Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:36:53.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Harold B. Mattingly
Harold B. Mattingly
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The decree establishing an Athenian colony at Brea in the north Aegaean area was firmly placed by the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists in 446 B.C.; they identified the troops mentioned in lines 26 ff. with the men then serving in Euboia. In 1952, however, Woodhead proposed redating the decree c. 439/8 B.C. and explained lines 26 ff. by reference to the Samian revolt. A decade later I put forward a more radical theory, which seems to have won no adherents. I cannot really complain of this, since my arguments were inevitably far from cogent. For some Thucydides' silence alone will have been decisive. I would like to think that the issue has at least been clarified by now. The A.T.L. dating appears rather less plausible. Demokleides' generalship in 439/8 B.C. would fit excellently with his role as founder of Brea. This strongly supports Woodhead. It is doubtful whether Demokleides was general as early as 446 B.C, though conceivable that he returned to the board as late as 426/5 B.C. Woodhead may well be right in locating Brea on the inner Thermaic Gulf and, if so, this too tells against the A.T.L. dating. All our evidence suggests that real Athenian involvement in this area began in the 430's.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 1966 , pp. 172 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 172 note 2 A.T.L. iii. 286 ff.Google Scholar For text and commentary on I.G. i2. 45 see Tod, , G.H.I. i, no. 44Google Scholar and Hesperia xiv (1945), 86 f.Google Scholar (Meritt's publication of a new fragment).

page 172 note 3 C.Q.N.S. ii (1952), 57–62.Google Scholar

page 172 note 4 Historia xii (1963), 258–61.Google Scholar

page 172 note 5 See my article, p. 258 with n. 8 and 260 f. Demokleides was politically active c. 430 B.C. or even later (I.G. i2. 152), as Woodhead noted (p. 62); in 441/0, 432/1, and 431/0 B.C. other men represented Aigeis as generals (see the list in Hill, , Sources 2, p. 401 f.).Google Scholar

page 172 note 6 Op. cit. 58 f. Woodhead was strongly supported by Alexander, J. A. (A.J.Ph. ixxxiii [1962], 266–75 and 282–6)Google Scholar, who approved his emendation es (following Bergk) for in Thuc. I. 61. 4.

page 172 note 7 See Meritt's, photographs in Hesperia xiv (1945), 87f.Google Scholar It has four-bar sigma, but iloping nu and tailed rho (R). For Wood-lead's comments see op. cit. 60 f.

page 172 note 8 Historia x (1961), 149f. and 168–82:Google ScholarJ.H.S. lxxxi (1961), 132Google Scholar: Historia xii (1963), 263–71.Google Scholar Meritt and Wade-Gery were able to counter many of my individual arguments (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 67–74Google Scholarand Ixxxiii [1963]) 100–17) and the result might seem to be stalemate, if not outright victory for the jrthodox view. But see Meiggs's frank recognition that epigraphic dating may have become too rigid (Haw. Stud. lxvii [1963], 29fGoogle Scholar). He reasonably urges scholars ‘to collect the evidence and examine the statistics.’

page 173 note 1 See Hesperia viii (1939), 48–50Google Scholar (with a plate) and S.E.G. x. 332.Google Scholar

page 173 note 2 See Antiphon , 11: Edmonds, J. D., F. Gr. Com. i. 417Google Scholar (Eupolis frg. 296) and 410 note a (date of play). For the date of Antiphon vi see Meritt, , Athenian Calendar, p. 121 f.Google Scholar and Dover, , C.Q. xliv (1950), 60.Google Scholar Pantakles is still ‘clumsy’ in the Frogs passage; the joke was as long-lived as those about Kleisthenes' effeminacy (from Acham. 117 ff. to Frogs 422–7).

page 173 note 3 Hesperia viii (1939), 50.Google Scholar

page 173 note 4 And. i. 117–23. See pp. 144–50 and Appendix L of MacDowell's, D. M. edition of On the Mysteries (1962)Google Scholar for the family relationships. Leagros was Kallias' brother-in-law and Epilykos' nephew. Andokides the other nephew (born in the 440's: R.-E. i. 2124 f.Google Scholar) took the lead in claiming Epilykos' daughters with Leagros: after one died, however, Kallias had little difficulty allegedly in talking Leagros over to co-operating in his schemes. For Kallias' date of birth see R.-E. x. 1618Google Scholar and MacDowell, , op. cit., pp. 10 f.Google Scholar (C. 450 B.C.).

