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

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Lisa Kallet

It may seem odd to ask these questions, some of which are unanswerable. But the sole reason that questions even arise about the extent of the dressed surface on the reverse of fr. 1, and the presence of dressed but uninscribed areas, is that this fragment is the only one of the three associated fragments that has a smooth surface on its reverse: fr. 2, placed in the center middle, is undressed, as is fr. 3, positioned in the lower left; fr. 3, however, is also drafted along its preserved left edge. (27) Indeed, no one would ever have associated fr. 1 with frr. 2 and 3 on the basis of the reverses.

These anomalies by themselves do not invalidate the association of the fragments, since parallels exist for partly dressed stelai and dressed but partly uninscribed stelai. (28) They do, however, need to be appreciated more fully than they previously have been, since they may cast a shadow of doubt on the association. Moreover, as in the case of all nonjoining fragments, it is not valid to draw firm conclusions about any one fragment on a hypothetically reconstructed stele by using others that have been associated with it. Thus, while it is certainly possible that the three fragments are correctly associated, we cannot state as a fact that the stele was only partially dressed on the reverse: if frr. 2 and 3 do not belong with fr. 1, then the entire reverse of the stele to which fr. 1 belonged may have been dressed.

Whenever the reverse was dressed, if it was done with knowledge of roughly how much space was required, the explanation for so much dressed but uninscribed surface, as in the case of half of fr. 1, is unclear unless the choice was made for aesthetic reasons. But equally, if appearance dictated the decision and frr. 1-3 are correctly associated with each other, why would the whole of the reverse not have been dressed? Moreover, if it was unclear at the time of dressing how much space would be required (i.e., if it had been dressed in expectation of future inscribing), why dress only part of the stele, and what dictated how much to dress? (29)

It would help to ascertain the temporal relationship between the inscriptions on the reverse and the quota list on the obverse. The presence of the preserved top edge of fr. 1 and the absence of a regular prescript preceding the inscription on the reverse, which is introduced simply by the rubric "these (cities) paid the army," warrant the inference that the list in the inscription on the reverse continued one on the front. (30) Dated to the year 421/0, this inscription has special interest, since it would appear that military activity on the islands of Lemnos and Imbros necessitated the rubric, (31) yet we hear nothing from other sources about any conflict in the Hellespontine region at this time, the first year of the Peace of Nikias, and do not hear of any until the Ionian War, following the collapse in Sicily. That no source speaks of any conflict is no objection, since Thucydides, for example, is highly selective in his choice of which military engagements to relate. Moreover, this force might simply have been a regular, established patrolling fleet.