21
The Administration of the Empire and the Athenian TributeQuota Lists
CHAPTER CONTENTS
21.1 The Cleinias Decree
21.2 The Tribute Quota List of 453/2
21.3 The Erythraean Decree (453/2)
21.4 Athens and the Allies
21.5 The Samian Revolt (441/0–440/39)
21.6 Allies’ Attitudes Toward the Empire
Epigraphic evidence provides valuable information about Athens’ administration of the empire and her relationship with the allies. Probably around 454/3 the Athenians transferred the treasury of the Delian League from Delos to Athens. The reasons are unclear and might have to do with security concerns, to which the disaster in Egypt had contributed (20.3: “The Athenian Expedition to Egypt”). Since the Athenians were the ones who assessed and collected contributions to the treasury, its transfer to Athens changed little in practice. Probably a more significant change was the abolition of joint councils with the allies. We also hear of the presence of Athenian garrisons, settlers, and officials on allies’ lands.
Starting from 454/3, 1/60 of the tribute was dedicated as “first-fruits” (aparchai) to Athena, the patron goddess of Athens. These annual transactions were recorded in elegantly written inscriptions, known as the “Athenian tribute quota lists.” The lists allow scholars to deduce who belonged to the league at what time, how much they paid, as well as changes in both membership and the monetary demands Athens made of them. Generally, tributes were reassessed every four years and, with few exceptions, did not significantly vary before the 420s and the Peloponnesian War, when assessments were raised considerably. During that war the Athenians would also occasionally demand additional contributions. Allies had the option of appealing their assessment in Athenian courts.
This chapter discusses the ways the Athenians administered their empire. It includes a decree regulating tribute collecting, a list of tribute-paying members, and a decree illustrating Athens’ intervention in her allies’ affairs. It also documents Athens’ suppression of a revolt by its ally, Samos. Finally, the chapter surveys allies’ attitudes toward Athens and vice versa.
21.1 The Cleinias Decree
One decree, which has been dated to 448/7 or 430–426/5, gives an idea of how the tribute was collected. Evidently Cleinias, who proposed it, and the Athenians, who approved it, were concerned about irregularities in the tributes’ collection and about peculation by those who came into contact with the money. They tried to deter misconduct through the democratic insistence on transparency and accountability. The decree also deals with the procedure underlying the tribute lists. The allies brought their contributions to Athens, where they were audited by public accountants (logistai) and then handed over to the Treasurers of the Greeks (Hellenotamiai: 18.5.C: “Managing the League”). The transactions were recorded in the lists.
ML no. 46 = Fornara no. 98
Translation: Osborne 2000, no. 190, pp. 102–103
Gods. The Council and People decided, in the prytany of the tribe Oineis, when Spoudias was Secretary and [—] on (5) was President on the proposal of Cleinias:1 that the Council and the magistrates in the cities and the Inspectors [episkopoi] should look after the collection of tribute every year (10) and bring it to Athens.
They are to make identification tokens for the cities to prevent those who bring the tribute from committing offences: the city is to write on (15) a tablet the amount of the tribute which it is sending and then seal it with the identification token before it sends it to Athens. Those who bring the tribute are to give the tablet to the Council to read whenever they hand over the tribute.
The prytaneis2 are to hold a meeting of the Assembly after the Dionysia, at which the (20) Hellenotamiai3 are to list for the Athenians separately the cities which have paid all their tribute and the cities that have defaulted.
The Athenians are to elect four men and [send] them to the cities with a record of the [tribute that has been paid] to ask for (25) the remaining tribute from defaulters. Two are to sail on a swift trireme [to the Island region and to Ionia and two to the Hellespont and] the Thraceward region. [The prytaneis are to introduce this matter to the] Council and the [People immediately after the Dionysia and (30) are to keep them up to date on this matter until it is completed.]
