56.
——— (1993), ‘New Light on the Athenian Standards Decree (ATL II, D 14)’, Klio
75: 99-102.
——— (1996), The Athenian Empire Restored: Epigraphic and Historical Studies
(Ann Arbor).
——— (2000), ‘The Athenian Treaties with Troizen and Hermione’, Historia 49:
131-40.
——— (2002), ‘The Athenian Decree for Chalkis (IG I3.40)’, CQ 52: 377-9.
——— (2007), ‘Two Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphic Texts Revisited’, ZPE 162:
107-10.
Meiggs, R. (1966), ‘The Dating of Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions’, JHS 86: 89-98.
Meritt, B.D. and Wade-Gery, H.T. (1963), ‘The Dating of Documents to the
Mid-Fifth Century – II’, JHS 83: 100-17.

86
 3. Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire
Meyer, E.A. (2008), ‘Thucydides on Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and
History’, CQ 58: 13-34.
Moreno, A. (2007), Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth
and Fourth Centuries BC (Oxford).
Morgan, J.D. (2001), ‘IG I3 30: an unknown Qhra!oj and a known LakedaimÒnioj’,
AJA 105: 200-1.
Oliver, J.H. (1935), ‘The Athenian Decree Concerning Miletus in 450/49 BC’. TAPA
66: 177-98.
Ostwald, M. (2002), ‘Athens and Chalkis: A Study in Imperial Control’, JHS 122:
134-43.
Parlama, L. (2000), ‘Palaiologou Shaft: Marble Memorial Stele’, in L. Parlama and
N. Stampolidis (eds), Athens: The City Beneath the City. Antiquities from the
Metropolitan Railway Excavations (Athens), 396-9.
Pébarthe, C. (2005), ‘Inscriptions et régime politique: le cas athénien’, in A.
Bresson, A.-M. Cocula, C. Pébarthe (eds), L’écriture publique du pouvoir (Bor-
deaux), 169-82.
Pritchett, W.K. (1998), Pausanias Periegetes (Amsterdam).
——— (1999), Pausanias Periegetes II (Amsterdam).
Reiter, H.A. (1991), Athen und die Poleis des Delisch-Attischen Seebundes. Die
Proxenoi und Euergetai des Attischen Demos in den Poleis des Delisch-Attischen
Seebundes im Licht der attischen Proxenie- und Euergesiebeschlüsse des 5.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Regensburg).
Rhodes, P.J. (1994), Thucydides: History III (Warminster).
——— (1998), Thucydides: History IV.1-V.24 (Warminster).
——— (2007), ‘Oaths in Political Life’, in A.H. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher (eds),
Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society (Exeter), 11-25.
——— (2008), ‘After the Three-Bar Sigma Controversy: The History of Athenian
Imperialism Reassessed’, CQ 51: 500-6.
Samons II, L.J. (2000), Empire of the Owl: Athenian Imperial Finance, Historia
Einzelschriften 142.
Sargeant, R. L. (1927), ‘The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare’, CPh 22:
264-79.
Shipley, G. (1987), A History of Samos, 800-188 BC (Oxford).
Sickinger, J.P. (1999), Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel
Hill and London).
Sommerstein, A.H. (1981), Aristophanes: Knights (Warminster).
Smarczyk, B. (1986), Bündnerautonomie und athenische Seebundspolitik im
Dekeleischen Krieg (Frankfurt am Main).
Smart, J.D. (1972), ‘Athens and Egesta’, JHS 92: 128-46.
Storey, I.C. (2003), Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford).
Stroud, R.S. (1999), ‘The Progress of Attic Epigraphy to 400 BC in 1992-1997’, in
XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Roma, 18-24 Settem-
bre 1997. Atti I (Roma), 125-33.
——— (2006), The Athenian Empire on Stone. David M. Lewis Memorial Lecture
– Oxford 2006 (Athens).
Thonemann, P. (2007), ‘Inscriptions from Miletus’, CR 57: 544-6.
Threatte, L. (1996), The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, vol. II: Morphology (Berlin
and New York).
Tod, M. (1949), Review of the ATL II, JHS 69: 105-6.
Tsakos, K. (1977), ‘ ,Epigraf5j S£mou’, ADeltion A 32: 70-9.

87
 Nikolaos Papazarkadas
Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000), ‘N2a stlh pesÒntwn apÒ to DhmÒsion Sma’,
ADeltion 55 A: 87-122.
Vickers, M. (1996), ‘Fifth Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree’, JHS 116:
171-4.
Wade-Gery, H.T. and Meritt, B.D. (1957), ‘Athenian Resources in 449 and 431 BC’,
Hesperia 26: 163-97.
Walbank, M.B. (1978), Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century BC (Toronto).
Westlake, H.D. (1945), ‘Seaborne Raids in Periclean Strategy’, CQ 39: 75-84.
Wick, T.E. (1975), ‘A Note on the Date of the Athenian-Egestan Alliance’, JHS 95:
186-90.

88