Athens and Chalkis: A Study in Imperial Control

Author(s): Martin Ostwald

Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 122 (2002), pp. 134-143
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3246208 .
Accessed: 05/04/2013 22:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORTERCONTRIBUTIONS
ATHENSAND CHALKIS:A STUDY IN IMPERIALCONTROL*

Abstract: The basic contentionof this articleis that,contraryto a widely held andinfluentialview, the ChalkisDecree
does not constitute evidence that Athens tried to impose democracieson rebellious allies after their subjugation. It
contains an exchange of oaths between Athens and Chalkis, confirmingan '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 restrictionson Chalkis to secureAtheniandominationand assure
the priorityof Athenianinterests. In fact, the Atheniansacknowledgethe right of the Chalkidiansto insist on the per-
formanceof civic duties in Chalkison the part of aliens (xenoi) residentthere. The Athenians among these resident
xenoi, who are exemptedfrom these obligations,are neithercolonists nor kleruchs,as is sometimes alleged, but most
probablyindividualsettlerswho had been given land in Chalkidianterritoryby Tolmidesin the 450s.

THUCYDIDES reportsthata revoltof Euboiafollowedharduponthe heels of theAthenianwith-

drawalfromBoiotiaaftertheirdefeatat Koroneiain 447/6 BC.1The immediatecauseof this
revoltis notstated,butit canbe inferredwithsomeconfidencefromthecontextin whichit took
place. Thucydides'statementthatEuboianexileshadhelpedtheBoiotiansin resistingAthenian
inroads(Thuc.1.113.2)suggeststhatalreadybeforeKoroneiainternaldivisionshad createda
groupof Euboianexileswho hadmadecommoncausewiththeBoiotiansandtheirallies.2It is
likelythattheirsuccessin Boiotiaencouragedtheseexiles now to returnto theirhomesto fan
discontentwithAthenianpoliciesinto defectionfromthe DelianLeague,whose development
intoanAthenianempirehadbeensealedby 454 BC.
The 'commoncause'(ijg;arif'g;yv'Ogrlg) thathadtiedthe Euboianexilesto the Boiotiansis
not spelledout explicitlyby anyancientauthor.It musthavebeen,as it was in the case of the
Boiotians,resentmentof Athenianencroachments, which will have led in Euboiato a split
betweenthose who acquiesced- for whateverreason- in Atheniandominationand those
opposedto it. Thelatterwill havelost the conflictandleft theirhomeseithervoluntarilyor by
compulsion- Thucydides'(puy&6;Se - to join like-minded
allows for either interpretation
Boiotiansin theirfightagainsta commonenemy. Successwill havemadethemeagerto con-
tinuethe strugglein andfortheirown lands.
Whowerethese 'exiles'andwho hadbeentheiropponents?And,aboveall, who werethe
'Euboians'involved?AlthoughThucydidestellsus thatthe finalsettlementof therevoltleft all
of Euboiasubjectedto Athens,he differentiates the expulsionof the Histiaiansandthe expro-
priationof theirlandsfrom the agreementsreachedwiththerestof theisland.3Theirharshtreat-
ment,we aretoldby Plutarch,was motivatedby theirunwarranted murderof the crewof a cap-
turedAthenianship.4
Excludedfromthe revoltmayhavebeen the peopleof Karystos,whosesubjugation consti-
tutedone of theearliestjointactionsof theDelianLeaguein a campaignin which,however,the
rest of the Euboiansdid not participate.sAlthoughthis is no more thanan argumentume silentio,

* I gratefullyacknowledgethe benefit this paperhas 4 Plut. Per. 23.4: I6vot; 'ol)ot;AorapatizCiIog

received fromthe scrutinyof ProfessorsA. JohnGraham, Xpirodagtvo;(6 HeptuXfig),6irtvaiv'Av t"ilv aixgCa6ho-
Michael H. Jameson,Lisa Kallet and JonathanPrice, and rov XaP 6vre &irRxc'tevavrobc &v6paq.
from the comments of two JHS referees. None of them 5Thuc. 1.98.3 with Gomme,HCT 1.281-2. The prob-
bears responsibilityfor any blemishes that remain. able date is 469 BC, as I have arguedin Autonomia:Its
Genesis and Early History (Chico, CA 1982) 38.
1Thuc. 1.114.1, cf Diod. 12.6-7; Plut. Per. 22.1-2.
2 Thuc. 1.113.2:
lcaiE3 oxo)v qptydSegica oot i~g Alternatively, the Greek may indicate that no Euboian
cities otherthanKarystoswere attacked. However,I pre-
aulri; yvotr; ro710av.
3 Thuc. 1.114.3: iali 'AOqvaiot F; Eij3otav fer takingaveFirv ~Xov E41poiovwith aucoit rather
t-iatv
8tap(dvte lHept•,Oiou oTpaXrlyoitvTo'aXEoTpEXavTo than with Kapuaoioiu.
lai 7iVooyi),7a KaEoOtilaavto
7Icrtav, KiSv Txv X0,Trlv
'Etat & EE•oa {avteS aIrroItiIv yi~v oxov.
t&aav, Journal of Hellenic Studies 122 (2002) 134-43