If any Athenian [or ally commits an offence over] the tribute which [the cities have written on the tablet and] must [send to Athens] with their tribute-carriers, any [Athenian] (35) or ally [shall be free to indict him before the prytaneis, and the prytaneis] are to bring [any indictment that anyone] makes to the Council [or else suffer a fine of 1,000 drachmas] each at their scrutiny. [Whatever penalty the Council] condemns [an offender to] shall only become valid when [immediately] confirmed [by the Heliaea].4 When a [guilty verdict] is declared, (40) the prytaneis [are to make] a decision as to what the offender should [pay or] suffer.
If anyone commits an offence over the bringing of the cow or [the full set of armor],5 indictment and [punishment] are to follow the same procedure.
The [Hellenotamiai are to write up and (45) display] on a whitened board the tribute [assessment] and [the cities that have paid all of it and] to list [—]
[10 lines missing]
… the incoming Council [is to discuss those who bring in the tribute.] All of those bringing tribute [to Athens who] are written up [on the notice-board] as owing money (60) [—] it is to display to the People [— if] any city [argues about the handing over of the tribute], asserting that it did [hand it over —] the common meeting of the [city —] and the cities and the (65) [—], it shall not be possible to indict [— or] the man who brings the indictment is to owe a fine [—] the indictment [is to be brought to the Polemarch in the month of Game]lion [December/January]. But if anyone argues [—] prosecutions, let the Council (70) consider the matter and [—] those [responsible for introducing cases] are to bring [to the Heliaea those who owe] tribute to the Athenians [in order, according to the record] of the denunciation. [—] the new tribute and last year’s tribute [—] the Council is to consider the matter first and bring [—] at the meeting on the next day [—] arrangements for the choice [—]
Notes
1. The dating of the decree to 448/7 is largely based on an uncertain identification of its proposer Cleinias with his namesake, who was father of the famous politician Alcibiades and died in 447/6. Those who favor a later date associate the decree with a similar decree proposed by Cleonymus in 426 (ML no. 68).
2. The prytaneis were fifty Council members who presided over the Council for one tenth of the year.
3. For the Hellenotamiai, or Treasurers of the Greeks, see Thucydides 1.96.2 = 18.5.C (“Managing the League”).
4. The Heliaea, or “People’s Court,” was the largest court in Athens, presided over by judicial officials called the Thesmothetae.
5. One of the allies’ obligations was to bring a cow and a full suit of armor to the Panathenaea festival at Athens.
Questions
1. Which office-holders and institutions were involved in the collection of the tribute and what function did each of them fulfill?
2. What does the inscription suggest about the hierarchy of power in Athens and its democracy?
21.2 The Tribute Quota List of 453/2
The annual tribute quota lists were inscribed on stone pillars. The first fifteen lists were inscribed on all four sides of a pillar over 3.5 meters high and 1.1 meters wide, and the next eight lists on a smaller pillar. Only few fragments survive of the annual lists past 428. The monumentality of the stones was designed to impress both Athenians and their visitors with the might of the city. It was also a pious tribute to Athena. See WEB 21.4 for a link to an image of a stele inscribed with the tribute lists of 439–431.
Starting from 446/5 the lists were organized by region, which included Ionia, Hellespont, the Thraceward, Caria (to be included in Ionia from 438/7), and the Islands. The number of the allies ranged from about 250 before the Peloponnesian War to 420 in the (optimistic?) tribute assessment of 425/4. Many allies paid only small sums. Around the 440s, only a few allies, including Samos, Chios, and Lesbos, contributed ships and did not pay tribute at all. It has been calculated that 29 percent of the tributary allies paid 86 percent of the total revenues (Osborne 2000, 89). Assessments were made on the basis of the resources, population size, and territory of the contributing state. The following is a part of the tribute quota list of 454/3–453/2, which includes a total of 208 names. The allies named below were from Caria.
