Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:03:30.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and Chalkis: a study in imperial control*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Martin Ostwald
Martin Ostwald
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College and University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basic contention of this article is that, contrary to a widely held and influential view, the Chalkis Decree does not constitute evidence that Athens tried to impose democracies on rebellious allies after their subjugation. It contains an exchange of oaths between Athens and Chalkis, confirming an ‘agreement’ (homologia), the contents of which are lost. The oaths show Athenian concern for the protection of the Athenian democracy and its friends at Chalkis, and impose some judicial but no political restrictions on Chalkis to secure Athenian domination and assure the priority of Athenian interests. In fact, the Athenians acknowledge the right of the Chalkidians to insist on the performance of civic duties in Chalkis on the part of aliens (xenoi) resident there. The Athenians among these resident xenoi, who are exempted from these obligations, are neither colonists nor kleruchs, as is sometimes alleged, but most probably individual settlers who had been given land in Chalkidian territory by Tolmides in the 450s.

Type
Shorter Contributions
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 122 , November 2002 , pp. 134 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2002

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

1 Thuc. 1.114.1, cf. Diod. 12.6-7; Plut. Per. 22.1-2.

2 Thuc. 1.113.2: καὶ Εὐβοέων φυγάδες καὶ ὅσοι τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης ἦσαν.

3 Thuc. 1.114.31: καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι πάλιν ἐς Εὔβοιαν διαβάντες Περικλέους στρατηγοῦντος κατεστρέψαντο πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἄλλην ὁμολογὶᾳ κατεστήσαντο πᾶσαν, Ἑστιαιᾶς δὲ ἐξοικίσαντες αὐτοί τὴν γῆν ἔσχον.

4 Plut. Per. 23.4: μόνοις τούτοις ἀπαραιτήτως χρησάμενος <ὁ Περικλῆς>, ὅτι ναῦν Ἀττικὴν αἰχμάλω τον λαβόντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἄνδρας.

5 Thuc. 1.98.3 with Gomme, HCT 1.281-2. The probable date is 469 BC, as I have argued in Autonomia: Its Genesis and Early History (Chico, CA 1982) 38Google Scholar. Alternatively, the Greek may indicate that no Euboian cities other than Karystos were attacked. However, I prefer taking ἄνευ τῶν ἄλλων Εὐβοέων with αὐτοῖς rather than with Καρυστίους.

6 See Hdt. 6.99.2; 8.66.2, 112.2, and 121.1.

7 Thuc. 1.98.3: χρόνῳ ξυνέβησαν καθ' ὁμολογίαν.

8 Hdt. 5.77.2: νικήσαντες δὲ καὶ τούτους τετρακισχιλίους κληρούχους ἐπὶ τῶν ἱπποβοτέων τῇ χώρῃ λείπουσι' οἱ δὲ ἱπποβόται ἐκαλέοντο οἱ παχέες τῶν Χαλκιδέων.

9 Hdt. 6.100.2.

10 See Hammond, N.G.L., Studies in Greek History (Oxford, 1973) 202, 222Google Scholar, who suggests that they crossed over to Attica with the Eretrians at the time of Marathon.

11 Arist. Pol. 4.3, 1289b36-39.

12 Their names are engraved on the ‘Serpent Column’, see Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (2nd edn, Oxford 1969) (= ML) no. 27, 8.Google Scholar

13 See Graham, A.J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (2nd edn, Chicago 1983) 177Google Scholar; so also Erxleben, E., ‘Die Kleruchien auf Euböa und Lesbos und die Methoden der attischen Herrschaft im 5. Jh.’, Klio 57 (1975) 83–100, esp. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Diod. 11.88.3 (where the text is somewhat defective), and Paus. 1.27.5 with Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 121–3.Google Scholar

15 See Ael. VH 6.1: Ἀθηναῖοι κρατήσαντες Χαλκιδέων κατεκληρούχησαν αὐτῶν τὴν γῆν ἐς δισχιλίους κλήρους, τὴν Ἱππόβοτον καλουμένην χώραν, τεμένη δὲ ἀνῆκαν τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ ἐν τῷ Ληλάντῳ ὀνομαζομένῳ τόπῳ, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν ἐμίσθωσαν κατὰ τὰς στήλας τὰς πρὸς τῇ βασιλείῳ στοᾷ ἑστηκυίας, αἵπερ οὖν τὰ τῶν μισθώσεων ὑπομνήματα εἶχον. τοὺς δὲ αἰχμαλώτους ἔδησαν, καὶ οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα ἔσβεσαν τὸν κατὰ Χαλκιδέων θυμόν.