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARTINOSTWALD:
ATHENSAND CHALKIS 135
it is possiblethatKarystoswas regardedas separatefromtherestof Euboia,becauseit hadgone
overto thePersiansideduringthePersianWarsandsufferedforit afterSalamis.6Althoughpre-
sumablyleft autonomous,7 thereis no indication,positiveor negative,thatKarystosparticipat-
ed in the revoltof 447/6 BC.
ApartfromHistiaia,we knowof theparticipation of only EretriaandChalkis.Hereourevi-
denceis entirelyepigraphical, andconsistsof two inscriptions,one fragmentary containingthe
eventualsettlementwithEretria(IG i339), andanother,almostperfectlypreserved,concerning
the settlementwith Chalkis(IG i3 40 = ML no. 52). Thatthese two cities shouldbe lumped
togetheras the focusof the 'Euboian'revoltis explainedby theinterestAthenshadin themever
sincethe the settlementof 4,000Atheniankleruchson the landsof the hippobotai('horsefeed-
ers') - the nameby whichthe wealthiestChalkidianlandownerswereknown- afterthe defeat
of Chalkisin 506 BC.8 Thislandwill havebeenlocatedin therichLelantinePlain,whichstretch-
es betweenChalkisandEretria,andtheAtheniankleruchssettledtherewere,as we learnfrom
Herodotus,latersentto aidEretriaagainstthePersiansin 490 BC.9Whetheranyof themreturned
to Chalkisafterthe fall of Eretriawe do notknow.
The establishment of a kleruchyin Chalkidian territorymeansno morethanthatthe richest
class was deprivedof some good landandhadto put up withAtheniansettlersin theirmidst.
Whothe kleruchswerewe do not know:they mayhavebeenlandlessAthenianthetes,whom,
as theirdespatchto Eretriain 490 BCsuggests,the acquisitionof landin the LelantinePlainhad
elevatedto hoplitestatus.'0Theirsettlementmayhavehadeconomicrootsandmayat the same
time havebeen intendedas anAtheniangarrisonto controlChalkis. Buttheirsettlementdoes
notmeaneitherthattherichlandowners lost all theirlandorthattheycontrolledthegovernment
of Chalkisat thattime. If, as Aristotlecontends,"theuse of cavalryin warsagainsttheirneigh-
boursmadeEretriaand Chalkisoligarchies,thatdoes not signify eitherthatthey thoughtof
themselvesas oligarchsor thattheywereideologicallyopposedto democracy.BothEretriaand
Chalkisfoughton the Greekside in the PersianWars,'2andbothwerechartermembersof the
DelianLeague. The factthatwe hearof no frictionbetweenthemandthe kleruchsduringthe
firsthalf of the fifth centurymay indicatethatby the time Eretriaand Chalkisbecamefully
fledgedmembersof the DelianLeague,theAtheniankleruchyat Chalkishadceasedto exist as
such.13 Whathappenedto it canonly be speculated.
WhatmayhavecausedfrictionbetweenAthensandChalkissufficientto accountforthe out-
breakof the EuboianRevoltin 447/6 BCis hardto determinewith anyprecision.In general,it
is truethatAthens''allies'grewrestiveafterthedefeatin EgypthadsappedAthenianpowerand
the Peaceof Kalliashaddeprivedthe DelianLeagueof its raisond'etreafter449 BC. Possible
evidenceforrestlessnessin Euboiaatthistimemaybe thereportby DiodorusandPausaniasthat
Tolmidessettleda furtherkleruchyof one thousandmen on Euboia,14 which,if correct,must
havepreceded447 BC,sinceTolmidesdiedat thebattleof Koroneiain thatyear. However,con-
siderabledoubthas been cast on this reportby a passage in Aelian, which refersto the settlement

6 See Hdt. 6.99.2; 8.66.2, 112.2, and 121.1. 12 Their names are
engraved on the 'Serpent
7 Thuc. 1.98.3: xp6vep vivpaloav KaO' 6gooyiav. Column', see R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of
8 Hdt. 5.77.2: 8 i Kai 'repa- Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth
vt•oav•e;t
En ' to'roigq
KX'po Io)u; tjv i7tnnopoaoy) X• p CenturyBC (2nd edn, Oxford 1969) (= ML) no. 27, 8.
otou;tXhou• Iv
oi &I innoiro6at ra,]Xovto oi Irnax~e; tv 13 See A.J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in
ei8novat" Ancient Greece (2nd edn, Chicago 1983) 177; so also E.
XalCtS&ovW.
9 Hdt. 6.100.2. Erxleben, 'Die Kleruchienauf Eub6aund Lesbos und die
10 See N.G.L. Hammond, Studies in Greek History Methoden der attischen Herrschaftim 5. Jh.', Klio 57
(Oxford, 1973) 202, 222, who suggests that they crossed (1975) 83-100, esp. 88.
over to Attica with the Eretriansat the time of Marathon. 14 Diod. 11.88.3 (where the text is somewhat defec-
11Arist. Pol. 4.3, 1289b36-39. tive), and Paus. 1.27.5 with R. Meiggs, The Athenian
Empire (Oxford 1972) 121-3.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 MARTINOSTWALD:
ATHENSAND CHALKIS

of 2,000 kleruchsin the territoryof the hippobotaiin Chalkisafterits defeat,whichwas fol-

lowedby the establishment of a precinctto Athenain the LelantinePlain,andthe leasingoutof
the rest of the land to personswhose nameswere registeredon stelainearthe Royal Stoa in
Athens.15SinceAelian'sreportis undated,it mayreferto theearlierdefeatof Chalkisin 506 as
easilyas to its subjugation in 446, giventhe numericaldiscrepancy of 2,000 kleruchswithboth
thenumberof 4,000 attestedfor 506 by Herodotus(above,n.8) andthe numberof 1,000attest-
ed for Tolmidesby DiodorusandPausanias(above,n.14). Finally,as Meiggshas pointedout,
'thelandwas confiscatedand,apartfromthereservation forthegods,was leased,notnecessar-
ily only to Athenians: cleruchs and colonistsdo not lease theirland'.16Thislendscredibilityto
Aelian'sreportthatthe settlerswerenotkleruchsin theconventionalsense,butindividualswho
leasedouttheirland.
Weknownothingaboutthecoursetherevoltof Euboiatook;butthanksto the excellentstate
of preservation of theChalkisDecreewe havea goodsourceof information aboutthe settlement
thatfollowedandtherelationof Athensto her'allies'in theempire.17 Thatthedateof thedecree
is 446 BCis almostuniversallyagreed.18A directreferencein the ChalkisDecreeto an oath
exactedin an earlierdecreeby theAtheniansfromEretria(lines42-3) showsthata settlement
withEretriahadprecededthe settlementwithChalkis.An indirectreferenceto the treatment of
Histiaiain theAthenianpromisenot to expelChalkidians fromChalkisandnot to devastatethe
city (lines 4-6) suggeststhat the subjugationof Histiaia,too, had precededthe treatywith
Chalkis. In short,it seems thata treatywith Chalkisconstitutedthe final settlementof the
EuboianRevoltof 447/6 BC.
The final settlementwas not embodiedin the presentdocument,whichpreservesonly the
oathsswornby the contractingpartiesto confirmthe terms(6Cgooyia)agreeduponafterthe
EuboianRevolthadbeenput down. Thatdocumentis now lost, but thereis reasonto believe
thatit formedpartof the sameset of inscriptions as theoaths.19Someof thecontentsof the lost
6goLoyia can be inferred from the oaths. Like the oathsin the presentdecree,the agreement
will haveindicatedthatAthenswas the dominantparty,thatis, its formwill havebeena decree
of theAthenianCouncilandPeople(line 1), formulating its relationwithChalkis.Athens'dom-
inationis furtherindicatedby the conditionthatthe Chalkidians areto defraythe expensesof
publishing the decree both on the Athenian acropolis(lines 57-60), and in the Templeof
OlympianZeus in Chalkis(lines 61-4).20 Moreover,only Atheniansand Chalkidiansare
involvedin the measureslegislated. Thereis no indicationthatany of the otherallies in the
DelianLeaguehadany voice in the formulation: the settlementwas no longera matterof the

