Athens and Miletos ca. 450 B. C.

Author(s): A. J. Earp
Source: Phoenix , Winter, 1954, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter, 1954), pp. 142-147
Published by: Classical Association of Canada

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1086124

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Phoenix

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ATHENS AND MILETOS ca. 450 B.C.

A. J. EARP

THUCYDIDES is notoriously brief in his account of events in the

middle of the fifth century when the Confederacy of Delos was becoming
an Athenian Empire. It is fortunate that the epigraphic evidence for
Athenian intervention in the affairs of Miletos, Erythrai, Kolophon, and
Chalkis throws a good deal of light on the relations between Athens and
her allies at this important period, and it is natural that the pertinent
inscriptions should have figured prominently in recent discussions of the
subject, notably in Meiggs' article, "The Growth of Athenian Imperial-
ism,"' and in the magnificent reconstruction of the history of the Con-
federacy by Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor in the third volume of
The Athenian Tribute Lists. In the case of Miletos, however, I venture to
suggest that a little more may be legitimately extracted from the evidence
available, and that a slightly different interpretation and dating is to be
preferred to those adopted by Meiggs and by the authors of ATL.
There are four items of evidence in all:

(A) That of the quota lists: in 454/3 the Milesians themselves are absent
from the list but the following entries occur (VI, 19-22):

[k]xs Aipo:HHH
[M]X&ro,
[f T]etx&6raoes: ---I

For the next year no Milesian entries survive but in 452/1 there appears
the straightforward entry MtX~arot, which remains the normal designation
for Miletos. The obvious inference is that in 454/3 Miletos itself was in
revolt, that the loyal Milesians had fled to Leros and Teichioussa, and
that Miletos had been recovered by 452/1.2

(B) [Xenophon], 'AO. IloX. 3.11: roiro 6d Ure MAXstiowv eZovro (ol 'AO7;vatot)
robS sekriorous, kvrs bXrou vxp6ovu &lroVdr&ers s? n bY jsov Ka-rtO,&/av.

'7HS 63 (1943) 21-33.

'Credit for suggesting this should be given to A. G. Dunham, A History of Miletus
(London 1915) 132-138. In all probability a similar situation existed in Erythrai at
this time, the loyal Erythraians fleeing to Boutheia (ATL 3. 253-255; Meiggs, 7HS 63.
23-25), and we know from Thucydides that events followed this pattern in Kolophon
in 431/0, when that city was taken by the Persians and the Kolophonians loyal to Athens
fled to Notion (Thuc. 3. 34. 1; cf. the er tries for Kolophon and Notion in the quota lists
at this time). It is convenient to speak of "the recovery of 452" for Miletos but this
may have been effected in the preceding year and the record lost (cf. ifTL 3. 255).
142

THem PooeNIx, voL 8 (1954) 4

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ATHENS AND MILETOS 143

(C) A Milesian inscription of "ab

Syll.3 58), which begins as follows

[............ ... . [ ..... .] o [s N]v

[Kal K]pea6ovrqv [7robs] 2rpar.wVaKT
[fvuyv] Kat a7ros [Ka]L EKyoVOUvs, Kat o
['TELVEIL, car'y [ar]arijj pas ac'r&e 'yE
5 [xpia'r]Twvwv Nvju[4apnjIToU' - - -
(D) IG 12.22, an Athenian decree
A. G. Woodhead's in A.TL 2 (D11
[M L]Xn a It]ots x av y y p [a ] a]

['EBoxaevI 7^L 3OVX7L Kat[ IrWL rt olWL, KepwlrtLs 'rp]vU7v[eFU,. ..... ..ypalrLLT-
[EVE, 'Ovi7r]Wop TrEra'rEL, [EiOvvos 1pXE. dTa'E hOL X]tVvyypa[4ets XouYV-
pacfav. Te-]
[XE7a rd v]o1i?Eva ro[?s OEoZs, hEX&Oat 6' 7iVTiE W[6pas ru 3jiov Exs havr-]
5 [avrcwv a]btrla cdAXa h[vr-4p 7PLtaKOV7ra e:T] '7yovbTcr[s, EXawjLooLav La Pt.7 EPVa-]
[I aVbroZS
[7 Kal r]o-ts7rpoaE[TalpoLs
]o? i &YOaL[ .........]tL
pEow, robrous V ap][XELa
lE7r To aLt[- -- - - --KaVi
- - - UY[OXEoELPj
--- TE r lTE vyV-]

