Annales littéraires de l'Université

de Besançon

Athens and the Black Sea in the Fifth Century B.C

Harold B. Mattingly

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Mattingly Harold B. Athens and the Black Sea in the Fifth Century B.C. In: Sur les traces des Argonautes. Actes du 6e
symposium de Vani (Colchide), 22-29 septembre 1990. Besançon : Université de Franche-Comté, 1996. pp. 151-158.
(Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon, 613) ;

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_1996_act_613_1_1488

Fichier pdf généré le 22/03/2019

 ATHENS AND THE BLACK SEA IN THE FIFTH CENTURY BC

Harold B. MATTINGLY

Perikles c. 437 BC took a fleet through the Bosporos into the Black Sea. Plutarch,
our only source, is vague about its objectives and success. He spécifies merely the action of
Lamachos, who, left with thirteen ships at Sinope, drove out the tyrant Timesileos and
his followers. Subsequently Perikles had six hundred Athenian colonists sent out to take
their place1 . Some scholars link this expédition with the rise of the new Spartakid
dynasty in the Crimea, which seems plausible. Athens' interest in the Crimean corn-
supply is well documented in the fourth century and as early as summer 426 BC Athens is
found controlling the corn-trade passing through Byzantion. Byzantion's revolt in 440/39
BC perhaps alerted Athens to danger in this area2. In 425/4 the great Reassessment
schedule included a new Pontic panel, in which Apollonia and Herakleia certainly
appeared and probably the Sinopean colonies of Kerasos and Karousa. Whether it also
comprised any towns north of the Danube estuary remains deba table3 . In summer 424 a fleet
of probably thirty ships was sent to ensure collection of the vastly enhanced tribute from
the allies. Lamachos took ten ships into the Black Sea. Thucydides records only his
misadventure at Herakleia, where he lost ail his ships and had to retreat overland
through the Bithynian tribes to Chalchedon. Sotimos, a leading Herakleot citizen, was
made Athenian proxenos this year, surely for material assistance to the stranded
Athenians in their plight4.

1. See Plut. Perikles 20. 1-2 and the good commentary by P.A. Stadter (1989), p. 216-19.
2. BELOCH came down strongly for the Crimea link (Gr. Gesch. 22, 1, p. 199 and 2, p. 216). For this
and other reasons Meiggs( Athenian Empire (1972), p. 197-9) argued strongly for the early 430 s.
against the préférence of the ATL editors for c. 450 (III, p. 114-17). For the new dynasty see
Diodoros 12, 31 (438/7) and 36. 1. For a thorough review of the dates and contexts proposed see
Sophia Karamoustou (Dodoni 6 (1979), p. 16-33) : she opts for c. 447 herself, close to the
Chersonnese cleruchy. For 426/5 see the second Methone decree (IG l3 61. 34-41) and the
parallel provision for Aphytis (62. 3-4). For the fourth century see Isokr. 17 : Dem. 20. 29-33 : IG II2
212+.
3. See IG l3 71, IV. 127-9 and 169 [κερ-] : ATL I, p. 497 (Karousa) and 500 f. (Kerasous). In frag. 38 (IV.
129) Pittakys read... ΣΑ, which Meritt and West were surely right to accept (Athenian
Assessment (1934), p. 26-8 and 87) - though nothing now survives in the stone. For the inclusion of
northern Euxine towns see ATL III, p. 116-17 : Meiggs, op. cit. (n. 2), p. 328 f. It is rejected by
I.B. Braschinski, VDI (1955), p. 148-61.
4. Thuc. 4, 75 : IG l3 74 with MB. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies (1977), n° 46, p. 253-7 with PI. 26.
Athens established a spécial squadron of thirty ships for tribute-collection c. 425 (IG l3 60), on
which see now my article in ZPE 83 (1990), p. 111 f. It would be reasonable for one of the three

