The present volume, which is the publication of papers originally delivered in a panel at the Celtic Conference in Classics in 2010, is a welcome contribution to the history of Athenian imperialism. Indeed, considering that the history of the Athenian empire has seen a radical transformation in the last fifteen years or so, the publication of articles that tackle head on the diverse forms that Athenian economic imperialism took in the Aegean region during the fifth and fourth centuries can only enhance the way we write the history of the period. There is therefore much to commend here; at the same time, however, the authors individually and the volume as a collective product do not always push the agenda as far as they could. While there is much that is new and refreshing in the volume, this is very much the intellectual product of a ‘classic’ approach to the history of the Athenian empire. There are eight contributions in addition to a touching preface, dedicating the volume to the memory of Michael Jameson, and an introduction written by Jensen.
One important contribution of the volume overall is the sustained emphasis on local variation and diversity in the forms that Athenian imperialism and economic exploitation took. This is a crucial observation, and one, I would argue, that is not made explicit enough in traditional approaches to the history of the Athenian empire.
Jensen's contribution, ‘Synteleia and Apotaxis on the Athenian Tribute Lists’, makes the very valuable point that we should not necessarily interpret the instances of synteleia (combined payments) and apotaxis (dissolution of combined payments) as a top-down imposition of harsh imperialistic rule. Rather, such instances could be the result of allied initiative. This is an important argument, which rightly stresses allied agency and local variation. Through a careful examination of the evidence of the Athenian Tribute Lists Jensen shows that both synteleia and apotaxis did not necessarily generate greater income for Athens. Rather, it was administrative facilitation, relevant to both the imperial centre and the allies, that should be the primary explanation for such tribute entries. For example, smaller communities did not necessarily have the resources or administrative capability to pay tribute or furnish ships by themselves: a syntely with a larger neighbour, therefore, was an appropriate way to address this issue. While I may not agree with all the assumptions included here (for example, I do not think it is likely that the island of Casos was an abstainer from the empire, as it is argued on p. 65, or that the absence of Amorgos from the lists until 434/3 bc was the result of Amorgos being a dependency of Samos, as it is argued on p. 68 – I would rather argue that Amorgos paid in a hidden syntely), this is a careful piece, which shows how fruitful a close examination of the evidence may prove to be.
The contribution by the late M. Wallace (edited and supplemented by Figueira), ‘Karystos in Euboia and Attic Hegemony’, is surely a highlight of the volume. The overall approach is a traditional one that depends on literary sources and focuses on a political and military narrative, but at the same time it puts forward a really intriguing proposition. Taking as one of the starting points the truly remarkable inclusion of the figure of 81 talents, 2000dr for the property at Geraistos of the otherwise unknown Oionias in the Attic stelae, Wallace argues that the existence of such a massive Athenian estate in the area of Karystos should be directly linked to the incorporation of Karystos into the Athenian sphere of interest. Oionias inherited this estate from his family, which was Karystian in origin. Perhaps Oionias’ family played a key role in the incorporation of Karystos into the Delian League and was rewarded with Athenian citizenship; an Athenian property of such size in the territory of Karystos may have been the result of an Athenian cleruchy in the region. This is very convincing and is a wonderful attestation of how profoundly integrated some key regions of the empire were.
The second important contribution of the volume is the meticulous arguments produced by the close examination of the very difficult and problematic sources for the topic: namely the Athenian imperial epigraphic dossier and specifically the Athenian Tribute Lists.
W. Bubelis's contribution, ‘Imperial Numeracy? Athenian Calculation of Some Imperial Taxes’, takes a close look at the systems of counting reflected in the records for the aparche. He argues that we can discern at least two major numerical systems (the decimal and sexagesimal computational bases) used in the imperial epigraphic dossier. At the heart of the argument is the aparche, the 1/60th of tribute (one mna from a talent) dedicated to the goddess Athena and inscribed meticulously on the Athenian Tribute Quota Lists. Bubelis makes the insightful observation that we never get any sums that are smaller than half an obol for the aparche. This, in turn, implies that the 1/60 system was in fact used as a determinant for assessing the tribute. In other words, the Athenians, when assessing the tribute, made sure that the tribute could be divided by 60. While the specific lines of the argument are not always easy to follow, the observation that practical computational considerations played an important part in Athenian imperial financial administration is very important and should be a reminder to all scholars of the empire and its finances that the study of numeracy (along with literacy) should not be neglected.
