Epigraphic geography: the tribute quota fragments assigned to 421/0-415/4 B.C

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Lisa Kallet

More serious, in Meritt's view, were objections on historical grounds, namely, that the Athenians abandoned the collection of tribute around 413 (Thuc. 7.28.4). Meritt himself, however, three years earlier had dated five nonjoining, undated fragments, evidently from a reassessment of tribute, to the year 410, arguing that the Athenians had resumed the collection of tribute. (58) From a methodological standpoint, why is it not equally possible that the fragments belong to a list for the year 412 and would thereby reveal the resumption of tribute collection by that year? (59) The use of five nonjoining, undated fragments of an assessment as the mainstay of a significant historical interpretation (that tribute was reimposed in or by that year) and, by contrast, the rejection of 412 as the date of the list to which quota fragments belong on historical grounds (that in ca. 413 tribute was replaced with a maritime tax with no evidence that it was restored in or by 412) create an impression of an arbitrary approach to undated epigraphical evidence.

These fragments, therefore, cannot be said to occupy a secure place in 418/7 as implied by their appearance in IG [I.sup.3] without a question mark. Moreover, there are further epigraphical considerations that may call their association into question. The lettering on the fragments differs in significant respects. Fr. 2, in col. I, and fr. 3, in col. II, have distinctly different nus (see Figs. 3, 4). (60) Likewise the nus in fr. 5 (Fig. 5), positioned on col. II, differ from those on fr. 2, but also, if less pronounced, from those on fr. 3, with which it is said to join. Fr. 1, containing part of a prescript, some numerals, part of a panel heading and the beginnings of some ethnics from col. II, has roughly similar nus to frr. 2 and 3, though they are considerably more varied (Fig. 6). (61) Moreover, the sigmas on fr. 1 differ rather dramatically from those on fr. 3. (62) Since frr. 2 and 3 are positioned in different columns (I and II, respectively), one could suppose two masons at work, one inscribing the prescript and col. I, and another inscribing col. II. (63) In this case, however, we would need to suppose that one mason inscribed the prescript and possibly col. II, and another inscribed col. I, or, alternatively, that three different masons were at work. These epigraphical considerations raise a question about the association, if only about that of fr. 2 with frr. 1, 3, and 5, if those fragments do indeed join.

[FIGURES 3-6 OMITTED]

In sum, with no preserved dating formula, it is possible, but by no means mandated, that Agora I 4809 and the fragments associated with it date to 418/7, or even to another year during the Peace of Nikias. Moreover, it should be left open as to whether the fragments should all be associated.

List 38: 4 17/6 (IG [I.sup.3] 288)

List 38 consists of one fragment (EM 6751) preserving nine full or partial names from an Island panel. (64) It was originally placed in 420/19 or 419/8 (List 35 or 36) in ATL 1, then moved down to List 38 in ATL 2, although the editors also held open the possibility that it belonged to List 37. This shift left no List 36. Even in the list's original location (420/19 or 419/8), the editors of ATL commented that "because of the inconclusive criteria at our disposal the date proposed must be considered tentative." (65) In 1941, Meritt had commented that "from its similarity to List 39 the inscription probably belongs in this assessment period." (66) The downshift from ATL 1 to ATL 2, therefore, seems to have been a result of the reassignment to 416/5 of the two fragments originally associated with the tiny fragment that now comprises List 35 (420/19?). (67) The repositioning, in other words, had nothing to do with a connection between the fragment and the year 417/6.