The Tribute Quota List of 453/2 (IG I3 260)
| Column II | |
| Bol[bae]ans | 17 drachmas and 1 obol |
| Lephsimani[ans] | 17 drachmas and 1 obol |
| Erinians | 68 drachmas and 5 obols |
| Amynand[es] | 50 drachmas and 5 obols |
| Pactues Idum[eus] | 113 drachmas and 5 obols |
| Oraniet[ans] | 17 drachmas and 1 obol |
| Ola[e]ans | 17 drachmas and 1 obol |
| T[a]rbanians | 17 drachmas and 1 obol |
| Codapes | [amount missing] |
21.3 The Erythraean Decree (453/2)
The anonymous author commonly known as the “Old Oligarch,” whose work has been erroneously attributed to Xenophon, was a critic of Athenian democracy. He noted a consistent Athenian policy of putting down the elite and sponsoring democracy among the allies: see WEB 21.4.I. The Athenians, however, had no qualms in supporting oligarchies friendly to them.
There is little doubt that Athens used the contributions to put a check on discontented members of the league. An Athenian decree, copied two centuries ago but now lost, and which is commonly dated to 453/2, provides information about Athenian instructions to the city of Erythrae in Ionia to model its government after that of Athens. The inscription implies that some Erythraeans had collaborated with the Persians, probably in a revolt against Athens. Another Athenian decree concerning the Ionian city of Colophon, tentatively dated to 450–447/6 (although some prefer to date it to 427), shows another attempt to tighten control over the city (ML no. 47). Colophon probably rebelled, and it appears that between 454 and 450 Athens had to deal with restive allies, especially in Ionia and possibly in the islands.
The Erythraean decree below shows how Athens intervened in the allies’ internal affairs. The Athenians sought to establish a friendly democratic regime there under the watchful eye of a garrison commander. In later years Athens continued to infringe the allies’ sovereignty when it brought allied citizens to trial in Athenian courts or prohibited allies from imposing the death penalty (probably to protect Athenian friends among them). Yet there is also evidence of agreements (symbolai) with individual allied states which narrowly defined the categories of judicial procedure to which allies were subjected (e.g., ML no. 31). See WEB 21.4.II for Athens’ jurisdiction over the allies.
The two fragments of the Erythraean decree were likely inscribed on the same stele.
IG I3 14, 15 = ML no. 40 = Fornara no. 71
Translation: Osborne 2000, nos. 216A, 216B, pp. 113–114
[The Council and People decided —] when [—] was President [— that the people of Erythrae] should bring corn to the Great Panathenaea worth [not less than] three minas and distribute it to those Erythraeans present. [—] (5) the sacred officials [—] if [they] bring [—] worth less than three minas according to what has been laid down, [—] buy corn [—] the people [—] anyone who wants to of the Erythraeans.
There is to be a council of 120 men selected by lot [—] (10) on the council and [not of foreign birth] to serve on the council aged not less than thirty. [Those rejected] to be prosecuted. No one to serve twice within four years. The [Inspectors (episkopoi)] and Garrison Commander are to draw lots and set up the current council; in the future the council and the Garrison Commander (15) to do this not less than 30 days before the term of office expires. Councilors are to take an oath by Zeus and Apollo and Demeter, calling down destruction on themselves if they break their oaths. [—] and destruction on their children [—] over sacred victims [—] And the Council shall burn not less than [—] or else be fined 1,000 drachmas (20) [—] The People is to burn not less [—].
The council is to swear as follows: I will give the best and the most just counsel I can for the People of Erythrae and of Athens and of the allies, and I will not revolt from the People of Athens nor from the allies of the Athenians, neither myself nor will I be persuaded by another to do so (25) [—] I will not receive any of the exiles, nor [—] I will be persuaded by [another] of those who flee to the Persians without the agreement of the Council of the Athenians and the People, and I will not drive out any of those who have stayed without the agreement of the Council of the Athenians and the People. If any Erythraean murders (30) another Erythraean, let him die if condemned [—] if condemned let him be exiled from the whole Athenian alliance and let his money be confiscated and belong to the Erythraeans.