'5s See Ael. VH 6.1: 'AeTlvaiot Kpairloav'req good bibliographies, see H. Bengtson (ed.), Die
XaXKCtiov KatElcrlpoiOloaav av dvti( v yiv I 8to- Staatsvertrdgedes Altertums2 (Munichand Berlin 1962)
aouC
iV 'Inn6coov paXogEVnV v pav, (henceforth:SVA)74; ML, pp. 140-4; IG i3 40; and S.
•X•hou;
Tegv l 8E6 &vilcav i 'A0rlv~Av
••,lpoug, Arlk&Avt6vogta- Hornblower and M.C. Greenstock (eds), The Athenian
?ovp 6t, 68 0ouivy t4,
i:g,0xav wxtarx&; Empire3 (LACTOR 1, Harrow 1986) 157. The most
,ir tpo;gviv
o'rilta;r6v• tn autleup oroa Ercrnrta;, autep recent monograph,that of Balcer,lacks a systematicbib-
o0v ra rfOv tao0&oemov eaiov. tot; 8& liography.
inogvrl•axa 18See IG i3 40, with D.M. Lewis' note on p. 44, who
aixlaXrOzo-; 87joav, wacto~L~ svtcalba EoeTav tbv
Kat& XacXKieWv 6Og6v. cites as the only dissenting voice the date of 424/3, pro-
16 Meiggs (n.14) 566-7; also J.M. Balcer, The
cf. posed by H.B. Mattingly,'Athens and Euboea', JHS 81
Athenian Regulationsfor Chalkis: Studies in Athenian (1961) 124-32 (now reprintedin The Athenian Empire
Imperial Law (Historia Einzelschrift 33, Wiesbaden Restored(Ann Arbor,MI 1996) 53-67).
1978) 21-2, and T.J. Figueira,Athens and Aegina in the 19See SVA2.73 with Balcer (n.16) 55-65 and 83-101,
Age of Imperial Colonization (Baltimore and London where a reconstructionof the physical arrangementis
1991) 258-60. shown in Fig. 1.
17 The following discussion will be based on the text 20 See ML no. 52, 60-1: tzheat oit; XaXictSov. For
printedin ML no. 52. The most comprehensivediscus- a similarconditionimposed on Kolophonaboutthis same
sion is that of Balcer (n.16). Scholarlydiscussions of the time, see ML no. 47, 38-9.
ChalkisDecree aretoo numerousto list exhaustively. For

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARTINOSTWALD:
ATHENSAND CHALKIS 137

DelianLeague,but of Athenianrelationswith her erstwhileallies. Contrastthe inclusionof

Athenianalliesin the ErythraiDecreea few years earlier(453/2 BC?).21
Thereare significantdifferencesin the termsused to describethe two partiesto the agree-
ment. Whilethe Chalkidians areinvariablyreferredto by the use of some formof
the Atheniansappearsometimesas 'A0evaoiot, Xa•i•tSi;,
but moreusuallyin the guise of variants of 6
6ihigo;g'A0lvaitov.Canwe detectanysystematicdistinctionbetweenthesetwoappellations?22
It seemsthatwhereverthe formalinstitutional aspectof the oathsis at issue,the text speaksof
'AOevatlot,and that all substantive
matters concernthe •iCgo;b 'Arlvaiowv.
An oathis to be swornby theCouncilandtheJurors'A0evaiov(3-4). A Chalkidian embassy
is to cometo Athensto administer the oathto theAthenians('A0evaiot;)andlist the namesof
those who have takenit (16-19), andan embassyof 'AOevacot will administerthe oathto the
Chalkidiansof militaryage andlist theirnames(36-8 and41, cf 32-3). The 'AOevaiotwill be
the recipientsof (a) denunciations of defectionsand(b) the tribute(c) in the amountnegotiated
withthem(25-7). Whathasbeendecreedby the 'A0evaiot;concerningthe fateof thehostages
is to remain valid (47-9),23 subject to future negotiations between Athenians and Chalkidians
(49-52). Finally,theChalkidians are,in general,to conducttheirownaccountingsof publicoffi-
cials (Et,0jvat),just as the 'A0evaiotconducttheirsatAthens(71-3), andthe (Athenian)gen-
eralsareassignedto taketheresponsibility of safeguardingtheprotectionof Euboiain the best
interestof theAthenians(76-9).
Butwhenit comesto issuesinvolvingallegianceto Athenianinterests,the 'AthenianPeople'
- 6 6iPo' 6 'AOrlva{yov - ratherthanoi 'A9Nvatotis the termused. Judicialdecisionsin cases
involvingthedisfranchisement, of anyChalkidian
exile, arrest,deathor expropriation cannotbe
made withoutdue processand withoutthe consentof the AthenianPeople(4-10, esp. 9-10:
1 iveF
&ip(itoZoe6vb; t% 6•i8o tI 'A0evaiov). Evidently,the Atheniansareeagerto protect
theirChalkidianfriendsagainstpoliticallymotivatedprosecution.The Athenianspromiseto
abideby the provisionsof theiroathas long as the Chalkidians remainloyal 'to the Athenian
People'(15-16:netOog~ivot;-t tO18[g]ot r^tt'AOevaiov). The Chalkidians, in theirturn,swear
thatthey will not defectfromroi [8]igo ^t 'A8evalov(22), thatthey will cometo its defence
(29-30)if anyoneinjuresit (30-1), andthattheywill remainloyalto it (31-2).24 Thesameref-
erencesto the 'AthenianPeople'arefoundin theoathexactedearlierfromtheEretrians (IG i3 39
= SVA2 no. 154,lines2-3, 7-8), andit is thereforenotsurprising thatAntikles'amendment refers
to the Eretriandecreeas passedby ho ho 'A0evaiov(43).
8Ftgo;
It is strikingthatno similardistinction is madein this decreebetween'Chalkidians' andthe
'Chalkidian People'. Moreover,whileon theAtheniansidethe 500 membersof the Counciland
the 6,000 Jurorsswearas representatives of theAthenianstateto safeguardcertainprerogatives
of the 'AthenianPeople', in Chalkisall menof militaryage haveto swearto abideby the con-
ditionsimposedby theAthenians.25
Whatis the reasonfor this distinction?In the ErythraiDecree(MLno. 40) only the
_ouil
of a subduedcity is obliged to bind itself to act in the best interestof the ErythraianandAthenian
~nh0Io;and their allies, not to revolt against the Athenian or allied ntkOo;, and not to enter a