16 Meiggs (n.14) 566-7; cf. also Balcer, J.M., The Athenian Regulations for Chalkis: Studies in Athenian Imperial Law (Historia Einzelschrift 33, Wiesbaden 1978) 21–2Google Scholar, and Figueira, T.J., Athens and Aegina in the Age of Imperial Colonization (Baltimore and London 1991) 258–60.Google Scholar

17 The following discussion will be based on the text printed in ML no. 52. The most comprehensive discussion is that of Balcer (n. 16). Scholarly discussions of the Chalkis Decree are too numerous to list exhaustively. For good bibliographies, see Bengtson, H. (ed.), Die Staatsverträge des Altertums 2 (Munich and Berlin 1962) (henceforth: SVA) 74Google Scholar; ML, pp. 140-4; IG i3 40; and Hornblower, S. and Greenstock, M.C. (eds), The Athenian Empire3 (LACTOR 1, Harrow 1986) 157Google Scholar. The most recent monograph, that of Balcer, lacks a systematic bibliography.

18 See IG i3 40, with D.M. Lewis' note on p. 44, who cites as the only dissenting voice the date of 424/3, proposed by Mattingly, H.B., ‘Athens and Euboea’, JHS 81 (1961) 124–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar (now reprinted in The Athenian Empire Restored (Ann Arbor, MI 1996) 53–67)Google Scholar.

19 See SVA 2.73 with Balcer (n.16) 55-65 and 83-101, where a reconstruction of the physical arrangement is shown in Fig. 1.

20 See ML no. 52, 60-1: τέλεσι τοῖς Χαλκιδέον. For a similar condition imposed on Kolophon about this same time, see ML no. 47, 38-9.

21 See ML no. 40, 23-4,31.

22 A superficial survey reveals the interesting fact that similar distinctions between Ἀθηναῖοι and δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων is found in the fifth century only in settlements beween Athens and rebellious allies — Erythrai (ML no. 40, 21-4); Kolophon (ML no. 47, 44-7); Samos (ML no. 56, 16-18,19-21) — but not in treaties with other states, e.g. Rhegium or Leontini (ML nos 63 and 64). See also below with nn. 26-7.

23 The decree here referred to is presumably the ὁμολογία which preceded the present decree; see Balcer (n.16) 62-5.

24 ML no. 52, 29-32: καὶ δέμοι Ἀθεναίον βοεθέσο καὶ , ἐάν τις τὸν τὸν Ἀθ, ναίον, καί πείσομαι δέμοι Ἀθεναίον.

25 ML, p. 141 note that ‘the emphasis throughout is not on Athens but more specifically on the Athenian demos’.

26 ML no. 40,21-4: ὀμν[ὐ]ναι [δὲ τά]δε [τὲν] βολέν· βολεύσο ἂν [δύ]να[μ]α[ι] ἄριστ[α καὶ] δ[ι]κα[ιότα]τα Ἐρυθραίον πλέθει καὶ Ἀθεναίον καὶ [χσυ]νμά[χ]ον [κ]αὶ οὐκ [ἀποσ]τέσομαι Ἀθεναίον π[λ]έθος οὐδὲ [] χσυμμάχον Ἀθεναίον οὔτ' αὐτὸς ἐγὸ ο[ὔ]τ' ἄ[λ]λοι πε[ί]σομ[αι].

27 See ML no. 47, 43-6, 46-9. The decree settling the revolt of Samos in 439/8 (ML no. 56) also contains a loyalty oath sworn by the βουλή (?) δέμοι Ἀθ[εναίον (20-1), but other references to the Athenian δῆμος depend on restoration.

28 The decree is passed by βουλή and δῆμος (1 and 13, cf. also 43, 55 and 76 for the δῆμος); there is a πρὑτανις (1, 14) and an ἐπιστάτης (1); the oath is sworn by the βουλή and δῆμος and the δικασταί (4); στρατηγοί are charged with ensuring that the oath is taken by all members of the Athenian party (20), and by Athenians and Chalkidians in Chalkis (44); they are to make the arrangements and provide the funds for the sacrifice for Euboia (68), and they are to ensure the protection of Euboia (77). The Secretary of the Athenian βουλή is assigned the responsibility of publishing the decree on the acropolis (59), and the ἡλιαία τῶν θεσμοθετῶν is to hear certain cases referred to its jurisdiction from Chalkis (75).

29 See Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1986) esp. 55–62Google Scholar.

30 Against ATL 3 (1950) 149–54Google Scholar, esp. 153 with n.17; cf. Balcer (n.16) 24: ‘While no absolute evidence exists, it appears that an Athenian-supported democracy now replaced the defeated and exiled Chalkidian oligarchy.’ See also below, p. 141 with nn.44 and 45.

31 Cf. also lines 74-6: περὶ δὲ τούτον ἔΦεσιν Ἀθέναζε ἐζ τὲν ἑλιαίαν τὲν .

32 ML no. 52, 6-10: οὐδὲ ἰδιότεν οὐδένα ἀτιμόσο οὐδὲ ζεμιόσο οὐδὲ χσυλλέφσομαι οὐδὲ οὐδὲ χρέματα ἀΦαιρέσομαι ἀκρίτο οὑδενός ἄνευ δέμο Ἀθεναίον.

33 Ibid. 24-5: καὶ ἐὰν τις Ἀθεναίοισι.

34 So, rightly, Gomme, HCT 1.342; differently ML, p. 143, and de Ste. Croix, G.E.M., ‘Notes on jurisdiction in the Athenian Empire II’, CQ 11 (1961) 268–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 271-2. There is no good reason why in an Athenian decree the term εὔθυναι should have a different connotation when applied to Chalkis than it had in Athens, especially when the decree adds καθάπερ Ἀθένεσιν Ἀθεναίοις (72-3).

35 ML no. 52, 74-6: περὶ δὲ τούτον ἔΦεσιν Ἀθέναζε ἐς τὲν ἑλιαίαν τὲν . For the meaning of ἔΦεσις, see MacDowell, D.M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978) 30–2.Google Scholar

36 Note line 76: κατά τὸ φσέφισμα δέμο.

37 ML no. 52, 47-52: περὶ δὲ hομέρον ἀποκρίνασθαι Χαλκιδεῦσιν, hότι νῦν μὲν Ἀθεναίοις δοκεῖ ἐᾶν κατὰ τὰ ἐφσεφισμένα· hόταν δὲ βολευαάμενοι ποέσοσι τέν διαλλα[γ]έν, καθότι ἂν ἐπιτέδειον Ἀθεναίοις καὶ Χαλκιδεῦσιν.

38 ML no. 52, 52-7. The older controversies are well summarized by Gauthier, P., ‘Les ΞΕΝΟΙ dans les textes athéniens de la seconde moitié du Ve siècle av. J.-C.’, REG 84 (1971) 44-79, esp. 65–76Google Scholar, and by Balcer (n.16) 65-71 with nn. 22-6, who does not consider the more recent contributions of Smart, J.D., ‘IG I2 39: “Aliens” in Chalcis’, ZPE 24 (1977) 231–2Google Scholar; Slings, S.R., ‘Athenian ateleia in I.G. I2 39’, ZPE 25 (1977) 277–9Google Scholar; Dover, K.J., ‘δε in the Khalkis Decree’, ZPE 30 (1978) 94Google Scholar = Greek and the Greeks (Oxford 1987) 42Google Scholar; and Henry, A.S., ‘Athens and Chalcis: I.G. I2 39, lines 52-57 yet again’, ZPE 35 (1979) 287–91Google Scholar. Of special importance is the discussion by Giovannini, A., ‘Imposition et exemption fiscales des étrangers dans le règlement athénien sur Chalcis IG I3 40’, ZPE 133 (2000) 61–74, esp. 61-2.Google Scholar

39 Balcer (n. 16) 71. See also Fornara, C.W, ‘IG I2,39. 52-57 and the “popularity” of the Athenian Empire’, CSCA 10 (1977) 39–55, esp. 40-1.Google Scholar

40 The only exception is Gauthier (n.38) 72: ‘L'expression τελεῖν ἐς χαλκίδα est curieuse. S'il s'agissait du paiement des taxes dues à Chalcis, on aurait τελεῖν Χαλκιδεῦσι, et il va de soi que ce paiement aurait lieu ἐν Χαλκίδι. La construction de τελεῖν avec εἰς et I'accusatif se rencontre dans les expressions comme τελεῖν ἐς Ἕλληνας (Hérodote II, 51), τελεῖν ἐς ἀστούς (Sophocle, (Œd. Roi222) “être compté parmi les Grecs”, “parmi les citoyens”… Néanmoins, on ne peut se satisfaire d'une traduction comme “payer à Chalcis”: elle ne suggère pas d'autre idée que celle d'un paiement fait aux Chalcidiens, ce qui ne saurait être rendu en grec de cette façon. L'expression signifie soit “être compté comme Chalcidien”, soit “payer pour Chalcis”, les deux traductions menant du reste à la même interprétation historique.’ My only objection to this interpretation is that it neglects the contribution in materials or services expected from those ‘counted in’ the group. See also Giovannini (n.38) 71.