If anyone [—] the tyrants [—] the Erythraeans and [—] let him die [—] his children (35) [—] his children [—] the Erythraeans and [—] the Athenians —] after depositing the money [—] children [—] be [–]ed in this way [—] the Athenian People [—] (40) [—] of the allies [—] ten archers from the garrison [—] (45) Council [—] from each tribe [—] Garrison Commander [—] Athenian [—] the members of the garrison [—]
[they are to swear an oath] in front of [the council at Erythrae and the Garrison Commander, calling down] destruction [on themselves and their children if they swear falsely. The people are to swear] the following: I will not revolt [from the Athenian people nor from the allies] of the Athenians, neither myself [nor will l persuade another, and I] will obey the Athenians’ [decision. This oath and the oath of the council are to be written up] on a stone stele [on the Acropolis], and on the acropolis at Erythrae [the Garrison Commander is to write up] the same.
Questions
1. How was the Erythraean Council constituted, and how did it resemble the Athenian Council?
2. How did Athens seek to guarantee Erythraea’s loyalty?
3. How did the Athenians control and profit from the allies (WEB 21.4.I–II)?
21.5 The Samian Revolt (441/0–440/39)
A major threat to Athens’ control of the empire was the revolt of the island of Samos in 441/0–440/39. The island was not a tributary member of the league, and, in spite of its oligarchic regime, it maintained good relations with Athens up to the revolt.
The siege of Samos led to direct Persian intervention against Athens, thus showing their opportunistic attitude toward the Peace of Callias. In addition, it appears that the Peloponnesians contemplated aiding the Samians, although they did not take action (Thucydides 1.40.5). Lastly, a fragmentary inscription records the expenses of the Athenian campaign in Samos, which may have ranged between 1,200 and 1,400 talents. The money that was paid by the Treasury of Athena was the first attested military use of this religious fund (ML no. 55 = Fornara no. 113). Plutarch preserves a story by Duris, the third-century historian and tyrant of Samos, which records Pericles’ punishment of the Samians. Duris is often criticized for his dramatic style, but the form of crucifixion (apotympanismos) he describes was one of the modes of execution in Athens.
Plutarch Pericles 28.1–3
(28.1) After eight months the Samians capitulated, and Pericles demolished their walls, confiscated their fleet, and fined them heavily. The Samians paid part of the fine immediately, and gave hostages after agreeing to pay the rest within a specified period. To this Duris of Samos adds aspects of tragic drama, accusing the Athenians and Pericles of considerable brutality, which Thucydides does not record, nor Ephorus, nor Aristotle. (28.2) Indeed, Duris seems guilty even of mendacity in saying that Pericles brought the trierarchs and marines of the Samians into the agora of Miletus and tied them to planks, that after they had suffered for ten days he gave orders that they be executed by being clubbed on the head and that their bodies were thrown aside without burial. (28.3) Now Duris does not usually keep his narrative within the bounds of the truth even when he has no axe to grind; all the more likely that in this case he has exaggerated the misfortunes of his country to disparage the Athenians …
Questions
1. Who was involved in the conflict in Samos, and what was at stake for Athens?
2. How did Athens punish the Samians, and what might have moved Plutarch to harshly criticize his source?
21.6 Allies’ Attitudes Toward the Empire
It is not easy to ascertain the allies’ attitudes toward the Athenian empire, because our sources are overwhelmingly Athenian. In addition, the allies’ attitudes were not universal or fixed. Nevertheless, two major sentiments may be discerned. One was an Athenocentric view of the empire as a blessing for the Greeks. In a funeral speech attributed to Lysias and written perhaps during the Corinthian War (395–387), the speaker describes the good services that Athens rendered the allies.
21.6.A Athens’ Services to the Allies
Lysias 2 Funeral Oration 56–57
(56) They did not think that the many should be enslaved to the few,1 but instead they forced everybody to have egalitarian ideals; and rather than weakening the allies, they made them strong, too. They themselves demonstrated such great strength that the Great King no longer hankered after the possessions of others but surrendered some of his own and had fears for what remained. (57) And in that period no triremes sailed from Asia to Greece, nor were there any tyrants set up amongst the Greeks, nor did the barbarians enslave any Greek city. Such was the moderation and fear that the courage of these men instilled in all men. It is because of this that they alone should be the champions of Greece and the leaders of its cities.