[ AO...... ]Pt? K'L[r]o[[......... .]Yovus Tro MLX[?i-wv- ---I

[ ..... MlIX]rtCwv---
At first sight these four items appear to fit neatly together: it would
seem reasonable to suppose that the revolt indicated by the quota lists
and the revolt of the oligarchs to which [Xenophon] refers are one and
the same, that it is the leaders of this oligarchy who are proscribed in
the Milesian decree, and that the Athenian decree marks the recovery of
Miletos and the establishment of a democracy.4 But from lines 6 and 7
of the Athenian decree, as restored above, the government of Miletos in
450/49 appears to be oligarchic and not democratic. As Meiggs remarks:
"The five Athenian apxovres are to co-operate with the existing magis-
trates, and not with a democratic council; and the lrpvrudes of line 67
3The decree as we have it fills the marble base upon which it is inscribed; the beginning
of the inscription cannot have been compressed into the letter spaces available at the
beginning of our first line and it follows that the opening part of the decree must have
been inscribed on the stele which once stood upon this base; see the photograph in
Milet 1.6 (Berlin 1922) 101. As texts of this inscription and of (D) are readily available,
in quoting from them, epigraphical conventions have been dispensed with for greater
convenience in printing.
4This was in fact suggested by Miss Dunham, History of Miletus 132-138; A. W.
Gomme, Commentary on Thucydides 1 (Oxford 1945) 350, interprets the evidence of
the quota lists differently but links the three remaining items in this way; cf. Oliver,
TAPA 66 (1935) 177-198; Hopper, 7HS 63 (1943) 49, n. 30. (It is also conceivable that
Athenian support of the Milesian oligarchs belongs to the recovery of the city in 452,
that they rebelled before 450/49, and that the Athenian decree of this year marks a
second recovery by Athens, but the absence of Miletos from the list of 451/0 is probably
fortuitous since the break is just where one would expect the name [II, 171).

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 144 THE PHOENIX

seem to be the long-establi

the standing committee
tolerated an oligarchy a se
above is improbable.6
Instead, we may suppose,
[Xenophon] refers is the s
the government established
Moreover, the Milesian dec
by Tod and others to be di
that it was these tyrants w
in the quota lists: in this h
evidence of [Xenophon] all
since he says that the oliga
of ATL, though convinced t
note only that the Athen
[Xenophon] "may belong"
themselves with rejecting
fact reflected in the absenc
out that this absence is lik
following the Peace of Ka
the following year. This ac
but the evidence of [Xenop
we must suppose that a rev
of the oligarchy.
It may be that this second
lists, for, although Miletos
in 452, it does not appear at
to 444/3. This absence niay
of the lists,8 but there is
coincidence, for when Mile
halved and she now pays f

'Meiggs, 7HS 63. 27 (his text is t

the decree as indicative of an ol
Miletos in DI1 is clearly not dem
evidence that Athens tolerated
government to be oligarchic (Co
"Before dismissing it, however
garchy in Miletos in 450/49 res
a rather slender thread.
'ATL 3. 257; cf., however, p. 151, n. 10. If [Xenophon's] evidence does not belong
here, then we must either reject it or suppose that the Athenians countenanced an
oligarchy in Miletos on two occasions.
8In list 9 the break occurs exactly where we might expect an entry for Miletos, the
first two names on the fragment being those of Myous and Latmos (V, 7; in SEG 5.
14, the reading [ML]XorLotis given, but this is corrected to [Mu]aac~o in ATL 1. 46, 179),
the two towns so often associated with Miletos. But in lists 10 and 11 entries on either
side of Latmos (V, 18; IV, 29) show that Miletos did not occupy an adjacent position.

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ATHENS AND MILETOS 145

absence, followed by a sharp reduc

revolt, recovery by Athens, and th
encroaching upon the city's territor
has led us to look for a revolt in M
reasonable to suppose that events t
We may suppose that some time
tribute was duly paid, the Milesian o
airoaTrdres Trby 6jOV KaT KOCaV.10 C
tune for rebellion from the Atheni
revolts of Megara and Euboia an
first the rebels perhaps met with so
for the control of Miletos reflecte
effective; the garrison indicated in
come; more probably, however, it h
the terms of the Peace of Kallias, t
But Athens weathered the crisis of
the city again pays tribute, Mileto
retain control of this troublesome
she had done in similar circumst
despatched a colony to Miletos. On
favoured a democracy in Miletos; t
shortly to appeal to Athens against
democrats.'3