page 173 note 5 See Edmonds, , op. cit., p. 509 frg. 64Google Scholar (from Laios: see note e for its date). Meritt observed that c. 440 B.C. Leagros ‘must have been a relatively young man’ presumably he would put his birth c. 465 B.C. If so, it is also strange that Leagros was never made a butt of the comic poets between 425 and 405 B.C., as Kallias so often was (see MacDowell, , op. cit., p. 11).Google Scholar

page 174 note 1 Alkibiades (son of Kleinias) had a younger brother and cousin both called Kleinias: see R.-E. xi. 616f.Google Scholar (nos. 4 and 5).

page 174 note 2 See p. 142 and n. of Meineke's edition (1849). The relevant text runs: .

page 174 note 3 See I.G. i2. 305. 10 and R.-E. xviii. 2263 (no. 4).Google Scholar

page 174 note 4 R.-E. xviii. 2262Google Scholar (nos. 1 and 3): Aristoph. Plut. 84 and Storks frg. 431 (Edmonds i. 694 f.). Comparison of the scholion on Plut. 84 with Isocr. 18. 5–8 suggests that the two should perhaps be conflated.

page 174 note 5 See Thuc, 5. 19 and 24. 1: I.G. i 2.82Google Scholar and 84: I.G. i 2. 305. 9Google Scholar: Andrewes, and Lewis, , J.H.S. lxxvii (1957), 178.Google Scholar

page 174 note 6 For Demosthenes' deposition see Lewis, , J.H.S. Ixxxi (1961), 119ff.Google Scholar; he effectively disposes of Gomme's hesitations (Commentary on Thucydides, ii. 408 and 417Google Scholar with iii. 437 f.). Lewis postulates three by-elections, but Laches was probably neither deposed nor put on trial: see Gomme, , op. cit. ii. 430f.Google Scholar

page 174 note 7 Thuc. 3. 105. 3 and 107. 1–2. For the time-table see Adcock's account in C.A.H. v. 228 f.Google Scholar; he rightly regards Demosthenes as Acarnanian commander-in-chief, not an Athenian general.

page 174 note 8 For Aristoteles see Gomme, , op. cit. ii. 417 ff.Google Scholar and Lewis, , op. cit. 120 f.Google Scholar; he is surely the general known from I.G. i 2. 299. 6Google Scholar (S.E.G. x. 226Google Scholar). For Prokles' tribe Lewis (p. 121) suggested Oineis, but this rested on his assumption that Lamachos was a surfed general in 426/5 B.C. In fact Acharnians 569, 593, and 1073 ff. all show that he was a taxiarch this year, as van Leuwen acutely pointed out on pp. 99 and 104 of his edition.

page 175 note 1 For my attempt to refute Lewis's dating see Historia xii (1963), 260 f.Google Scholar For election see Dover, K. J., J.H.S. Ixxx (1960), 61–63Google Scholar and 74 f.

page 175 note 2 See R.-E. xxiii. 180 no. 10Google Scholar (H. Schaefer) for Prokles' age.

page 175 note 3 I.G. ii 2. 2318.Google Scholar

page 175 note 4 It has four-bar sigma and a nu (N) not unlike those in Kleonymos' Tribute Decree of 426/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, D 8Google Scholar: see vol. i, pp. 123–6 for photographs); a similar nu is found as late as the Quota List assigned to 416/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, List 39 with figs. 1 and 2).

page 175 note 5 See A.J.Ph. lxix (1948), 69 f.Google Scholar and S.E.G. x. 107.Google Scholar If the text of Xen. Hell. 1. 4. 7Google Scholar is sound (), we cannot identify him with the ambassador to Persia in 408 B.C. (Hell. 1. 3. 13).

page 175 note 6 Unluckily we do not know whether Leagros provided a boys' or a men's chorus. For the former a choregos had to be over forty (Arist. 56. 3), but mature men sometimes undertook the latter. Demosthenes for instance must have been well into his thirties (see nn. 23 and 24). If the choregos is Glaukon's son we must, I think, assume that his was a men's chorus or that the age-rule for boys' choruses was not always strictly observed: see on this possibility Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953), p. 76Google Scholar (adducing Lysias 21.4) and Lewis, D. M., B.S.A.I (1955), 20 and 24Google Scholar (rigid observance in the fourth century). Pseudo-And. 20 f. makes Alkibiades choregos of a boys' chorus under the legal age, but this point is not supported either by Dem. 21. 145 or Plut. Alc. 16 and seems dubious evidence (pace Lewis—quoted in n. i on p. 36 of Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy [2nd edition, 1962;Google Scholar revised by T. B. L. Webster]).

page 176 note 1 Hesperia xiv (1945), 115ff.Google Scholar: S.E.G. x. 76.Google Scholar Meritt noted that ‘the shapes of rho and nu are older than one expects to find in the mid twenties’ (p. 115: see photograph on p. 117), but the name Kleonymos and the mention of and Chians (see Thuc. 4. 51) rightly led him to bring the decree down. Set up at Chian expense it is in Ionic lettering. The dedication of the Athenian colonists sent to Poteidaia in 429 B.C. also has sloping nu (I.G. i 2397Google Scholar).

page 176 note 2 For the epigram see Kyparissis, and Peek, , Ath. Mitt, lvii (1932), 142–6Google Scholar (with photograph) and S.E.G. x. 410Google Scholar (text and bibliography). For Delionsee pp. 261 f. of my article in Historia xii (1963).Google Scholar

page 176 note 3 I adopt the text approved by Bowra, in Problems of Greek Poetry (1953), pp. 93ff.Google Scholar (a reprint with minor changes of his article in C.Q. xxxii [1938])Google Scholar. Bowra read as the adverb (p. 95): in this he was followed by Cameron, A. (Haw. Theol. Rev. xxxiii [1940], 99 ff.)Google Scholar, who, however, preferred (adv.) in line 1. He allowed that could imply that the Athenians were taken by surprise, as indeed at Koroneia (p. 99). In this sense the adjective would be still more applicable to Delion: see p. 262 of my article with n. 25. Cameron agreed with Bowra that the correction possibly replaced an original and that we should read hohov rather than the internal accusative (pp. 105–9).

page 176 note 4 The narrative follows Thucydides closely (4. 96–97. 1), but with much added colour; some of this (e.g. the cavalry victory) must be rejected, as Gomme noted (op. cit. iii. 568).Google Scholar

page 176 note 5 As Cameron observed (pp. 102 f. and 121), it was normal in epitaphs to attribute defeat to divine intervention—this is ‘a kind of topic of consolation’. But the epigram goes well beyond the norm in this. For the omens and oracles before Leuktra see Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 2–3 and 7Google Scholar: Diod. 15. 53. 4–54. 4: Plut. Pelop. 20. 3–22: Paus. 9. 13. 4 and 14. 3. The contemporary Theban view is bluntly expressed in the famous epigram (I.G. vii. 2462Google Scholar +.7f.: Tod ii. no. 130):

The Athenians subsequently managed to take a more realistic view of Delion: see Thuc. 5. 14. 1.

page 177 note 1 Op. cit. 98 f. Cameron's interesting thesis (op. cit. 102–21) must be stated, if only to be refuted. He held that (a) ‘our text offers not the record of an actual epiphany, but rather a post eventum interpretation of defeat’ (p. 104) and (A) that there is no basis for assuming a consultation of Orion or any other hero before the battle; the Athenians went out on campaign in defiance of a current and were punished by heaven as a warning to mankind. The agent was an unspecified local hero, not to be more nearly identified. I think that his first point may be granted and that he is right in insisting that (line 8) means ‘oracular utterances … preserved and circulated’ (so Neil, R. A. in his Knights [1909], p. 22Google Scholar) and not ‘a particular response’ (for which correct). He concedes that possibly reflects the language of the (p. 113 and n. 52). For lines 5–7 he accepts H. Fraenkel's text:

In some ways this runs better than the text approved by Bowra. It still allows the view developed here; the which the hero fulfilled could have been his own.

page 177 note 2 The battlefield was near Oropos, the centre of Amphiaraos' cult (R.-E. i. 1886 ff.).Google Scholar

page 177 note 3 It is perhaps worth noting that the parallel defeat of Leuktra was by some ascribed to a hero's epiphany (Paus. 4. 32. 4; Aristomenes). Lines 1–4 of the ‘Koroneia’ epigram contain a definite and surely significant echo of Pindar, , Nem. 9. 27Google Scholar (Amphiaraos’ last fight). For my dating of S.E.G. x. 410Google Scholar see further the Appendix at the end of this paper.

page 178 note 1 See B.S.A. xlix (1954), 22 f.Google Scholar Lewis's ‘age of transition’ was, of course, ‘c. 455 to c. 445 B.C.’ for him.

page 178 note 2 See I.G. i 2. 45. 18ff.Google Scholar and Woodhead's comments on the script (op. cit. 60), which can be checked from the photographs that Meritt published (Hesperia xiv [1945], 87 f.).Google Scholar

page 178 note 3 For an excellent and, I think, convincing discussion of Thuc. 1. 61 see Alexander, J. A., A.J.Ph. lxxxiii (1962), 265–87.Google Scholar His view, which I follow here, was partly anticipated by Gomme, (op. cit. i. 214–18)Google Scholar and Wood-head, (op. cit. 58f.Google Scholar). The A.T.L. editors thought that Kallias went overland from Pydna and passed through Macedonian Beroia (iii. 315 f., 322 f.) to Strepsa, which they locate north-west of Therme (i. 550 f. with the loose map at the end, iii. 220 n. 122, and 318 n. 76). Woodhead and Gomme put Strepsa south of Therme, but Wood-head makes Kallias land at Therme first and so places Brea between Therme and Strepsa: Gomme had Kallias land somewhere near Aineia (p. 217). For the various placings of Strepsa see Alexander, op. cit. 269 and the facing map: both Brea and Strepsa should perhaps be put even closer to Aineia than he allows (on the coast, eastwards). Philip's lay along both sides of the upper Axios (Thuc. 2. 100. 3), but he had invaded Mygdonia (1.59. 2: see Alexander, pp. 275 f.) and, with the Athenians holding Therme, and pinning Perdikkas down at Pydna, he could have reached the inner Thermaic Gulf without difficulty even after Kallias withdrew by sea.

page 178 note 4 See Thuc. 1. 62. 2 and 2. 29. 5–6 with 1. 61. 2 and 2. 95. 2. The A.T.L. editors want to identify Therme with the Serme of the tribute–lists (iii. 220 n. 123 and 322 n. 91). This was vigorously denied by Edson, C. F. (Cl. Phil. xlii [1947], 100–4Google Scholar), who placed Therme ‘at, or very near Salonica’ (accepted in A.T.L. iii. 220 n. 123Google Scholar against A.T.L. i. 546Google Scholar): Gomme too came out strongly against the identification (op. cit. i. 214Google Scholar). Serine's tribute (500 dr.) seems too small for a town like Therme; its payment in 432/1 B.C. and subsequent disappearance from the lists can be explained on the assumption that it was one of the rebel which Phormio recovered in autumn 432 B.C. (Thuc. 1. 65. 2) and which presumably fell away after the defeat at Spartolos (Thuc. 2. 79). In Thucydides Therme seems Macedonian, not rebel (1. 59. 2 and 61. 2), as surely implies in 2. 29. 6.

page 179 note 1 Thuc. 2. 70. 4 and 79; 80. 1.

page 179 note 2 Thuc. 2. 95–101 (especially 101. 1 and 5–6). As early as 431 B.C. Nymphodoros of Abdera had promised to persuade Sitalkes to end rebellion in Chalkidike for Athens (Thuc. 2. 29. 6).

page 179 note 3 See A.T.L. ii. D 3. 18 ff.Google Scholar and D 4. 41 ff. and 47 ff. ( = I.G. i 2. 57Google Scholar): D 21 (I.G. ii2. 55+), 4–I7: Meritt, , Hesperia xiii (1944), 215–18Google Scholar: Mattingly, , C.Q. N.s. xi (1961), 161 f.Google Scholar D 21 must surely be dated 426/5 (after D 4) or the next year: with Meritt's dating (c. 428 B.C.) Lepper had to assume ‘another (decree) earlier than D 21, which for some reason was not reinscribed with A.T.L.'s D 3–6’ (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 52 n. 83.Google Scholar The added regulations for Methone (D 21. 5–8) were part of the general imperial decree foreseen in D 4. 41–47.

page 179 note 4 Thuc. 4. 7 .

page 179 note 5 See my article in Historia xii (1963), 260Google Scholar with n. 13 for this point.

page 179 note 6 His only reference is 4. 129. 4 (Nikias’ 120 light-armed from Methone). According to D 4. 46 f. Methone fulfilled her obligations by seeing to her own defence; provision of troops in summer 423 B.C. may have been arranged in D 6 (eighth prytany, 424/3 B.C.), which must also have ordered the publication of the whole dossier on stone.

page 179 note 7 See Historia x (1961), 166–8Google Scholar and C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 155–60:Google ScholarJ.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 73 f.Google Scholar

page 180 note 1 On the descent of these rubrics from the rubrics of 434/3 B.C. onwards see A.T.L. iii. 81–85 and Lep– per, op. cit. 33 f.Google Scholar

page 180 note 2 In List 26 the Hellespontine names are cut on the left lateral face, in 27 on the re verse. The pattern of List 25 is obscured by the two intrusive rubrics supplied in col. ii. 37–41 and iii. 66–68. See my arguments in C.Q. N.s. xi (1961), 160 nn. 3 and 4.Google Scholar In 25 the three Thracian payers of onty admittedly follow the Thracian panel, but the two special rubrics intervene with several non–Thracian cities.

page 180 note 3 Parts of the last two panels only of List 27 survive, but my proposition seems to be iccepted in A.T.L. i. 196Google Scholar and by Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 73.Google Scholar Theoretically the list could begin with Islands, Thrace.