Note
1. According to Thucydides (3.10.4), envoys from Mytilene to Sparta in 428 charged the Athenians with enslaving their allies.
Conversely, there was a hostile view of the empire that regarded the Athenians as unjust masters or tyrants. The historian Thucydides attributes to the Athenian leaders Pericles and Cleon the claim that the empire was a tyranny that should be protected if the Athenians knew what was good for them. Cleon stated this view when the Athenians debated how to punish the people of Mytilene on Lesbos, who rebelled and surrendered to them in 427 (see WEB 25.6.III: “The Mytilenean Affair”). Cleon was in favor of killing all adult males and enslaving the women and the children.
21.6.B Allies’ Enmity Toward Athens
Thucydides 3.37.2; cf. 2.63.2
(3.37.2) Because there is no fear and chicanery in your daily relations with one another, you maintain the same attitude toward your allies, and you do not realize that any mistake you make through listening to their arguments, or any concession you grant from pity, shows a weakness that is not without danger for yourselves, and which does not earn you gratitude from the allies. You do not see that the empire you have is a tyranny, and that you are wielding it over unwilling subjects who are plotting against you. These people obey you not because of any favors you do them (to your own harm!) but because of whatever superiority you have imposed on them by your strength rather than established through their good will.
The “Old Oligarch” argued that the Athenian elite supported the allied elites, and the Athenian demos the allied masses, each in pursuit of its own interest (WEB 21.4.I). In the debate over the fate of the rebel Mytileneans (428), the speaker Diodotus expressed a similar view. He opposed Cleon’s motion to punish the rebels severely and recommended a more lenient punishment based on the distinction between the allies’ elites and their masses.
21.6.C A Pragmatic Attitude Toward the Allies’ Conduct
Thucydides 3.47.2–3
(3.47.2) For at the moment the common people [demos] in all the city-states are well disposed toward you, and either do not join the others in seceding or, if compelled to do so, remain from the start hostile to the rebels. This means that you go to war having the masses of the opposing city as your allies. (47.3) But suppose you destroy the common people of Mytilene, who took no part in the secession and who readily surrendered the city to you when they acquired weapons. First of all, you will be doing wrong by killing your benefactors, and secondly you will be creating for those in power the situation they want most. For when they foment revolts in the cities, they will straightway have the common people on their side, since you will have demonstrated that the same punishment awaits the innocent as the guilty …
Questions
1. What were the blessings and the misfortunes of the Athenian empire according to its advocates and critics?
2. How was Athens supposed to treat the allies according to speakers in Thucydides (21.6.C) and the “Old Oligarch” (WEB 21.4.I–II)?
Review Questions
1. How did the Athenians regulate and supervise the collection of the tribute (21.1–2)?
2. How did the Athenians keep the allies under control (21.1, 21.3, 21.5–6, WEB 21.4.I–II)?
3. What was the preferable way to deal with the allies, according to the sources (21.6.B–C, WEB 21.4.I–II)?
4. Was Athenian rule of the empire tyrannical?
Suggested Readings
The Athenian tribute quota lists: B. Meritt et al. 1939–1953; Nixon and Price 1990; Mattingly 1996; Osborne 2000, 86–97, 101–107. Collecting tribute and the Cleinias decree: Meiggs 1972 passim, esp. 212–213, 519–561; Lewis 1994; Osborne 2000, 86–101; and see also Chapter 26 (“Finances and Allies During the Archidamian War”). The Colophon decree: ML no. 47, pp. 123–225 (older date); Mattingly, e.g., 1966, 21–12 (427 BCE). The Samian revolt: Fornara 1979; Quinn 1981, 10–17; Shipley 1987, 103–112. Allies’ attitudes toward the Athenian empire: Ste Croix 1954–1955 (popular among the lower classes); contra: Bradeen 1960.