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

152 HAROLD Β . MATTINGLY

There is some more relevant information. A tribal casualty list is now known to
contain a single entry 'at Sinope' and this must surely be linked with Lamachos1 visit5.
Next Vinogradov has restored a stoichedon Olbia decree of c. 450-425 as a grant of
citizenship to two Sinopeans, Timesileos and his brother Theopropos. It is very tempting
to accept his view that this is the tyrant and his brother, being given sanctuary in another
oligarchically-governed Milesian colony6. Finally an important coin hoard probably from
the Sinope area comprised nuclei of archaic Sinope drachms, Athenian owls and worn
Persian sigloi. Another minor group came from Cilicia/Pamphylia and Cyprus. Those
coins probably arrived by the well known overland route across Anatolia from Cilicia via
Pteria to Sinope rather than through the long haul by sea. With the Athenian owls they
enabled Kraay to give a reliable 425-420 dating to the hoard7.
Should this hoard be linked to Lamachos' Black Sea expédition in 424, which the
schedule of assessment suggests may hâve gone as far as Sinope - since two of her colonies
are known to hâve been assessed ? Did he take this oppostunity of revisiting a city, which
he had served so well a dozen years earlier ? Despite Plutarch that 'earlier visit' begins
to look doubtful. The casualty list, which must reflect the force needed to eject the tyrant's
party, can hardly be dated as early as c. 437. Its lettering is so close to that of the Argive
Treaty of 417/6 that some scholars recognize the same hand at work. In fifth century
Athens we hâve no parallel for one mason continuing to work unchanged in the same style
for twenty years. A date in the 420 s and more precisely in 424 would be much easier to
accept8. Both the hoard and the list suggest that Plutarch made a mistake, conflating

gênerais in 424 to hâve a third of the fleet. If I am right this would hâve been the first outing of
the new force.
5. See D.W. Bradeen, Agora XVII (1974), p. 24 f., n° 17 (/G l2 944+) : C. Clairmont, ZPE 36 (1979),
p. 123-6 (new fragment). Clairmont's pièce imposes [έν Σιν]όπει in line 3 against the previously
favoured [έν Άλ]όπει. Sinope was suggested long ago by the first editor JJ. HONDIUS (Mnemos,
49 (1921), p. 201-4). Alope imposed the date 431 (Thuc. 2, 26).
6. VDI 1981, 2, p. 65-90 (with photograph facing p. 67) and 3, p. 49-75 : J. and L. ROBERT, REG 95
(1982), p. 356 f., n° 235 (approving). The first name coula be Hermisileos or some variant (p. 81 f.).
7. See CM. Kraay and P.R.S. Moorey, NC 1981, p. 1-19 : H.B. Mattincly, Acts of the Wth Intern.
Num. Congr., London 1986 (1989), p. 60-2 (confirming their date). The strong Sinope élément and
the die-links within it make a find-spot not far from Sinope likely. For the trade-route see Herod.
1, 76 and 2, 34 (five days' journey) : D.M. Robinson, AJPh. 27 (1906), p. 139-144.
8. Against a doublet some would argue that Lamachos was chosen in 424 precisely because he had
been there before. But this is far from cogent. For the epigraphic hand see A.E. RAUBITSCHEK,
Hesp. 12 (1943), p. 27 with n. 57 : Walbank, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 231 (IG l2 944+ in the 420 s) :
D.W. BRADEEN and M.F. MacGregor, Studies in Fifth Century Attic Epigraphy (1973), p. 102
with n. 2 (hands certainly very close). The photographs are impressive. For IG l2 944+ see Hesp.
32 (1963), PI. 63 (frg. a) ; 12 (1943), p. 25-7 and 21 (1952), PI. 87 (frags. b and d) : 33 (1964), PI. 4 (frag.
c) : Hesp. 14 (1945), p. 122 and 126 (frag. g and d, from a squeeze). For IG 13 86 (Argos) see
J. Svoronos, Ath.Nat.Mus. PI. CCVII,1 (frg. c) : Hesp. 14 (1945), p. 122 and 126 (frg. g and d, from
a squeeze). For ten to twelve years as the normal span for one unvaried epigraphic style at
Athens see p. 110-15 of my article cited in n. 4.

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

ATHENS AND THE BLACK SEA IN THE FIFTH CENTURY BC 153

Lamachos' Black Sea visit in 424 with Perikles' expédition during the peace. The close
correspondence in the reported numbers of Lamachos' ships in c. 437 and in 424 supports this
view. Vinagradov's Olbian decree is no obstacle. On its lettering it could easily be put just
after c. 4259. Thucydides' complète silence, however, on Lamachos1 Sinope exploit may
seem a serious objection.
He might hâve chosen to pass over the expulsion of a local tyrant, even though he is
not unfriendly to Lamachos and this would hâve improved his réputation for compétence
as a commander10. But what about the 600 colonists ? I think that we hâve reason to
distruct Plutarch hère also. Two attacks of the Plague had crucially weakened Athens1
manpower by 426 and despite that 1000 colonists had had to be found for Poteidaia in 429
and 2700 cleruchs for Lesbos two years later. Significantly they appear to hâve been
recalled a few years later. Surely 424 was no time for sending out any more citizens to
distant parts like Sinope11. Plutarch in his Life of Lucullus seems unaware of the colony
there. Lucullus is shown respecting Amisos for its past, settling it fairly and recalling
exiles and refugees. Athens had colonized the town at the height of her maritime empire.

9. Lamachos apparently had 13 ships c. 437 (Plutarch) and 10 in 424 (Thucydides). Round numbers
are regular with minor missions. We find 10 and 20 to Corcyra in 433/2, 20 at Naupaktos in
430/29 (and later), 20 to Sicily in 427/6 (Thuc. 1, 45. 1 and 50. 5 ; 2, 69. 1 and 70. 1 ; 3, 19 and 86. 1).
Thucydides had only seven ships at Thasos in 424, but there were others in his command area
(two at Torone, a few at Eion : Thuc. 4, 104. 5 with 108. 1 and 113. 2). Melesander had just 6 ships in
430 and Lysikles 12 in 428 (Thuc. 2, 69. 1 and 3, 19). Thèse numbers are easy sub-divisions of the
often-occurring compléments of 30 or 60 ships. Perikles detached 16 ships from the fleet at
Samos in 441/0 - perhaps 10 went to watch out for the Phoinicians and 6 went to Chios and
Lesbos (Thuc. 1, 116. 1). In this early period 13 ships would be a very odd detachment indeed.
Was the number corrupted in Plutarch, as often happens in MSS ? My scepticism about
Plutarch on the Pontos stops far short of Paola FERRARESE (Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica
II (Milan : 1974), p. 7-19), who thinks that the expédition was an invention of the fourth century in
Athens. VlNOGRADOV put his decree in the third quarter of the fifth century {op. cit. (n. 6) p. 71-3)
with proper caution - allowing a date later than his preferred c. 437 (p. 65-7).
10. For Thucydides on Lamachos see K.J. Dover, Commentary on Thucydides W, p. 314-6 and 419-
21 (on Thuc. 6, 49 f. and 7. 42. 3) with Thuc. 6, 101. 4-6 (his death). As it stands, Thucydides'
narrative in 4, 75 carries undertones of Aristophanes' mockery of Lamachos in Acharn. 959-70
and 1071-1234. His own failure in 424 at Amphipolis perhaps made Thucydides readier to focus
attention on other gênerais' failures this year. See 4, 69-74 with Gomme, Commentary III, p. 531-6
(Megara) and 76 f. and 89-101. 4 (Boiotian campaign) with Gomme, III, p. 537-40 and p. 558-60 (on
89 f. : Athenian mistakes before Delion) and 565-7 (blunders in the battle on 96-97. 1).
:

11. See Thuc. 3, 87 (Plague) with GOMME, II, p. 388 f. : Thuc. 2, 60. 4 (Poteidaia) and Diod. 12, 46. 7
(supplying numbers) : Thuc. 3, 50. 1-2 and /G l3 66 (Mytilene). Meritt saw the decree as
consolidating the first arrangement : the cleruchs returned the land to the Lesbians, staying in
Mytilene as a garrison and receiving 200 drachmai yearly each(as rent/tax ?). Gomme dated the
decree c. 425/4, arguing that the cleruchs were recalled to Athens : certainly there is no trace of
them in the later military opérations in Lesbos (Thuc. 8, 22 f. ; 32 and 34 ; 100. 2-3 with
A. Andrewes, Commentary V, p. 49-54, 74-7 and 344-6). See Meritt, AJPh. 75 (1954), p. 361-8 :
Gomme, Commentary II, p. 327-32 and Studies Robinson II (1953), p. 334-9 (he adds that Athens
did not - was not able to ? - call on cleruchs against Andandros in 424).

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

154 HAROLD Β . MATTINGLY

He has nothing like this to say of Sinope12. We find the some silence on Sinope in Appian
and Strabo, who know the Amisos colony : Strabo cites Theopompos and can name the
oikist, adding that the town was renamed Peiraieus13.
Can we accept a fifth-century Athenian colony at Amisos on the authority of sources
like Plutarch and Appian ? The coinage with the name Peiraieus begins only after c. 350
BC. Moreover Strabo inserts a period of Cappadocian dynastie dominance before the
Athenian colony and this would fit the fourth century better too14. Finally there is the
oikist Athenokles. This is a very rare name at Athens and Kirchner listed only two men
besides the oikist. I hâve found only two or three others. But none is of the fifth century.
The only one known in the fourth century is Athenokles Acharneus, Councillor in
360/59 BC, who could be the oikist himself ; alternatively we might regard him as the
oikist's father or uncle15. There is ample évidence of Athenian interest in the Chersonese
and the Black Sea c. 350-340, while they still had an effective fleet ; in 340/39 they were
able, with naval allies, to thwart Philip at Perinthos and Byzantion. Indeed even as late
as 325/4 Athens prepared to send a colony to the Adriatic against Etruscan piracy16.
The Amisos colony then gives no support to Plutarch's colony at Sinope, being almost
a century later. I submit that Lamachos in 424 expelled the tyrant and his followers, but
that, if new settlers were needed, Sinope had to look elsewhere than to Athens. It is
remarkable that Xenophon, though aware of Lamachos1 expériences in his Anabasis,
shows no awareness of Athenian colonization at Sinope - though colonization is a
leitmotiv of the Ten Thousand's progress from Trapezous17. If my thesis holds, how and why

12. Plutarch, Lucullus 19.

13. Strabo 12 C 546 (Sinope) and C 547 (Amisos) : Appian, Mithradatica 87 (with Plutarch's dating for
Amisos). Strabo is well informed on ail the towns' vicissitudes and notes for Sinope a Roman - but
no Athenian - colony. For Amisos see also Arrian, Periplous, 15. 3.
14. For Amisos/ Peiraieus coinage see ε .T. NEWELL, Num. Notes & Monogr. 46 (1931), p. 1-33 on a
hoard buried c. 325-320 BC. It was found near Kône, about half-way on the old trade-route (see
n. 7) : its composition - Sinope, Amisos, Tarsos - supports my earlier argument. Amisos' very first
drachms were absent.
15. See Ρ A 281 (oikist) and 282 f. : SEG 28, 156. 13 (prytaneus ?, second century BC) : SEG 3, 260. 14
(first /second century AD). The career of Athenokles Halaieus (PA 282) falls firmly after 250 BC :
see IG II2 1534 B. 165 and 1705+ with Agora XV, p. 130, line 50 and 120 and SEG 38, 169 (possibly
two men). For Athenokles Acharneus (PA 283) see IG II2 1745. 48 and SEG 17, 96 (one son's tomb).
16. In 347/6 Athens honoured the Crimean rulers ; the mutual benefits were clearly substantial (/G
II2 212+). For 340/39 see Diod. 16, 77. 2 : Demosth. 9, 34 with 16, 74-7 and 18, 80-90, 240 f. and 306.
Besides Chios, Rhodes, and Kos Tenedos also helped Athens (Tod, GHI II, no. 175 : IG II2 232).
For the Adriatic see IG Π2 1629+. 145-271 (Tod II, n° 200). In 334/3 Athens sent out a squadron 'for
protection against the pirates' (perhaps Etruscans again) : see SIG 962. 277-86.
17. From Herakleia the army could proceed either by sea or land : they chose the land route to
Chrysopolis and the territory of Chachedon (Anab. 5, 6. 5-10 : 6, 2. 18 f. with 4. 10 f. and 6. 25-37).
Lamachos had shown that this was feasible despite the possibly hostile Bithynian Thracians.
When envoys sent by Sinope, 'a Milesian colony' (6, 1. 15 : no mention of Athens' colony) came to
the army at Kotyora, Xenophon proposed - but later withdrew - a colony in the Black Sea area
and subsequently a wild scheme for a colony near Phasis was floated. See Anabasis 5, 5. 3 and 6.