page 180 note 4 Alopekonesos, the newcomer in List 25, is oegistered in the rubric in List 26 (on this see A.T.L. i. 449 f. and iii. 88Google Scholar). Byzantion pays just over 15 T in List 26, i little over 8 T in 25, but more than 20 T n 27.

page 180 note 5 For List 27 see the impressive case in A.T.L. i. 196ff.Google Scholar For the varying headings of Jie rubrics see ibid. 449 f. and 453 f.

page 180 note 6 Here and later I quote columns and lines according to A.T.L. ii, not S.E.G. v, which should be consulted for comparison.

page 181 note 1 See my article in C.Q.N.s. xi (1961), 158 f.Google Scholar For see List 21. vi. 8 and 15: 22. ii. 78 and 86. For Pleume and Aioleion (missing in 432/1 B.C.) see 26. ii. 40 and 42 with A.T.L. i. 538 f.Google Scholar

page 181 note 2 For the reading see Meritt, , Atft. Fin. Doc., p. 10Google Scholar and A.T.L. i. 96Google Scholar: no photograph of the very worn obverse face was published (ibid. 93). For the Thracian panel of List 26 see A.T.L. i. 195Google Scholar, where the editors propose for their three lacunae, rejecting .

page 181 note 3 See A.T.L. ii. 26. i. 1Google Scholar for the only exception in that list.

page 181 note 4 See Meritt, , Ath. Fin. Doc. 11Google Scholar and A.T.L. i, 195f.Google Scholar

page 181 note 5 See Nesselhauf, , Klio, Beiheft xxx (1933), 71Google Scholar (middle, not active, verb is required): Mattingly, , C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 156 f. n. 6.Google Scholar The old form——was rather clumsy.

page 181 note 6 i. 197: Thuc. 3. 19.

page 182 note 1 For Anaphe see List 27. ii. 31 and for the places mentioned in this section see the loose map at the end of A.T.L. i. Thucydides writes ; this hardly suggests that he reached the Hellespont as well (A.T.L. i. 197Google Scholar). Paches could look after that area. Aristophanes may have had Lysikles in mind, when he made the prosecutor complain of the dog Labes (Wasps 925 ff–):

page 182 note 2 See A.T.L. i (‘Register’), 250 f. It is just possible that stood immediately before . The A.T.L. map shows what a close neighbour it was to Saros.

page 182 note 3 Thuc. 2. 9. 4: A.T.L. ii. D 8 {I.G. i2. 65+), 22 f.: List 26. iii. 23 and 25. ii. 54 (a probable supplement: see A.T.L. i. 193Google Scholar).

page 182 note 4 Thuc. 3. 91. 1–3. Melos succeeded (at least till 416/15 B.C.) where on my view Thera had failed.

page 182 note 5 For the order of districts (only one column survives in part) see A.T.L. i. 99 and 199.

page 182 note 6 i. 197. The 15 T is known only from A.T.L. ii. 39. i. 39 (416/15 B.C.?), but it must go back to A 9.

page 183 note 1 See C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 158–60.Google Scholar The changes between S.E.G. 25 and 28 and A.T.L. ii. 26Google Scholar and 25 justify the degree of freedom which I there claimed. See further p. 184 n. 1.

page 183 note 2 See A.T.L. i. 196 and 452 f.Google Scholar

page 183 note 3 Despite A.T.L. i. 196Google Scholar we are free to re store in 26. iv. 33, as in S.E.G. v. 25Google Scholar; but this obviously cannot be pressed. For the back-payments see iv. 10 and 45; no figures survive. In List 23 survives only in i. 54.

page 183 note 4 See A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2. 65+) and Meritt's, study in his Documents of Athenian Tribute, pp. 3–42Google Scholar: I.G. i 2. 97Google Scholar (Tod i, no. 76), 3 f. and Meritt's convincing reinterpretation of the decree in Studies presented to Robinson, D. M., ii (1953), 298–303Google Scholar (S.E.G. xii. 26Google Scholar gives his text).

page 183 note 5 Lines 11–18. For the rate of and its basis see A.T.L. i. 452 f.Google Scholar

page 183 note 6 For this date for D 3 see my further arguments in C.Q. N.s. xi (1961), 160–4Google Scholar and for Methone's anomalous position (: Thuc. 6. 7. 3) see ibid. 154 widi n. 4. For Dikaia's site see Gomme, , op. cit. 211Google Scholar (in or north of Bottike) and A.T.L. i. 482 f.Google Scholar (on the coast east of Aineia?). 7 Compare A.T.L. ii. 23, ii. 54 with 25. ii. 20. The quota of 164 dr. has been restored in 26. ii. 24 also. It is just possible that the reading here should be HHH: Aineia's drop would then come in 426/5 B.C. and might be directly associated with the Brea scheme, already doubtless being meditated. Did Aineia give up land to the colony? A.T.L. iii. 308 n. 42Google Scholar links the drop at Argilos from 1 T in 438/7 B.C. to only 1,000 dr. in 433/2 B.C. (its next appearance) with the foundation of Amphipolis.