21See MLno. 40, 23-4, 31. 23 The decree here referred to is presumably the
22A superficialsurveyrevealstheinteresting factthat bgoXoyfa which precededthe presentdecree; see Balcer
similar distinctionsbetween 'AOTlvaiot and 8iCogq6 (n.16) 62-5.
is foundin the fifth centuryonly in settle- 24 ML no. 52, 29-32: Kaict8t 6itotr zt 'A0evafov
'Alwvaiov
ments beweenAthensand rebelliousallies - Erythrai 1 rO'v86Lov vtbv
IPoe060o &al t; li
d agO)vo, idav Srit
(MLno. 40, 21-4);Kolophon(MLno. 47, 44-7);Samos Kai
'A0Vvaiov, r'eaooatw t •6igot &tt 'Aevatov.
(MLno. 56, 16-18,19-21)- butnotin treatieswithother 25 ML, p. 141 note that 'the
emphasis throughoutis
states,e.g. RhegiumorLeontini(MLnos63 and64). See not on Athens but more specifically on the Athenian
alsobelowwithnn. 26-7. demos'.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138 MARTINOSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS

conspiracyto thateffect.26But the decree also imposes a new governmentAthenian-styleon the

city. Similarlyin the case of Kolophon,where, however, no allies are mentionedand the refer-
ence to a Kolophoniandemocracydepends on restoration.27Comparisonpermitsthe inference
that the Atheniansdid not tamperwith the internalstructureof the state in the case of Chalkis.
However, the references to the 'Athenian People' suggest that Athens is here, too, vitally
interestedin protectingher democracy,possibly because the revolt may have been instigatedby
elements hostile to the democratswho ruled Athens, and the Atheniansnow thought they had
most to fear from them. If this guess is correct,it remainsremarkablethatthe Atheniansdid not
go so far as to introduceconstitutionalchange at Chalkis. No concern is evident for the consti-
tutionalform underwhich the Chalkidianslive, and thereis no indicationwhat label, if any,they
attachedto their form of government. That a decree passed by the Assembly and Council in
Athens should specify Athenianfunctionariesconcernedwith the implementationof the decree
is no more than is to be expected;28but it is noteworthythat very little is said aboutChalkidian
functionaries. Like Athens, Chalkis has officials chargedwith administeringoaths; but while
Athens has them appointedby the iLpog(38, 45-7), we are not told how their Chalkidiancoun-
terpartsareappointed(17). We learnthat,likeAthens,Chalkishas a pou'ux(67);but we hear
only of its taskto publishthe decreein the sanctuaryof ZeusOlympiosat Chalkis,a taskanal-
ogous to that assigned in Athens to the ypaggartt;ti ; Pouk?I (59-60). Finally,we learnthat
Chalkishasa procedureforholdingits magistrates accountable ei
(71: cuvat). The articlesug-
gests thatit was in
already place and that its was
institution not being orderedby theAthenians.
Butwe arenottoldhow andby whomit was conducted.Inthisconnection,it is worthnoting-
andpossiblyrelevant- thatinAthenstheestablishment of a democracyinvolvedunderEphialtes
the substitutionof the 8iLo; for the Councilof the Areopagusin the conductof e0uvaOt.29
Constitutionally, the fact thate50uuvatareconductedis less significantthanthatthe gremium
entrusted withtheirconductmayhavea democraticor anoligarchicalcharacter.Althoughthese
arelargelyargumenta e silentio, theyall pointto thenegativeconclusionthatthetermsdecreed
by Athens for Chalkis did not affectthe constitutional formby whichChalkiswas governed:
thereis no evidencethattheAtheniansimposeda new formof government on Chalkis.In other
words,the ChalkisDecreecontainsno evidencethatthe impositionof a democraticregimewas
one of the instruments by whichtheAthenianstriedto controlrebelliousallies.30
Themeansby whichtheAthenianstriedto exercisetheircontroloverChalkiswerejudicial
ratherthan political. Specifically,as has long been recognized,their goal was to declare
Atheniancourtsto be thelastresortin certaincasesaffectingChalkisby transferring jurisdiction
in these cases fromChalkisto Athens. This purposeis heraldedby the requirement thatthe