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

ATHENS AND THE BLACK SEA IN THE FIFTH CENTURY BC 155

did Plutarch or his source think up the Athenian colonization and provide the précise
number of six hundred ? Plutarch is no historian and we must accept that he was capable of
misunderstanding his source or taking over uncritically what was offered him. There is, I
think, a close parallel to this alleged mistake of his in Diodoros.
Diodoros is our one authority for an Athenian colony at Astakos in the Propontis,
whose terri tory adjoined that of Chalchedon ; he puts it under the year 435/4. Several
modem scholars hâve linked it closely with the supposed colonies at Sinope and Amisos18.
A passage in Xenophon makes Diodoros' story highly suspect. In 405/4 Lysander took the
surrender of Byzantion and Chalchedon, together with their Athenian garrisons. He
allowed thèse and "any other Athenians that he came across" to return safely to Athens -
but nowehere else - in order to overcrowd the city. If Xenophon knew of a colony at
Propontine Astakos, he would surely hâve mentioned it ; Lysander was close at hand and
he must hâve expelled them too19.
The ATL· editors record Astakos as missing from a complète Hellespontine panel in
435/4 and note that it never reappears later in lists or schedules20. But at least another ten
Hellespontine tributaries are missing in 435/4, though they do reappear - even if
sporadically. There may well be an élément of chance affecting the state of our know-
ledge, since the lists after 435/4 give a very incomplète picture of the Empire21. Moreover
in the Reassessment of 425/4 we find well down in the Hellespontine panel the entry [...]
κενοί which can hardly be Kyzikos : that important city should hâve corne in the early
part of the list, as we find with the Island, Thracian and Ionian panels. Formally both
['Αρτα]κενοΐ - which the ATL· editors demanded - and [Άστα]κενοΐ remain possible. I can see
no way to décide between them, but Xenophon's évidence should perhaps warn against
excluding the latter a priori22. In the list of 421/0 BC it is possible to restore [Σελυμβρΐανο]ι

15 and 18 f. with 28-31 : 6. 36 - 7. 13. Finally at Kalpe - west of Herakleia - a minority thought still of
a colony, but most wanted to get back home (Anab. 6, 4. 1-8 and 6. 3 f.).
18. See Diod. 12, 34. 5. Diodoros follows with the colony of Ardea : he has the right Roman consuls,
but in Livy they are the pair of 442 BC. Diodoros is regularly seven years behind Livy with his
consuls at this point of the fifth century. See Broughton, Magistrates I, p. 54 ff. Meiggs links the
three colonies in discussing Perikles' Pontic expédition (op. cit. (n. 2), p. 197-9).
19. Hellenika 2, 2. 1-2. For Astakos' position see Strabo 12 C 563 and Meiggs' Map I (II) at the end of
his Athenian Empire. Both Strabo and Memnon 12. 2 (20. 1) - in FGH 434 with lacoby's
Commentary, p. 277 - know Astakos as an Athenian colony; they presumably derived this
directly or indirectly from Diodoros. See also ATL· 1, p. 471 f.
20. ATL· II, p. 79 and III, p. 288 with n. 68 : ATL· I, p. 471 f.
21. Also missing from /G l3 277, IV -V are Neandreia, Kebrenioi, Skapsaioi, Gentinioi, Arisbaioi,
Paisenoi, Daskyleion, Kios, Tyrodiza, Palaiperkosioi. The Hellespontine panel of 433/2 (IG l3 279,
I. 96-106 and II. 8-33) is wrongly shown as complète in ATL· I, Register and the Tables at the end
of HlLL, Sources2 (1950), p. 497, 499 and in MEIGGS, op. cit. (n. 2), after p. 539. After that a glance
through the lists as now presented in IG l3 should confirm that my claim is justified.
22. See ATL· I, p. 78 f. and A.B. West, Metrop. Mus. Stud. 3 (1931), p. 191. The [...]χενοι entry cornes in
the midst of a host of Hellespontine and Propontis tributaries, mainly fairly insignificant.

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

156 HAROLD Β . MATTINGLY

and [Άστακε]νοί instead of the ATL readings [Προκοννέσιο]ι and [Άρτακε]νοί and thèse
suppléments make equally good geographical sensé23.
If Diodoros made an error about Astakos, how can we explain it ? By what could be a
curious coïncidence Thucydides records an Athenian attack on Astakos in Akarnania in
summer 431 ; they expelled a tyrant and brought the city into their alliance. Now
Diodoros evidently followed Ephoros, his main source, in omitting Astakos and Sollion
from this stretch of narrative. I submit that he found a référence in another source to
Athenian action at Astakos, mistook the geography and fitted the item in where he could.
The main substance of the chapter is the events at Poteidaia, which Thucydides correctly
dated 432/1 BC, and, if this connection was in Diodoros1 second source, the dating of
Astakos was approximately right. The source, like Ephoros, perhaps did not write
annalistically as those writers on whom Diodoros mainly drew to supplément Ephoros.
Astakos may alternatively hâve formed part of a passage dealing with Athens'
encroachments on Corinth's sphère in north-west Greece from Phormio's Akarnanian
expédition into the war24.
Besides geographical dislocation Diodoros would hâve been guilty of
misunderstanding the very nature of Athenian action at Astakos. But Plutarch (or his
source) will hâve done something very similar with Sinope. In both cases an Athenian
military force expelled a tyrant from a potentially hostile town in order to secure its
support for Athens - leading in the late sources to colonization, which apparently never
occurred. Diodoros is capable of such inventions and distortions or even worse. He alone
records a récurrence of stasis in Corcya, which neither Thucydides nor Xenophon mention.
He dates it 410/09, when Konon was gênerai at Naupaktos. Now Konon served at
Naupaktos in 414/3 and was succeeded by Diphilos. There is something wrong hère, unless
Konon went back to the Naupaktos station in 411/10. His coming with 600 Messenians and
their présence in Corcyra town during the stasis must be suspect as a doublet of
Nikostratos'
bringing 500 Messenians and settling them in Corcya during the stasis of 427.
Diodoros says that the popular party freed the slaves and this too echoes the event of 427,