A. Hershkowitz, in ‘Patterns in Variation in Tribute Assessment’, stresses that traditional scholarly interest in the individual variations of tribute payment can be very misleading. Rather than looking at the change of tribute payment for individual entries and then try to interpret it as a result of revolt, hegemonic initiatives etc., we should be looking at larger patterns. By applying a broad statistical analysis of entries of aparche, he shows that changes in tribute payments were linked to two factors: geographic and one related to size. More particularly, on the whole, the Thraceward and Hellespontine districts are characterised by net increases in tribute, while the Ionian, Carian and Island districts are characterised by net decreases. Secondly, it seems that the cost of appeal procedure would outweigh the benefits of any tribute decrease achieved by the appeal. This is argued on the basis of the observation that of the 106 tribute paying entries whose tribute remains unchanged, 91 pay less than a talent and 68 less than 0.6 talents. The article is nicely complemented by a series of tables that visualise the tribute payments of allied entries, and which will be extremely useful to anyone teaching the finances of the Athenian empire.
B. Rutishauser's contribution, ‘The Wealth of Metics and Athenian Naval Power’, puts forward the convincing argument that the metics’ eisphora could be directed towards the maintenance of the fleet. Through a careful examination of references in speeches and inscriptions he argues for a more integrated position of metics within the Athenian political and economic sphere than previously understood.
Figueira's contribution, ‘The Aristeidian Tribute and the Peace of Nikias’, is the longest of the volume and would have benefited from some more drastic editing. Figueira focuses on a single passage in Thucydides (5.18.5). The main argument is that the reference to Aristides’ assessment in 421 was probably already a propagandistic contention for both Athenians and Spartans; it was more likely evocative of a tendency, approach or attitude towards assessment. Rather than understanding the term as specific about six definite assessment figures, we should understand it as a return to the previous, pre-war, status quo, that is the tribute of high empire. The adoption of this term hid in benevolent phrasing, successfully, the concessions that Sparta made to Athens in the Peace of Nicias.
G. Bonnin's contribution, ‘Phoroi, Syntaxeis, and Loans from Delian Apollo: the Cyclades under Athenian Financial Imperialism’, is another highlight of the volume. Bonnin succeeds in making a number of excellent points, such as that the tribute was just one of the ways through which Athens interfered in the regional economy of the Cyclades; the administrative control of the sanctuary of Delian Apollo and its considerable resources was another one. He argues that the period between 426 (Nicias’ expedition in the southern Cyclades) and 415 (Melos’ subjugation) marks ‘rightfully the tipping point during which phoros changed from an instrument of imperialism to a prerequisite of empire’ (p. 145). Furthermore, the Athenian officials in control of Delos and its sanctuary had two sets of interests: managing the sanctuary and guaranteeing that the interest from the loans provided the income necessary to fund the Delian religious expenses, but also preserving Athenian interests in the region. In that sense, one could imagine a scenario where loans would be granted to states that were loyal to Athens: this would explain why during the fourth century some states get recurrent loans. In the period of Delian Independence, however, island states do not get loans from Apollo. In other words, we should understand state loans as part of the hegemonic policy of Athens. I found this argument particularly ingenious, and one that incorporates the history of the fourth century into the longer narrative of Athenian exploitation of the Aegean.
Indeed, a final valuable contribution of the volume is the incorporation of Athenian hegemonic practices (especially of the fifth century) into a longer chronological framework of exploitation. This is an important point, and one that only recently began to be adequately stressed in scholarship, by, among others, L. Kallet and J.K. Davies. L.J. Samons II, in ‘Periklean Imperialism and Imperial Finance in Context’, rightly places ‘high’ imperialistic intervention in the context of a much older Athenian interference, especially in the north Aegean. His argument, however, is based on a traditional examination of the literary sources, namely Thucydides and Herodotus. Indeed, the very adoption of the term ‘Periclean’ imperialism for high empire indicates, I would argue, a prosopocentric approach to history that is not particularly helpful. Such an approach ultimately weakens an important argument about the long history of economic exploitation and intervention in the Aegean by Athenian elites and later the Athenian state. The history of economic imperialist exploitation should be written by looking into the history of resources, economy, ecology, networks of distribution, consumption and exchange, evidenced through material culture, and not simply through the narrative accounts of our sources. This is what I described at the beginning as a relatively traditional and old-fashioned approach.
The volume is very valuable in putting forward some truly ingenious arguments. Some of the articles are not easy to follow and would be suitable for scholars rather than students of the history of the Athenian empire. While the volume aims to provide a complete re-evaluation of the relationship between finances, the economy and the history of Athenian imperialism (in its longue durée), occasionally the traditional approach of focusing on literary sources limits its success in pushing the agenda for the writing of the history of Athenian imperialism forward.