26ML no. 40, 21-4: v Chalkis(44); they are to make the arrangementsand pro-
6pyv[i]vatt [8F•dT]5E['Tv] poXv
PoXso'o hg; &v[86]va[i]a[t] &ptoa[a Kai] 8[t]Ka[t- vide the funds for the sacrifice for Euboia (68), and they
6ora]Ta'Epupaiov rSt nkiXOEt Kai 'AOEvaiovKai rO-v are to ensure the protection of Euboia (77). The
'A0evatov ro Secretaryof the Athenian poAiil is assigned the respon-
[xou•]vydt[x]ov[n]ai o?i [dtoo]ziootat
0
oi0'8 [,Tv] ZioauggX)ov rav 'AOEvaiov oit'0 sibility of publishingthe decree on the acropolis(59), and
abbySEiyo[iD]T'i[k]Xot
n[,]FOo the iltaxi trv 0a is to hear certain cases
27 See ML no. 47, 43-6, en[[f]ootg[at].
46-9. The decreesettlingthe Ego0•erv
referredto its jurisdictionfrom Chalkis (75).
revoltof Samos 439/8 (MLno. 56) also containsa loyalty
in 29 See M. Ostwald,From Popular Sovereigntyto the
oath swornby the PoXil (?) t]Ot ••goto -t 'AO[Evaiov Sovereigntyof Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-
(20-1), but other references to the Athenian 6i8o- Century Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London
depend on restoration. 1986) esp. 55-62.
28 The decree is passed by PoaX~ki and 8gLto;(1 and 30Against ATL3 (1950) 149-54, esp. 153 with n.17;
13, cf. also 43, 55 and 76 for the •Sfgo;); there is a npIO- cf Balcer (n.16) 24: 'While no absolute evidence exists,
tavt; (1, 14) and an (1); the oath is sworn by it appears that an Athenian-supporteddemocracy now
intratt-rlv
the Po•ukl and the 8tcaortai (4); orparlyoi are charged replaced the defeated and exiled Chalkidianoligarchy.'
with ensuringthatthe oath is takenby all membersof the See also below, p. 141 with nn.44 and 45.
Athenianparty(20), andby Atheniansand Chalkidiansin

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARTINOSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS 139

Jurors,ratherthan the Assembly, are to join the Council in taking the oath in behalf of Athens
(3-4), since they will be saddled with the handling of any Chalkidiancases that will reach
Athens.31
The decree emphasizes due process and begins by renouncing recourse to violence:
Councillors and Jurorsswear not to expel any Chalkidianfrom Chalkis and not to destroy the
city (4-6), a promise of a gentler treatmentthan had been meted out to Histiaia. Further,the
Councillors swear to give notice before putting any matter, public or private, affecting
Chalkidiansto a vote (10-12), and to expedite access for Chalkidianembassies to the Athenian
Council by limiting the waiting period to a maximum of ten days (12-14). Athenian interven-
tion is confined to two kinds of cases, which are defined by the penalties they entail ratherthan
the crimes committed.
The first of these requiresdue process and approvalby the 'AthenianPeople' in proceedings
againstany individual(6: i8t6erv) who upon conviction would be deprivedof his civil rights, or
be punished with exile, detention, death or expropriationof property.32The reason why the
Atheniansfelt sufficiently threatenedby persons afflicted with these penaltiesto wish to control
implementation of due process in Chalkis is evidently that they wanted to protect their
Chalkidianfriendsby mitigatingharshtreatmentmeted out to them by Chalkidiancourts,and at
the same time avertthreatsto the Atheniandemocracyemanatingfrom Chalkidianmalcontents:
severance of theirpolitical or economic ties with their native city imposed by Chalkidiancourts
might make them or their families agitate against relations with Athens, at home or abroad.
Corroborationof this can be found in the clause, unique among all otherAthenian settlements
after a revolt, stipulatingdenunciationto Athens of any attemptat defection.33
The reality of this fear is also shown in the second case, articulatedin the amendmentof
Archestratos (70-6), which deals with offences uncovered in the eiUOvat of magistrates.34
While the rightto conductthe eF0,Uvatis left to the Chalkidians,crimes which, when uncovered,
would upon conviction in Chalkis lead to exile, death or loss of civil rights are to be referredto
the Courtof the Thesmothetaiat Athens for final disposition.35Convictions entailing monetary
fines or imprisonmentare not affected;only in majoroffences the consequencesof which might
threatenthe Atheniandemocracy36is referralto the people's courtat Athens mandatory.Again,
there is no evidence for tamperingwith Chalkidianinstitutions,except when they are perceived
as a potentialthreatto the Atheniandemocracy.
The accuracyof our interpretationof the decree as a mixtureof toleranceand imperialcon-
trol is put to the test as we examine a clause in the amendmentof Antikles, containedin lines 47-
57. Its first part (47-52) contains an answer to what appearsto have been a Chalkidianpetition
- or at least enquiry- about the fate of 'the hostages'. It is an easy guess thatthe 'hostages' are
Chalkidianstaken by the Athenians in the course of, or as a result of, the revolt, and kept as a
bargainingchip in negotiatinga settlementafterthe revolt had been put down. Political consid-
erationsmake it naturalto assume that they were taken from upper-classChalkidians,who not
only will have constitutedthe decision-makersin the r6gime, but from whom, too, a largerran-
som could be expected. The Athenianresponse is firm but flexible: determinationsmade in an

31 Cf also lines 74-6:

nep'ti8& tovov epEtyv vatt the AthenianEmpireII', CQ 11 (1961) 268-80, esp. 271-
?-g EV Xaiav raiv Os
EotoOEsrv. 2. Thereis no good reasonwhy in an Atheniandecreethe
'AOFvoa5E rvv i&t6tev
32 ML no. 52, ,6-10: o058
ob&vaod&rti66oo term EiSOuvatshould have a differentconnotationwhen
o'8' quyiLt qEt6oCoob~i oU8& applied to Chalkisthan it had in Athens, especially when
aX qo(POOgatt &do•nroTEV8the decree adds
o0?i~ XpIaga dpatpoolaolt dKpioarve) o 9t evbc KOca0laEnp 'AOivEaotv 'A0Evaiotq(72-3).
8Eigo,T 'A0evaiov. 35 ML no. 52, 74-6:
ntepi
8F"to',ov ieoptyv vCat
33 Ibid. 24-5: aia&v ti; KatTepo'AOev- 'A0•vatse T~v ~atofiav tv tv OFsv eooOeFrv. For the
dpat0tEt
aiotott. meaning of see D.M. MacDowell, The Law in
34 So, rightly,Gomme,HCT 1.342; differentlyML, p. ?pseotg,
Classical Athens (London, 1978) 30-2.
143, and G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, 'Notes on jurisdiction in 36Noteline76:iKaTz b agptota
apo' zT0
8o.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 MARTINOSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS

earlierdecree (presumablythe 6bLtooyia)are to stand,pending final settlementin futurenegoti-