23. Kyzikos, Prokonnesos and Artake so often corne together in the later lists - as IG l3 277, IV. 30 f.
and V. 3 ; 279, IL 34-6 ; 281, III. 8-10 ; 282, III. 31 f., 34 ; 287, II, 10 f., 14 - that the ATL suppléments in
IG l3 285, II. 70, 72 f. probably seemed inescapable. But many alternatives to [Κυζιχενοι] exist for
line 71. There are only four twelve-letter Hellespontine names. Chersonesitai appears in line
75 f., but Kallipolitai is a possible alternative supplément. Geographically either Selymbria or
Kallipolis would fit with Astakos and at this date we would not expect to find Artake in their
company, without its normal partners. Everything hinges on the ATL supplément in line 70,
which is far from certain.
24. Scholars assume that Diodoros normally supplemented Ephoros from a chronographic source.
See MEIGGS, op. cit., p. 447-58. His material on Meton (12, 36 : 433/2) and Diagoras of Melos (13, 6.
7 : 415/4) went back ultimately to Philochoros and Melanthios, who wrote annalistically. See FGH
III B, 328 F 122 and Comment at-y , p. 496-8 and 326, F 3 with Commentary, p. 165-7. For the
Poteidaia affair see Thuc. 1, 56-65 with Gomme, Commentary 1, p. 199-224. For Corinth and the
north west see Thuc. 2, 68, 7-9 (Phormio : c. 439 to 433/2 ?), 2, 30 and 33, 102. 1 (Kephallenia,
Sollion and Astakos) with Gomme, I, p. 367 and II, p. 91 f., 94, 202 and 249.

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES

ATHENS AND THE BLACK SEA IN THE FIFTH CENTURY BC 157

when both sides made such an appeal to the slaves - but the greater number joined the
démos. Whether there was any real civil war in Corcyra in 410/09 must be doubted and
Diodoros'
drawing on events of 427 for his narrative - whether conscious or not-must
damage his credibility as the one source for the Astakos colony25.
My conclusion is that in the fifth century Athens' interest in the Black Sea was very
limited, apart from the question of the corn trade. We do not know to what extent or for
how long after 424 tribute came in from the area26. The Athenians wisely conserved their
resources and even so found it impossible in the end to hold their limited empire. The only
colony which they succeeded in sending out into the Pontic area was Amisos and that was
one of the last manifestations of Athens' fatal fascination with maritime power.

25. See Diod. 13, 48 and Thuc. 7, 31. 4 with Dover, Commentary IV, p. 411 and 414 f. ANDREWES
(Commentary V, p. 33 f. on Thuc. 8, 13) allows for Konon succeeding Hippokles (412/11). For the
doublets see Thuc. 3, 75. 1 and 81. 2 (Messenians) and 73 (slaves). Gomme noted the suspicious
echoes of 427 and the rhetoric of Diodoros' chapter, but accepted the bare fact of civil war
returning (Commentary III, p. 497 f.).
26. MEIGGS (op. cit., p. 328 f.) fairly représente our uncertainty. With 40/50 cities in 425 and no
preserved tribute above 5 talents, the total hardly then exceeded 100 talents - he thought that it
might hâve been as little as 50. Even with the higher figure Athens never had very much at stake
financially in the Black Sea and the création of the new panel may hâve had much more to do
with prestige and singeing the King of Persia's beard.

SUR LES TRACES DES ARGONAUTES