Originating as a 2019 doctoral thesis, this book offers a decisive reassessment of the Athenian empire (478/7–404 bce). In contrast to R. Meiggs’s The Athenian Empire (1972), which was resolutely diachronic in tracing expansion and contraction over time, L. adopts a synchronic approach focusing on the second half of the century. She gathers different kinds of evidence from the same period, i.e. the time of the Peloponnesian war, to reconstruct the mechanisms and mentalities of imperial power at particular moments. This shift produces a more textured, less teleological account, and is tied to her willingness to question the orthodoxy established by the editors of the Athenian Tribute Lists (I–IV, 1939–1953) and reinforced by Meiggs (1972). That orthodoxy integrated epigraphy tightly with the Thucydidean narrative, producing a seamless story of a consensual league hardening into a coercive empire early on. L. resists this integration, treating inscriptions in their own right and refusing to fit them into a predetermined arc.
The lapis primus (Inscriptiones Graecae I3 259–272), the monumental first marble slab with the tribute quota lists of 454/3 to 440/39, is emblematic of her approach. L. treats it as both symbol and source – a conspicuous statement of Athenian ambition and a document revealing fiscal and ideological workings alike. Yet the book’s most original feature lies not in the treatment of any single inscription but in the cumulative force of its numerous case studies. Examined side by side, they show the Athenians administering their empire through largely ad-hoc measures, adjusting interventions to the circumstances of individual allied poleis. The result is a picture of an empire less monolithic than flexible, one that adapted to local needs and constraints without abandoning its overarching claims to authority.
L.’s handling of inscriptions is exemplary. She writes with the assurance of someone at home with the stones – their physicality, letter-forms and the selective processes by which decrees were inscribed –, and she integrates the latest editions (R. Osborne and P.J. Rhodes; Athenian Inscriptions Online; A.P. Matthaiou) into her readings. Where earlier scholars sometimes used epigraphy chiefly to fill out a Thucydidean framework, L. works the other way round: inscriptions set the parameters, and literary sources are brought in only when they illuminate or complicate the epigraphic picture.
The analysis is enriched by her command of numismatics. Coins, often treated as supplementary, here have equal weight with inscriptions. Recoinage measures in the northern Aegean are linked to shifts in tribute arrangements; circulation patterns in Caria illuminate the reach and limits of Athenian economic integration; frontier hoards help gauge the permeability of the empire’s boundaries. In places like the Chersonese, hoard evidence dovetails with tribute records to suggest how strategic imperatives shaped fiscal policy. This marriage of epigraphy and numismatics allows L. to reconstruct patterns of control, accommodation and negotiation that neither body of evidence could yield alone.
The comparative framework is equally well judged. Venetian petitions and privileges illustrate how subordinate communities could shape their obligations within a wider imperial system. The Roman petition-and-response model provides a structural analogy for the bilateral processes L. sees in Athenian–allied relations. The Seleucid grant-and-surrender pattern offers a Hellenistic precedent for formalised exchanges of autonomy and obligation. E.R.M. Dusinberre’s authority–autonomy model for the Achaemenid Empire supplies a conceptual vocabulary for describing flexible imperial arrangements. These are never overextended; each returns the focus to the fifth-century Aegean and sharpens the questions L. asks of the material.
The geographical range is wide and effectively exploited. In Euboea tribute reassessments are shown to be paired with decrees protecting certain local privileges, tempering fiscal demands in ways that facilitated compliance. In Chios the balance between enforcing naval obligations and respecting civic autonomy shows Athens’ willingness to leave local political structures intact when they served stability. Caria offers a case of negotiated inclusion, where local coinage and cult practices were incorporated into the imperial system rather than displaced, allowing Athens to draw revenue and prestige without provoking unnecessary resistance. The Thracian Chersonese illustrates how financial oversight was tied to strategic concerns, especially in territories close to hostile powers. In the northern Aegean epigraphic evidence is combined with coin finds to trace shifts in economic regulation, revealing moments when Athens tightened or loosened its grip in response to changing conditions.
It is in such regional studies that the virtues of the synchronic method become clearest. By reconstructing the configuration of Athenian power in each case from contemporary evidence, L. avoids the distortions of treating local developments merely as steps in a general progression towards greater coercion. This is the most important way in which she departs from the ATL/Meiggs orthodoxy: the local and the particular take precedence over the drive to fit all evidence into a single chronological and imperialistic arc.
The breadth of coverage is impressive, but it inevitably comes at some cost. Long-running controversies are summarised rather than re-opened. The disputed translation of the lapis primus heading is accepted without discussion; the historicity of the Peace of Callias (450/49 bce) is assumed rather than argued; there is no treatment of the possibility that tribute was reintroduced in 410 bce, nor of the hellenotamiai, the Greek Treasurers who received the tribute, attested as late as 407 bce. Fuller engagement with the Copenhagen Polis Centre’s work on the political and institutional contexts of the poleis could have enriched the discussion of how local autonomy was conceptualised and negotiated. These omissions will be noticed by specialists, but they are consistent with the book’s overall design: a reinterpretation grounded in breadth of evidence rather than an exhaustive commentary on every debated point.
L.’s handling of literary sources is careful and proportionate. Thucydides and Aristophanes are deployed sparingly, to complement rather than drive the argument. This caution is part of what gives the book its freshness: by refusing to subordinate epigraphy to literary history, L. keeps the focus on what can be known from the stones themselves.
Clarity is another strength. The prose is precise, free from unnecessary jargon and paced so that complex technical points never overwhelm the argument. The synthesis of disparate materials – inscriptions, coins, comparative imperial histories – is unusually deft, allowing readers to follow intricate discussions without losing sight of the larger interpretative stakes.
If the choice of breadth over depth sometimes leaves stones unturned, it is a deliberate trade-off. The gain is a reframing of the fifth-century Athenian empire that is both empirically grounded and interpretively stimulating. By adopting a synchronic lens, distancing herself from the ATL/Meiggs teleology and insisting on the individuality of local cases, L. restores to view the variety of imperial relationships and the agency of allied communities.
The cumulative effect of the book lies in its juxtaposition of examples. Together, they make a persuasive case that Athens ruled less through a rigid system than through a flexible repertoire of tools: fiscal adjustments, tailored political arrangements and selective incorporation of local religious and economic practices. This adaptability, rather than sheer coercion, helps to explain the empire’s durability over much of the fifth century. It also offers a more historically plausible model of how Athens could maintain control over a geographically dispersed and culturally diverse set of communities without constant recourse to force.
The volume is a mature and impressive work of scholarship. It will stimulate debate among specialists, provide comparativists with a model of adaptive imperial governance and stand as a significant contribution to the study of Greek political history. For anyone interested in Athenian imperialism or the comparative history of empire it is a rewarding and thought-provoking read.