gThus Kolophon pays three talents in period I, is absent throughout period II, and
on reappearing in period III pays only a talent and a half; an Athenian decree of 447/6
(IG 12. 14/15 = ATL 2. D15S) shows that the city had revolted and had received a
colony on its recovery by Athens (ATL 3. 282-283). Kolophon's tribute is restored to
three talents in period VI, but after a revolt in 431/0 and the establishment of another
colony (Thuc. 3. 34. 4), it is again reduced, this time to 500 drachmai. (The record of
Argilos shows a similar reduction after the foundation of Amphipolis in 437/6.) It is
probable that a reduction in the tribute of Erythrai is also due to the establishment of
an Athenian colony in the vicinity (ATL 3. 283-284). It is true that there are reductions
in the tribute of other Ionian cities at this time, but that at Ephesos, from seven and a
half to six talents, may be explained by apotaxis, for the Marathesians, Isindians, and
Pygelians pay separately thereafter, and at Lebedos a reduction from three talents to
one is in all probability the result of the settlement at Kolophon nearby (ATL 3. 282).
The only reduction which cannot be accounted for is at Phokaia, where the tribute drops
from three talents to a little less than two. The lowered quotas of all these cities were
restored to their original amounts in period VI; probably this was the case with Miletos
also but no figure survives until the ten talents of 421/0.
'0Cf. Aristotle, Politics 1292b. It is not clear why, if the oligarchs were already in
control, any bloodshed should have been necessary. Possibly the oligarchy supported
by Athens was a moderate one, as the Athenian decree of 450/49 seems to suggest,
but was replaced by a narrow oligarchy when Miletos revolted, perhaps a varraTea.
"Thuc. 1. 114.

"Such garrisons as are known in Asia Minor antedate 449; it has been suggeste
Athenian colonies were made to serve a similar purpose (cf. Plutarch, Pericles
without violating the terms of the Peace (A TL 3. 143-144, 257, 284, n. 40; b
Meiggs, CR 66 [19521 99). 13 Thuc. 1. 115. 2.

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 146 THE PHOENIX

If this was the course whi

quota lists, the Athenian
phon] are all fully intelli
styled a "Milesian law again
to be explained. It is regar
evidence for the existenc
time of the revolt indicate
that in Erythrai at this s
tyranny at Erythrai is manif
an decree issued on the rec
in Miletos is much less con
the Milesian document pros
perhaps some five or six in
if we identify the tyrant
and suppose them to be br
is hard to see how the decr
there are numerous insta
Samos, Pontic Herakleia, Er
families would be unique."7
included other names besid
so large a number of exiles
different families. In this
against tyrants, but agains
name with patronymic."' S
"Tod 12. 35; cf. Hiller von Gaer
'5Meiggs, 7HS 63. 26-27; ATL
(p. 116), appears to link this alleg
who is known only from Plutar
sponsored by Persia, for Persian
'6ATL 3. D10 (IG 12. 104; Tod 1
17It would be possible for Nym
the Milesian tyrant who is name
(Moralia 859D), if, as has been
Die Tyrannis 1 [Leipzig 1859] 3
Hill, Sources2 340). It is difficult
be said to have been effected by
genes is the only pro-Persian ty
deposition of the tyrants by Ma
6. 59. 3) seems to me insufficient
endured beyond this date.
'8Cf. Gomme, Commentary 1. 3
convincing discussion," Glotz h
names; this is impossible to prove
75, n. 1). Glotz, unaware, of cour
the decree of 450/49 with [Xeno
by Athens, and supposes that
Milesian decree proscribes, after t
511-529); Hopper (7HS 63 [1943
these events.

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ATHENS AND MILETOS 147

permit no great degree of accu

reasonable to place it within the y
for the revolt of the oligarchs an
place it in 452.19 It may be that t
a pro-Persian tyrant, or tyrants (
in 452 it is unlikely that oligarchs
that the Milesian decree relates t
Nympharetos and Stratonax. In
however, it seems preferable to c
who are known to have revolted
merely hypothetical.

I suggest that the sequence of

follows:
Evidence
454 Miletos in revolt (under a pro-Persian tyrant?) Quota lists
Tribute is paid by loyal Milesians in Leros and
Teichioussa
452 Miletos is recovered and pays ten talents Quota lists
Athens supports the oligarchs [Xenophon]
There is an Athenian garrison IG 12.2220
450/49 Further measures for Athenian control of Mile
449 Peace of Kallias
Athenian garrison withdrawn from Miletos (?)
449/8 No tribute is collected from the empire Quota lists
448/7 Miletos is unwilling to pay tribute A4TL 3.257
447/6 The Milesians pay for both 447/6 and 448/7 ATL 3.257
446 (spring) to 443
The oligarchs revolt [Xenophon]
Miletos is again recovered Quota lists
A democracy is set up and the leaders of the
oligarchy are proscribed Tod 12.35
An Athenian colony is established (?)
442 (spring) Miletos pays five talents Quota lists
J"Meiggs, 7HS 63. 27, supposes that the Milesian decree must belong t
in which the oligarchs were in power: ' .. .r i'uwto fill the roleof rptrr&P
constitution has not been introduced.. ." But we need not suppose that
in Miletos adopted Athenian terminology from its inception. If the Miles
in the Athenian decree of 450/49 are, as Meiggs supposes, "the long esta
of Milesian magistrates rather than the standing committee of a counci
be reason enough for avoiding the use of the same term for the standing
the new democracy.
"Reference to a garrison is made in the decree of 450/49; it had probabl
lished on the recovery of the city in 452.

This content downloaded from

188.3.97.97 on Wed, 03 May 2023 19:16:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms