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

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Lisa Kallet

In any case, so little of the assessment of 422/1 survives--only 30 names of cities are complete or incontestable from what is preserved, with quotas attached to only 23 of these--that it is unwarranted to use this document as strong support for any position, and one needs to exercise extreme caution if using it as a guide in assigning fragments of lists to the following period. Indeed, it is worth asking whether the remains of this assessment decree are even from the 422/1 assessment, since no part of the decree preceding the list of cities and their assessments is extant. (18)

THE TRIBUTE QUOTA LISTS

The range of estimates for the annual income from tribute from ca. 500 to ca. 1,000 talents and the problematic relationship of the literary and epigraphic evidence serve to underscore the importance of the quota lists. How secure is the current arrangement? This question pertains to a larger issue than simply the lists for the period under scrutiny here. Accordingly, the following examination is intended to pinpoint methodological principles and issues that apply to the positioning of fragments of lists in the entire series.

Since the appearance of ATL, scholars have not subjected the systematic arrangement, or "geography," of the fragments as a whole to serious scrutiny, except to question the placement of certain lists or to seek out the year of the notorious "missing list." (19) The explanation for this reluctance lies in the authority of ATL and the daunting nature of the epigraphic remains. Indeed, it is important to appreciate the extraordinary difficulty of the task of making sense of several hundred fragments of quota lists. Meritt himself often rightly expressed ultimate uncertainty over the placement of fragments in lists. Over time--perhaps unavoidably given the sheer number of fragments and the extent of reconstruction--that uncertainty slid into certainty. One can see that process at work between ATL 1 and 2. In the preface of ATL 1, the editors wrote that "this book makes no pretense to being a final publication. In view of the many improvements made in the texts of the tribute lists during the last decade and a half, it would be pessimistic to suppose that further improvement will not be made. We hope that the present summary will serve to consolidate the position so far won and offer a firmer basis for whatever study may be undertaken in the future." (20)

There is no more exemplary statement than this of epigraphists' proper attitude toward epigraphical conclusions--and historical conclusions based on epigraphic evidence. Such a statement is especially apt when applied to evidence such as the quota lists, which are fragmentary, undated, and often extremely difficult to read. In ATL 2, the editors demonstrated the truth of their prediction by confirming the reality of such hands-on epigraphic research, namely, that it is an ongoing process necessitated not only by new evidence but also by new autopsy and the reassessment of arguments for arranging fragments and for the date. In that volume they presented the same fragments again, making a number of changes in readings and datings (though offering no supporting epigraphical commentary). As they wrote, "the restudy of the lists themselves . . . has made advisable first of all a new presentation of the basic evidence." (21)