41 For this interpretation of τελέω, see my discussion in ‘Public expense: whose obligation?: Athens 600-454 BCE’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 139 (1995) 368–79Google Scholar, esp. 375 with nn.25-7.

42 The obligations of foreign residents in the Greek world in the fifth and fourth centuries have been fully and convincingly discussed by Giovannini (n.38) esp. 63-8, who singles out the performance of liturgies and the payment of εἰσφοραί as the most important. However, since εἰσφοραί are first attested for 434/3 BC, they may not have existed at the time of the Chalkis Decree. For earlier treatments of this problem, see G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde (Munich 1920) 1.295-9, and Cohen, E.E., The Athenian Nation (Princeton 2000) 72–5Google Scholar.

43 The awkward grammatical construction of the Greek has been satisfactorily explained by Slings (n.38).

44 See pp. 138-9 with n.30 above.

45 For these reasons, I cannot agree with Fornara's argument (n.39) 50-1 that this clause is ‘a notable example of Athenian imperialism in the mid-fifth century, for it implies the ultimate interference in the management of local affairs’. On the contrary, it confirms the demands Chalkis can still make on its alien residents.

46 ML, p. 143.

47 See n.38 above.

48 Gauthier (n.38) 65-76. Gauthier has been effectively answered by Giovannini (n.38) 66-7.

49 Whitehead, D., ‘IG I2 39: “Aliens” in Chalcis and Athenian imperialism’, ZPE 21 (1976) 251–9Google Scholar, supported by Smart, J.D., ‘IG I2 39: “Aliens” in Chalcis’, ZPE 24 (1977) 231–2Google Scholar, who adds that those paying to Athens must be Athenian kleruchs.

50 Pace Fornara (n.39) 53 n.3.

51 For details, see Brunt, P.A., ‘Athenian settlements abroad in the fifth century B.C.’, Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (Oxford 1966) 71–92Google Scholar, and Graham (n.13), esp. 166-210.

52 See above, p. 135.

53 See above, p. 135 with n.12.

54 ATL 3, pp. 22 (no. 50) and 28 (no. 200).

55 Thuc. 1.98.3 with n.5 above.

56 Diod. 11.88.3 …Τολμίδης ὁ ἕτερος στρατηγὸς εἰς τὴν Εὔβοιαν παρελθὼν ἄλλοις χιλίοις πολίταις τὴν τῶν Ναξίων γῆν διένειμε. Cf. Paus. 1.27.5: <Τολμίδης> ὕστερον δὲ ὠς ἐπανῆλθεν ἐς Ἀθήνας, ἐσήγαγε μὲν ἐς Εὔβοιαν καὶ Νάξον Ἀθηναίων κληρούχους, ἐσέβαλε δὲ ἐς Βοιωτοὺς στρατῷ.

57 See Fornara (n.39) 47-9.

58 See p. 135 above.

59 Plut. Per. 23.4: Χαλκιδέων μὲν τοὺς ἱπποβότας λεγομένους πλούτῳ καὶ δόξῃ διαφέροντας ἐξέβαλεν, Ἑστιεῖς δὲ πάντας ἀναστήσας ἐκ τῆς χώρας Ἀθηναίους κατῴκισε, μόνοις ιούτοις ἀπαραιτήτως χρησάμενος, ὅτι ναῦν Ἀττικὴν αἰχμάλωτον λαβόντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἄνδρας.

60 See above, nn.13 and 14.

61 Ael. VH 6.1, quoted in n.15.

62 This is the view of Fornara (n.39) and of Giovannini (n.38) 71-4.

63 Giovannini (n.38) 70-1 believes that ‘les personnes concernées doivent être avant tout, voire exclusivement, des commerçants exerçants simultanément leurs activités dans les deux cités et étant de ce fait “domiciliées” dans l'une et l'autre en même temps’. See also ibid. 74. However, this seems to me more applicable to the fourth than to the fifth century BC.

64 Fornara's explanation (n.38) 50-1, that they had been partisans of Athens during the rebellion, carries no conviction. See also above, n.44.

65 Green, J.R. and Sinclair, R.K., ‘Athens and Eretria’, Historia 19 (1970) 515–27Google Scholar.

66 For the Attic Stelai as a whole, see IG i3 421-30; for Athenian landed property at Eretria, see Green and Sinclair (n.65) 525 n.45; for the property of Nikides and Oionias on Euboia, see Aurenche, O., Les groupes d'Alcibiade, de Léogoras et de Teucros (Paris 1974) 136–40Google Scholar.

67 And. 3.9.

68 See p. 138 above.