ations between Chalkis andAthens.37
The second part(52-7), which containsprovisions concerning'aliens residing in Chalkis', is
considerablyharderto understandand has recently again become the subject of much contro-
versy. In view of that, it will be desirableto begin by quoting its text in full: ;8g86 Xovog ibg
Ev XaXKi8t, hoot O1KOVTES;th XrkT;tv Kai E'orot '8o0tathxn6 tro T
ev 'A06vaoe, tgo
'AOFvaiov& T8Sg ; F; Kadc6CCp hot XaK•ctS1g. ('The
,Lsuta,
aliens in Chalkis there and, fulfilXaKi•8a,
&1,kog
who reside &X,,ot except for anyone
no civic obligations to Athens,
who has been grantedexemptionby the AthenianPeople, must all fulfil their civic obligations
to Chalkis,as do all otherChalkidians').38As Balcer has correctlypointedout, this clause is part
of an Athenianresponseto a requestfor clarificationby the Chalkidians.39 Who were the XcFvot
in
residing Chalkis and what were expected from them? An answer to these questionswill
t,~eignoredin most previousdiscussions of this problem:40the term
be facilitatedby a consideration
rFlog;and its cognates (lines 54, 55, 56) are not confined to tax-payments,but cover all civic
contributionsexpected from a given group,paymentsas well as services.41 The exclusive con-
centrationon what paymentsof taxes were involved has proved to be a stumblingblock to those
scholarswho triedto pinpointwhat 'taxes' were meant. They failed to realize thatthe term also
includes the performanceof militaryand other public duties to which residentaliens were sub-
ject in the Greek states.42
In short,the requestthe Chalkidianswill have addressedto the Athenianswas for a ruling on
the public duties to Chalkis to which aliens resident in Chalkis - including, but not limited to
Athenianmetics - will have been liable. The questionconcernedaliens, not citizens of Chalkis
whose civic obligations are subsumedin the phraseKacO76Xp hot &kot S in lines 56-
7. The Athenianresponse affirmsthe civic obligationsto Chalkisto which XaXKt8F,
aliens residentthere
are liable. But it exempts43 two groups of aliens: (1) that those who perform obligations to

37 ML no. 52, 47-52: nepi 8E trv hop~'povano-
KpivaoOat XaXKtF_1atv, h6ti vyv 'AOevaiot;
A9 v iKaxT T E(PE(PlatOiva h6tav
oKewi p.v 68 6Sodt
t v 8taXa[y]Ev, IcaO6tt aiv
PokeXud06gevoit inosoot
8ow~it vat 'A0Evaiot;icai XaXtKGi ytv.
i~ntrt•ietov
38ML no. 52, 52-7. The older controversiesare well
summarizedby P. Gauthier,'Les EENOIdans les textes
atheniens de la seconde moiti6 du Ve siecle av. J.-C.',
REG 84 (1971) 44-79, esp. 65-76, and by Balcer (n.16)
65-71 with nn. 22-6, who does not consider the more
recent contributionsof J.D. Smart,'IG 1239: "Aliens"in
Chalcis', ZPE 24 (1977) 231-2; S.R. Slings, 'Athenian
ateleia in I.G. 12 39', ZPE 25 (1977) 277-9; K.J. Dover,
'8E in the Khalkis Decree', ZPE 30 (1978) 94 = Greek
and the Greeks (Oxford 1987) 42; and A.S. Henry,
'Athens and Chalcis: I.G. 12 39, lines 52-57 yet again',
ZPE 35 (1979) 287-91. Of special importanceis the dis-
cussion by A. Giovannini, 'Impositionet exemption fis-
cales des 6trangersdans le reglementatheniensurChalcis
IG I340', ZPE 133 (2000) 61-74, esp. 61-2.
39Balcer (n. 16) 71. See also C.W Fomara,'IG I~, 39.
52-57 and the "popularity"of the Athenian Empire',
CSCA 10 (1977) 39-55, esp. 40-1.
40 The only exception is Gauthier (n.38) 72:
'L'expression TXFeiv6q Xakid8a est curieuse. S'il
s'agissait du paiementdes taxes dues a Chalcis, on aurait
tEkEivXakXctE&ot,et il va de soi que ce paiementaurait
lieu Ev Xa-KiSt. La constructionde reXliv avec ei; et
l'accusatif se rencontre dans les expressions comme
ceFh-v E'"Ekklva; (HerodoteII, 51), eXhEivE • o'oT1g
(Sophocle, fEd. Roi 222) "&trecompte parmiles Grecs",
"parmiles citoyens"... Neanmoins, on ne peut se satis-
"
faire d'une traductioncomme "payer Chalcis":elle ne
suggere pas d'autreidee que celle d'un paiementfait aux
Chalcidiens,ce qui ne saurait&trerendu en grec de cette
faqon. L'expression signifie soit "etre compt6 comme
Chalcidien",soit "payerpour Chalcis", les deux traduc-
"
tions menant du reste la meme interpretationhis-
torique.' My only objectionto this interpretationis thatit
neglects the contributionin materialsor services expect-
ed from those 'counted in' the group. See also
Giovannini(n.38) 71.
41 For this interpretationof see my discussion
rt,~Fo,
in 'Public expense: whose obligation?: Athens 600-
454 BCE',Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 139 (1995) 368-79, esp. 375 with nn.25-7.
42 The obligations of foreign residents in the Greek
world in the fifth and fourthcenturieshave been fully and
convincingly discussed by Giovannini (n.38) esp. 63-8,
who singles out the performanceof liturgiesand the pay-
ment of eioapopaias the most important. However,since
eiotpopai are first attested for 434/3 BC, they may not
have existed at the time of the ChalkisDecree. For earli-
er treatmentsof this problem,see G. Busolt, Griechische
Staatskunde (Munich 1920) 1.295-9, and E.E. Cohen,
TheAthenianNation (Princeton2000) 72-5.
43 The awkward grammatical construction of the
Greek has been satisfactorilyexplainedby Slings (n.38).