page 183 note 8 For Krousis see Her. 7. 123 and A.T.L. i. 541, 550,Google Scholar and 556. For the tribute-record see ibid. (‘Register’), 222 f., 254 f., 310 f., 381, 410f and 424f. In 432 B.C. (Thuc. I. 58. 2); significantly no such advice is given to the Bottiaians. This bears against the A.T.L. view (see above and iii. 317). In summer 432 B.C. Kallias' army passed through Krousis without challenge and without devastating the land (Thuc. 1. 61); in 429 B.C. Krousis seems to have sent peltasts to the Athenian army (see Gomme's good note in ii. 213 on Thuc. 2. 79. 4). If Skapsa is Herodotos' (A.T.L. i. 549Google Scholar) then one town of Krousis revolted in 432/1 B.C., but perhaps after Kallias' force had passed through and the investment of Poteidaia began. It seems to have been the nearest town to Spartolos in Krousis.

page 184 note 1 See on this equation Edson, , C.Q. xlii (1948), 92–94Google Scholar and, strongly opposed to Edson, , A.T.L. iii. 219Google Scholar with n. 117. The editors would place Haison in Pieria, near Pydna (i. 466 f.). This is hard to accept, since it was tributary from 451/0 B.C. (i. 222 f.). For the figure between two name-lines in 22. ii. 99 f. see A.T.L. i. 77 fig. 104Google Scholar (photograph) and PI. xxi (facsimile drawing). Haison's quota is restored in 22. ii. 66, but was presumably the same as in 23. ii. 62. Incidentally the transference of Haison/Haisa from the rubric into the main Thracian panel within an Assessment period provides a good parallel to the anomaly concerning Besbikos, which Meritt and Wade-Gery (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 74 n.Google Scholar) used to show that List 26 could not be put after 27, adducing also the comparable anomaly of Nisyros (Ionic in 27, Island in 26). Clearly we do not yet understand the niceties of Athenian book–keeping.

page 184 note 2 For its site see A.T.L. i. 540.Google Scholar

page 184 note 3 See n. 53 and for the sites of Aioleion (east Bottike, near Olynthos) and Pleume see A.T.L. i. 465 and 539.Google Scholar Eion presumably lay near them in this border-area, to judge from Thucydides.

page 184 note 4 Thuc. 4. 79. 2 and 132. 1. The Chal-kidian rebels also pressed Sparta, fearing a major Athenian offensive as early as autumn 425 B.C. Thucydides does not specify Bottiaian pressure. Were they already trying to contract out? With Gomme, (op. cit. iii. 621 f.Google Scholar) I believe that I.G. i2. 71 + is the treaty which emerged from the negotia tions in 423 B.C., despite A.T.L. iii. 313 n. 61Google Scholar (dating it c. 436 B.C.). From lines 48 f. of the new A.T.L. text (S.E.G. x. 86Google Scholar) we learn that Athens had just lifted a blockade of Macedonia—from Methone, Aineia, and Brea ?— similar to that imposed in winter 417/16 (Thuc. 5. 83. 4). See Lepper's good remarks on this policy in J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 50.Google Scholar

page 184 note 5 For the date of I.G. i2. 90+ see the com mentary in Tod, i. no. 68; Gomme, , op. cit. iii. 622Google Scholar: A.T.L. i. 556 and ii. 102Google Scholar, T 74. Four or five small Bottic towns paid tribute in 421/0 B.C. (A.T.L. ii. 34. iii. 8–11Google Scholar); two appear as signatories to the treaty, but its roll of names is very incomplete. For Spartolos see Thuc. 5. 18. 6 and Gomme's note in iii. 669 f. Only the Chalkidians are specified in connexion with Brasidas (Thuc. 4. 123. 4 and 124. 1 with 5. 6. 4); only they are said to have rejected the Peace (5. 21. 1–2) and fought on (5. 39. 1).

page 185 note 1 See p. 179 n. 6 for Methone. For other examples see my articles in Historia x and xii (174 f.Google Scholar and 259 with n. 11).

page 185 note 2 See Thuc. 4. 78. 6 and 83–88: 102–16: 120–32: 139 (a night attempt at surprising Poteidaia).

page 185 note 3 See Thuc. 3. 87. 1–3 and Gomme's notes ad loc. (ii. 388 f.): Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (1957), pp. 165 f.Google Scholar (against Gomme's attempt to restrict the hoplite losses to the field army).

