No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Carian Tribute
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
The editors of the Athenian Tribute Lists explain the anomalous amounts of tribute (such as 1030 drachmae) paid by certain Carian towns in 453/2 as a normal assessment (1000 drachmae) augmented by a penalty for late payment. Samuel Eddy, on the other hand, suggests that the sums represent amounts which the towns had previously paid in their own currency to the King of Persia. On his view, in 453/2 an Athenian military expedition compelled the towns to pay their normal amount of tribute, but to Athens instead of Persia. It would be pointless to repeat his case, but I do have two observations to offer which tend to confirm Eddy's explanation but modify it in detail.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1981
References
1 Meritt, B. D., Wade-Gery, H. T. and McGregor, M. F., The Athenian Tribute Lists I (1939), 450–453Google Scholar.
2 AJP 94 (1973), 54–70Google Scholar.
3 ATL II (1949), List 2, cols. 1 and 2Google Scholar. The figure for Lepsimanioi may be only a partial payment since the town reappears in col. 8. In the next two years it paid 1500 drachmae annually (List 3, col. 4, line 25; List 4, col. 1, line 13). Eddy, art. cit., 56–57, is probably right in taking the entry for Amynanda as a simple mistake for 51 drachmae, 4 obols, i.e., three times the basic unit. The mason will have omitted the horizontal stroke of one drachma sign.
4 The fact that four units amount to 68 drachmae, 5 obols, not 4, shows that the basic unit is closer to 17 drachmae, 1¼ obols, but sums smaller than a half obol are not recorded in the Lists. If the emendation suggested in note 3 is correct, the basic unit is about 17 drachmae, 1⅓ obols.
5 Cameron, George G., Persepolis Treasury Tablets (1948)Google Scholar. The documents from the reign of Darius published by Hallock, Richard T., Persepolis Fortification Tablets (1969)Google Scholar appear to use only simple proportions, based on halves and units.
6 These texts are properly interpreted by Hallock, Richard T., JNES 19 (1960) 100Google Scholar.
7 Eddy, art. cit., 60–61.
8 Eddy does not deal systematically with List 4, col. 5 (451/0), where several oddities occur. (1) Alinda pays the unusual quota of 110+ drachmae. Perhaps this is the same sum paid by Paktyes in 453/2. (2) Chalcetor pays 32+ drachmae. In later years it pays the unique quota of 35 drachmae. Perhaps this reflects a rounding off of an original Persian assessment of two basic units. If so, restore their quota in List 4 as 34 drachmae, 2½ (or 3) obols. (3) The village called .ssyri--- pays 16+ drachmae. This may be 17 drachmae, 1 obol rather than the normal quota from 1000 drachmae, 16 drachmae, 4 obols. (4) Hyblissus is listed as paying 17 drachmae, 4 obols, which Eddy, art. cit., 56, explains as a payment in Chian coinage. To me this seems to be a mason's error for the normal figure of 16 drachmae, 4 obols (one drachma sign too many). The remainder of the Carian towns pay normal Athenian-type assessments this year. Perhaps Athens sent a second expedition into Caria at this time, bringing additional towns into the Empire.
9 Art. cit., 57–59. He adds refinements to the basic argument which I set forth.
10 Art. cit., 57.
11 Ibid.
12 Thompson, Margaret, Mørkholm, Otto, Kraay, Colin M., An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (1973), nos. 1180 and 1181Google Scholar. Generally the coins appear to be somewhat below the Aeginetic standard, but the overstrikings suggest that the Aeginetic was intended.
13 Robinson, E. S. G., NC, ser. 5, 16 (1936), 265–280Google Scholar.
14 Thompson et al., no. 1181.
15 Martin Price and Waggoner, Nancy, Archaic Greek Coinage The Asyut Hoard (1975), especially nos. 667–688Google Scholar.
16 BSA 52 (1957), 95Google Scholar.
17 Ibid.
18 NC, ser. 7, 1 (1961), 114–115Google Scholar.
19 Curiel, Raoul and Schlumberger, Daniel, Trésors monétaires d'Afghanistan (1953), 6–16Google Scholar.
20 PTT 85 of the year 502 shows that sometimes the Persian authorities went so far as to assay silver offered in payment of taxes.
21 Even the stone weights from Persia have suffered damage; cf. Hemmy, A. S., Ancient Egypt (December 1935), 83–93Google Scholar.
22 Iraq 5 (1938), 65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 As explained in note 5, the actual quota is closer to 17 drachmae, 1¼ (or 1⅓) obols, so that the payment amounted to about 1033 drachmae (4524·54 gm.), a discrepancy of only 0·4%.
24 Art. cit., 54–56; cf. Anabasis I, 5, 6Google Scholar. This is the weakest portion of Eddy's case. According to him, Euromus and Casolaba paid their tribute of 2500 drachmae with 2000 sigloi. On the other hand, payment by siglos will not explain the tribute of 5000 drachmae levied on Stolos in Thrace and Pedieis on Rhodes. I am assuming that Euromus and Casolaba simply had their original Persian assessment rounded off to the nearest convenient number, 2500. Eddy also says that the dynast Sambaktys paid in sigloi, but his arithmetic is in error: ex hypothesi 5000 sigloi = 6250 drachmae, not 6400. Eddy also has Mylasa paying 5200 drachmae in its own coinage, which is supposedly minted on a standard of 11·3 gm. But to reach this average he intermingles two distinct issues, the disiglos with lion's forepart (which weighs c. 11 gm.) and the stater with winged figure minted on (or somewhat below) the Aeginetic standard (which now weighs about 11·6 gm.). If Mylasa did pay in the disigloi which Robinson (supra, n. 18) ascribes to it, 2000 should be worth 5000 drachmae, not 5200.
25 Wade-Gery, H. T., NC ser. 5, 10 (1930), 18–21Google Scholar; for the date of the inscription, IG I 2301Google Scholar, cf. Ferguson, William S., The Treasurers of Athena (1932), 16–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. IG I 2313Google Scholar, lines 56–57 of the following year show the same procedure.
26 III, 90, 1.
27 According to Cameron, op. cit., 37, weights found in Persia indicate that the shekel weighed 8·33 gm. I augment this to compensate for damage which they have suffered. Still, it is not certain that these weights are on the standard Herodotus meant by “Babylonian”, for there is some error in his text, either in his ratio of the weight of the Babylonian talent to that of the Euboean (III, 89, 2) or in his totals of the tribute levied by Persia (III, 95). Pollux (IX, 86) understood Herodotus to mean that a Babylonian talent was equal to 7000 Attic drachmae, which gives an almost perfect fit. 3600 shekels × 8·4 gm. = 30240 gm., while 7000 drachmae × 4·38 gm. = 30660 gm.
28 Meiggs, R. and Andrewes, A., Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars (1951), 416–421, nos. 1–65Google Scholar. It is not certain that the islanders were assessed together with the mainland by the Persian authorities.