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARTIN OSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS 141

Athens are exempted from obligations to Chalkis is clear from the phrase that 'those residents
who fulfil no civic obligations to Athens' (hboot L 'AOvarce)are specifical-
oi•Kvteg geA~,aOtv
ly enjoined to performtheir obligations to Chalkis. Also exempted from obligations to Chalkis
are (2), all those who have been grantedexemption from public duties at Athens (&drkXta)by
the AthenianPeople.
If this interpretationis correct, it confirms that in the presentdecree the Athenians refrained
from interferencein internalaffairsof Chalkis, except that they freed two groupsof aliens relat-
ed to Athens from civic obligations to Chalkis, and that they made referral(E~spctg)to Athenian
courts mandatoryin certain political trials.44 In other words, the clause on civic obligations
restrictsChalkidiansovereignty only to the extent that it assigns civic obligations to Athens pri-
ority over civic obligations to Chalkis. Only to that extent is thereAthenian interferencein the
internalpolitical affairs of Chalkis.45
The precise identificationof these groups is worth exploring for the light it throws on rela-
tions between Athens and Chalkis. Clearly, some aliens residentin Chalkis were liable to per-
form civic duties at Athens and were for that reasonexempted from civic duties to Chalkis. It is
hardto avoid the conclusion that these were - but were not necessarily confined to - citizens of
Athens. The objection that 'an Atheniandecree would not call Athenians4vot'46 has only lim-
ited validity once we assume that the presentAtheniandecree echoes the language of the origi-
nal Chalkidianrequest for a ruling about the obligations of aliens in their midst.47 Supportfor
this assumptioncan conceivably be derivedfrom the prominenceof the phraser'o 8 Xoxvo; 6b;
Ev XaKiSt which introducesthis clause (52-3), and whose position parallels the introductory
phrasenteplp z&S v in line 47. Thereis, accordingly,no reasonto deny Atheniansa pres-
ence in Chalkis byholapov
arguing, as Gauthierdoes, that Athenian allies among resident aliens are
meant here, whose contributionto the tributepaid to Athens by their home states exempts them
from contributingto the tribute due Athens from Chalkis.48 Similarly, Whitehead's solution,
focused as it is on obligations of aliens to Chalkis ratherthan to Athens, seems to imply that
exemption from Chalkidiandues (especially the lETotldca)is grantedonly to Athenian citizens
resident in Chalkis and to those who have been granted- for reasons unexplained- d&rtkXtaby
the Athenian People.49 It is doubtful that an Athenian decree could grant Chalkidian citizens
&c from obligations to Chalkis.50
,XF-ta
Who are the exemptedaliens likely to be? In the absence of any identificationother thanthat
they had obligations to Athens (or, in the second case, that they had been absolved from obliga-
tions by the Athenian People) we do not even know whetherthe clause refers to individuals or
to a group of aliens resident (oiK'v-rE) in Chalkis. If the Xovot include a group of Athenians,
it would constituteeither an Athenian 'colony' (&tnotcia) at Chalkis or a kleruchy:as a general
rule, became independentcommunities whose members were no longer citizens of
dInotioctt
Athens, while remainedAthenian citizens, a foreign body in the midst of the com-
KX•rlpoiot
munity in which they had settled.51 Neither term occurs in the Chalkis Decree, and since the
present clause constitutes a response to a request for clarification,it is evidently about a group

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 exam-
ple of Athenian imperialismin the mid-fifth century,for
it implies the ultimateinterferencein the managementof
local affairs'. On the contrary,it confirms the demands
Chalkis can still make on its alien residents.
46ML, p. 143.
47 See n.38 above.
48 Gauthier(n.38) 65-76. Gauthierhas been effec-
tively answeredby Giovannini(n.38) 66-7.
49 D. Whitehead, 'IG 1239: "Aliens" in Chalcis and
Athenian imperialism',ZPE 21 (1976) 251-9, supported
by J.D. Smart, 'IG I2 39: "Aliens" in Chalcis', ZPE 24
(1977) 231-2, who adds that those paying to Athens must
be Atheniankleruchs.
50Pace Fornara(n.39) 53 n.3.
51 For details, see P.A. Brunt, 'Athenian settlements
abroad in the fifth century B.C.', Ancient Society and
Institutions:Studiespresented to VictorEhrenbergon his
75th Birthday(Oxford 1966) 71-92, and Graham(n. 13),
esp. 166-210.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 MARTINOSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS

whose status would not normally be in doubt. Still, the question is germane to the status of
Athenian kleruchs in Euboia, which we raised at the beginning of this paper,and to which we
must now return.
We know little about the fate of the 4,000 Atheniankleruchswho, as Herodotusinformsus,
had been settled in the territoryof the hippobotaiafter the defeat of Chalkis in 506 BC,except
that these were sent to the defence of Eretriain 490 BC.52 The fact that Herodotus(6.100.1)
explicitly attributestheir despatchto the Atheniansindicatesthatthe public obligations of these
kleruchswere determinedby Athens. What happenedto the kleruchy after the PersianWarsis
not known. The listing of both Chalkisand Eretriaon the SerpentColumn53atteststheirpartic-
ipationas independentstates in the PersianWaron the Greekside, and both appearon the earli-
est TributeLists;54but the possibility of their absence from the campaignagainstKarystosgives
pause55and may suggest latent tensions with Athens. The fact that we hear no more of the
kleruchsof 506 BCor their descendantsafter the PersianWarsmay indicate that they had been
absorbedby and integratedinto the Chalkidianbody politic by thattime; if so, they are not like-
ly to be regardedas residentaliens exempt from civic obligationsto Chalkisin 446/5 BCbecause
of any obligationsto Athens.
However, late sources inform us of furthersettlements of Athenians on Euboia in the fifth
century,which we reportedabove. Diodorus mentions in a corruptpassage that Tolmides as a
generalin 453/2 distributedland to 1,000 citizens in Euboiaand Naxos (?), an event echoed and
datedbefore his campaignin Boiotia in a reportby Pausanias,who defines the personssettled as
1CX1rpoXoit.56As Fornarahas shown, this informationis difficult to accept: not only is the
Diodoranpassage textually defective, but a settlementon Euboia is not necessarily a settlement
on Chalkidiansoil; it might be on land taken from Karystos. Moreover,Pausanias'description
of these settlersas
K•hbpo1'Oot
might easily be an errorcausedby contaminationwith Herodotus'
reportof the settlementof Athenians in 506 BC.57 If, as may be conceivable, Tolmides settled
1,000 Atheniancitizens in an unidentifiedplace in Euboia before he invadedBoiotia, that event
has left no traceelsewhere in ancientdocuments. It may, however,be acceptedto explain an irri-
tantthat led to the outbreakof the EuboianRevolt a few years later:their appropriationof lands
belonging to Chalkis may, as we have seen, have been a factor in creatingthe exiles that assist-
ed the Boiotians in their struggleagainstAthenianencroachmentsand may have precipitatedthe
EuboianRevolt.58
Thereare two furtherpassages thatmight help us explain (Athenian)foreignersin the Chalkis
Decree. Both refer to the sequel of the quelling of the EuboianRevolt. According to Plutarch,
Pericles, after subjugatingEuboia, 'threw out the so-called Chalkidianhippobotai who were
outstandingin wealth and reputation,and uprootedall Histiaians from their land and settled it
with Athenians,treatingthem alone harshlybecause they had killed all the crew of an Athenian
ship they had captured'.59 No settlementof Atheniansat Chalkis is mentionedhere, but merely
the expropriationof the lands of the rich hippobotai. The second passage, fromAelian, suggests
what may have been done with the confiscated lands. We have quoted this passage earlierand
pointed out that, while it is unlikely to reflect a settlementof 2,000 kleruchsat this time, it may
attest confiscation of land, which was partly reserved to Athena, while the rest was leased to