page 185 note 4 Thuc. 2. 58. 3: 2. 70. 4 with Diod. 12. 46: Thuc. 3. 50. 2.

page 185 note 5 Jones, (op. cit., pp. 174 ff.)Google Scholar argued that the cleruchs were never actually sent to Lesbos, but Thucydides' cannot easily be explained away as ‘a term of art’. Gomme, (Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, ii [1953], 334–9Google Scholar) thought that they were brought back to Athens c. 425/4 B.C.: Meritt, dating the crucial decree (I.G. i2. 60) 427/6 B.C., holds that the cleruchs vacated the land for the Lesbians (on payment of rent), but remained in Lesbos concentrated near Mytilene and other cities on the estates of the oligarchs (A.J.Ph. Ixxv ([1954], 361–8Google Scholar). Gomme restated his view in vol. ii of his Commentary (pp. 326–32), taking account of some of Meritt's points. Neither has quite proved his case and my view is an attempted compromise between them.

page 185 note 6 Thuc. 4. 42. 1. Milesian hoplites were again employed in 424 B.C. (4. 54. 1).

page 186 note 1 holds, Jones (op. cit. 168 f.)Google Scholar that the majority both of cleruchs and colonists were thetes: Gomme would seem to agree about the cleruchies (op. cit. ii. 328 f.). For the distinction between the two types of settlement see A.T.L. iii. 284.Google ScholarPlutarch, (Per. 11. 6Google Scholar) implies that thetes largely benefited. Certainly thetes and zeugitai alike were admitted to Brea (I.G. i2.45.37ff.).Jones asserts that a colony, whilst reducing the citizen body, would have small effect on Athenian hoplite strength; a cleruchy could even be used to increase the latter, by raising thetes to zeugite census. He further argues that cleruchies were not regarded as garrisons, but that the cleruchs were liable for general military service (p. 174) and thus included on the normal hoplite roll. This seems doubtful. Aridrian and Karystian hoplites were probably freed for foreign service (Thuc. 4. 42. 1) by the Athenian cleruchies (for which see A.T.L. iii. 289 f.Google Scholar and Jones, , op. cit. 170 f.Google Scholar): Miletos, which had no cleruchy, represents a special case (see p. 190 n. 1). In this way—by increasing use of allied hoplites—Athens tried to counter ‘the fantastic waste of manpower’, which Jones recognizes in the cleruchy as normally understood (p. 176).

page 186 note 2 See A.T.L. ii. pl. xGoogle Scholar for the lettering of D 17 (I.G. i2. 39): for I.G. i2. 109 see the photograph in A.T.L. i. 213 (D 9).Google Scholar

page 186 note 3 See my article in J.H.S. lxxxi (1961), 124–32Google Scholar (especially p. 126 on Hierokles): for Philochoros see the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps 718 (Jacoby, F.Gr. Hist. iii, B 328, frg. 130Google Scholar). Thucydides' Athenian speaker at Melos (5. 103. 2) shows a revealingly strong reaction to the pretensions of such as Hierokles: after the débâcle at Syracuse this naturally became more general (8. 1. 1). On the special vogue of from 431 to 413 B.C. see the excellent study by Radermacher, L. in Rhein. Mus. lxxv (1898), 504–9.Google Scholar

page 186 note 4 J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 115 (on I.G. i2. 772).Google Scholar

page 187 note 1 ibid. 115 ff.: Meritt, , Hesperia xiii (1944), 223–9.Google Scholar

page 187 note 2 Scholarly consensus puts this frieze early (pre-Parthenon), so that I am reluctant to counter with Morgan's, C. H. theory (Hesperia xxxii [1963], 104–8)Google Scholar which puts it after 421 B.C.

page 187 note 3 For see Thuc. loc. cit. and 4. 24–25. Many names ending could be supplied, but if I am right on Brea, Phantokles is politically active at just the required time. can be part of the demotic () or of the father's name.

page 187 note 4 See Historia x (1961), 157 f. and 181–8. Recently new light has come on Aigina. A stater of early land-tortoise type was over-struck by Azbaal of Kition (fl. c. 430 B.C.: see Kraay, , Num. Chron. 1962, 13 ff.Google Scholar); it is published by Noe, , Amer. Num. Soc. Mus. Notes vi (1954), 90Google Scholar and pi. xiv. 2). Robinson, (Num. Chron. 1961, 111f.)Google Scholar argues that the issue of ‘turtles’ stopped in 457 B.C. and that the ‘tortoise’ series runs from c. 446 to 431 B.C. Athens had to tolerate it under the ‘autonomy clause’ of 446/5 B.C. (Thuc. 1. 67. 2). This may seem to dispose of the apparent disregard of D 14. There is no problem with the late dating. In 431 B.C. Athens could proceed to call in and demonetize masses of her enemy's coin and this may have led to pressure to deal radically with the whole problem of Athenian and foreign money.

page 187 note 5 See Mattingly, , Historia x (1961), 158–68Google Scholar: Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 72ff.Google Scholar I would now withdraw Perikles' Congress Decree (Plut. Per. 17) and the Decree of Kleinias (I.G. i2. 66+: A.T.L. ii, D 7) from the discussion.

page 188 note 1 Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 67 f.Google Scholar: Meiggs, , Harvard Studies lxvii (1963), 19 ff. and 28 ff.Google Scholar

page 188 note 2 Meiggs can at most claim ‘the disposition of the letters over the space is unlike the style of the twenties but can be paralleled in the forties’ (p. 22). See A.T.L. ii, pi. ii.Google Scholar

page 188 note 3 Historia x (1961), 152 n. 21.Google Scholar

page 188 note 4 In fairness I must note that Hill and Meritt remarked of lines 43–77 in their edition (Hesperia xiii [1944], 14.Google Scholar) that there was ‘little prospect of reaching anything like certainty’: the restorations were ‘largely for the sake of example … interpretation of what the meaning might have been’.

page 188 note 5 One might cite a similar passage in D 8 (lines 43–50), noting that in D 7. 69 echoes in D 8. 48 f.

page 189 note 1 The in D 8. 21 is, of course, the tribune in the Council House: see A.T.L. iii. 16.Google Scholar

page 189 note 2 See Historia x (1961), 153:Google ScholarMeritt, and Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 69–71Google Scholar: Meiggs, , op. cit. 23 and 29.Google Scholar Some imperial measure about Panathenaic obligation—perhaps affecting all allies of ultimate Ionian descent—doubtless preceded Thoudippos' brief decree, as they urge. But this need not be pushed far back. I suggest a date shortly before the Panathenaia of 430 B.C. The policy would be of a piece with the creation of the Delian Festival for the Ionians and Islanders in 426/5 B.C. (Thuc. iii. 104) and the Eleusinian First-fruits Decree (I.G. i2. 76: see lines 14 ff.) in 422/1 B.C. (?); see on its date Guillon, P., Bull. Con. Hell. lxxxvi (1962), 470 ff.Google Scholar

page 189 note 3 See A.T.L. ii, pi. iv,Google Scholar D 11 (I.G. i2. 22 + ) for the lettering: Mattingly, , Historia x (1961), 174–81:Google ScholarBarron, J., J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 1–6Google Scholar: Meiggs, , op. cit. 24 f.Google Scholar: Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 100– 2.Google Scholar I willingly abandon my attempts to call in Diodoros and the pseudo-Xenophon's

page 189 note 4 See Historia x (1961), 174 and 181Google Scholar for full discussion.

page 190 note 1 See on this Meritt, and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 101Google Scholar and Meiggs, , op cit. 25Google Scholar: Thuc. 4. 42. 1. Meiggs finds 4 obol: pay too low for the Archidamian Wai (Thuc. iii. 17): but this was possibly pay foi the implied in line 12, not for the hoplites.

page 190 note 2 See J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 102,Google Scholar when they seem to accept my suggestion for 51f. I had argued that these wers first appointed by D 8 (Historia x [1961], 177Google Scholar)—possibly wrongly.

page 190 note 3 Lines 30–56 deal with jurisdiction ai Athens for civil cases arising at Miletos anc offences against Athenian regulations; line 59–64 seem concerned with disputes anc conditions in Miletos itself. It seems unlikely that 56 ff. refer to at Athens—how would that affect Milesians? The ‘Suda’ and Harpokration (both ) significantly confuse the allied with the officials who collected at Athens, which suggests that the system of D 8 was at least modelled on the Athenian one. See Meritt, , Documents on Athenian Tribute, 14 ff.Google Scholar

page 190 note 4 See Hignett, , Athenian Constitution, p. 224.Google Scholar

page 190 note 5 See the epigraphical notes in A.T.L. ii. 60.Google Scholar

page 190 note 6 Thucydides' view (1. 1–2) must have been shared by many, as the war wore on. For the active-service age groups (20–49) see Gomme, , op. cit. ii. 35–39Google Scholar on Thuc. 2. 13. 6. 4,400 hoplites died of plague (Thuc. 3. 87. 3). Athens would have had to spare some hoplites for Brea in 426/5 B.C., but this loss was partially offset, as we have seen (pp. 185 nn. 5 and 6 and 186 n. 1).