52See above, p. 135. ~qBotorob; o

KXhppo6xou;,E3Gipacke
8
53See above, p.135 with n.12. 57See Fomara(n.39) 47-9. rpatz,.
54ATL 3, pp. 22 (no. 50) and 28 (no. 200). 58See p. 135 above.
55Thuc. 1.98.3 with n.5 above. 59 Plut. Per 23.4: XaXKLtSowv g zivtob; i op6ta;
56Diod. 11.88.3 ...To•4tiS6q; 6 -rEpo; Orpaxtiyr; c 8ta
&pkpovta; ~kxaXcv,
XEyolFvo•; nXo~l•, KOCat (q
i-1; rlv Ei~Jotav tap•X0vO(' Xiot; iro•iat; 'Eoztu~r8; 8-ndvcao
: d'vaoy'oacq K rl-l; Xojpac
-riv T&ovNa•iov ,oti Cft, Paus. 1.27.5: 'AQivaio; KCax•'ccKoc, ktj6vol; oi*rotl; &rxapatxrljo;
yryv 8t&vcitjt.
6k 0;6 ~nav1XOcEvF; 'Aoiva;, xpi6dlEvo;, 6 't. vaxv 'A'rtr•dqv iaX oly(r'ov
(To••ti6Sq) Uo-Epov
a46vu-;
rilyayc ; Eiotav Icai N6•ov 'AOrlvaiov roi); ivcpa;.
}.tv OC•)FKcEtvXv

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARTINOSTWALD:ATHENSAND CHALKIS 143

Atheniansand others.60ThatAthenianswere among the lessees is shown by Aelian's citationof

documentsinscribed 'near the Royal Stoa which contain the recordsof the leases'.61
This means thatafterthe settlementof the revolt, land from which hippobotaihad been evict-
ed was made available to Athenians to lease, and perhapseven to own, not as kleruchs, but as
individuals.62These, it seems, were the Atheniansamong the Xz vot to whom exemption from
civic obligationsto Chalkiswas grantedon the groundsthatthey had civic obligationsto Athens;
the relation had to be spelled out specifically, because the settlement was recent.63The other
group exempt from obligations to Chalkis, those to whom the Athenian People had granted
remainsdifficult to identify. It may consist of a group exiled from other Greek cities
tE•,•etoa,
and deprivedof their propertybecause of their pro-Athenianleanings, to whom the Athenians
had given hospitality and exemption from public obligations.64 It remains, however, obscure
why they should have been included in the Chalkis Decree, since there is no reason to assume
that any of them migratedfrom Athens to Chalkis. Alternatively,they might be the settlers (in
whatever form) planted by Tolmides in the 450s: they will have remainedAthenian citizens
whose allegiance is claimed by Athens after the revolt - more correctly, hvnrt6 8 4to ta
'AOFvecov- and thus will have had no public duties to Chalkis;in particularthey will not have
been requiredto contributeto the tributepaid by Chalkis to Athens.
This view is supportedby what seems to have been a parallel situation in Eretria,where a
presence of Athenians,individualsas well as kleruchs,is well attestedthroughoutthe fifth cen-
tury,and especially after450 BC.65 It is strengthenedby the prominenceof Euboia in the lists of
foreign holdings in landby prominentAtheniansimplicatedin the internalturmoilof 415-413,66
which were almost certainly acquired decades earlier, and by the exaggerated statement in
Andocides that at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, Athens controlled two-thirds of
Euboia.67
If our interpretationis correct,the thrustof the clause (lines 52-7) is to acknowledgethe right
of the Chalkidiansto insist on the performanceof public duties on the partof aliens residentin
Chalkis. While obligations to Athens, positive or negative, are given precedence over obliga-
tions to Chalkis, and the military defence of Euboia is entrustedto Athenian generals (76-9),
Chalkidianpolitical autonomyis conceded. Judicialprovisions safeguardpotentialthreatsto the
Athenian democracy by making ~p&etg to Athenian courts mandatory in cases in which
Chalkidianindidividualsor officials are perceived as threateningit.68 But no attemptis made to
effect changes in the traditionalform of govenment in Chalkis.

MARTIN OSTWALD
SwarthmoreCollege and Universityof Pennsylvania

60 See above, nn.13 and 14.
61Ael. VH6.1, quoted in n.15.
62 This is the view of Fornara (n.39) and of
Giovannini(n.38) 71-4.
63Giovannini(n.38) 70-1 believes that 'les personnes
concernmesdoivent &treavant tout, voire exclusivement,
des commerqantsexerqantssimultanementleurs activites
dans les deux cites et 6tantde ce fait "domiciliees"dans
l'une et l'autre en meme temps'. See also ibid. 74.
However, this seems to me more applicableto the fourth
than to the fifth centuryBC.
64 Fornara'sexplanation
(n.38) 50-1, that they had
been partisansof Athens duringthe rebellion, carriesno
conviction. See also above, n.44.
65J.R. Greenand R.K. Sinclair,'Athens and Eretria',
Historia 19 (1970) 515-27.
66 For the AtticStelai 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 propertyof Nikides and
Oionias on Euboia, see 0. Aurenche, Les groupes
d 'Alcibiade,de Leogoras et de Teucros(Paris 1974) 136-
40.
67And. 3.9.
68See p. 138 above.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:51:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions