Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A fresh look at the Kallias decrees (IG I3 52A-B)
Mattingly, Harold
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1997; 38, 2; ProQuest
pg. 113

A Fresh Look at the Kallias Decrees 
(IG 13 52A-B) 

Harold Mattingly 

K ECADE AGO Lisa Kallet-Marx boldy challenged the ac­
cepted dating of the two decrees attributed to a cer­

tain Kallias. She proposed putting them in different 
conciliar years, having shown convincingly that Eupeithes was 
not also the epistates of decree B and having thrown consid­
erable doubt on the reading [K](lU.i(l~ for its orator. 1 Daux and 
Pritchett indeed were willing to read no more than ALEI on the 
stone. KaBet-Marx would allow IALEI and a possible dotted 
lamda before the first iota, without seeing that this would under­
mine her main position. Attic names ending in -lias, apart from 
Kallias, are extremely rare. Only twelve are listed in Lexicon of 
Greek Personal Names II: Athens, none of which have more 
than two secure Attic entries. Bilias may not even be Attic and 
Thalias is known only ca A.D. 140. They can all reasonably be 
discounted for the fifth century B.C. If AIAL can be read, Kallias 
is the orator and we are in the same conciliar year for A and B. 
Second terms on Council are virtually unknown in the fifth 
century; indeed I can cite only Peisandros in 422/421 and 415/ 
414. KaBet-Marx can escape from this dilemma, however, by 
joining Daux and Pritchett in their agnosticism. 2 

She would date decree A in 4311430, shortly after Pericles' 
survey of Athens' financial resources. B must belong to a Pan­
athenaic year and she originally offered a wide range of dates-
430/429,426/425,4221421, and 418/417. Recently she has settled 

1 -The Kallias Decree, Thucydides, and the Outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
War," CQ N.S. 39 (1989: hereafter 'Kallet-Marx') 94-113, esp. 97-100. 

2 See W. K. Pritchett, -Kallias: Fact or Fancy?" CSCA 4 (1971) 220-23; Kal­
let-Marx 99; M. J. Osborne and S. Byrne, LGPN II: Athens (Oxford 1994) 
491; P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972), 3f and 242f, Table B 
(only seventeen known in the fourth century). For Peisandros see IG P 174 
with H. B. MATIINGLY, Athenian Empire Restored (Ann Arbor 1996: hereafter 
'Mattingly') 178f, 249; D. M. MacDowell, Andokides, On the Mysteries 
(Oxford 1962), 73 comm. ad 14, 43. 

113 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

114 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

on the last of these. 3 Internal evidence, though, suggests that B 
followed fairly closely on A, which arranged for the Treasurers 
of the Other Gods to share the Opisthodomos with Athena's 
treasurers: B.21-25 assigned the left side of the Opisthodomos 
to them." Kallet-Marx once saw the force of this and similar 
arguments. But is 430/429 a possible dating for B, as she then 
thought? It is hard to believe that Athens imposed drastic 
restraints on spending from Athena's funds so early in the war. s 

But do we have to put A and B back in 434/433? I still find 
several serious objections to this. One concerns the Opistho­
domos. There is only one certain payment from the Opistho­
domos in the Archidamian War, namely in the first disburse­
ment of 425/424. We may be meant to assume that all later pay­
ments from Athena's funds came from the Opisthodomos, 
though it is not specified. But why was this note not added with 
the first payment of 426/425, when it could have served for the 
whole quadrennium covered by the accounts of the Logistai? 
Scholars have been tempted to introduce it into two other 
passages of IG I3 369. Two standard works, Meiggs and Lewis 
and IG 13, have not accepted it in line 29f, where it hardly 
matters even if correct. 6 Its introduction in line 58f-the first 
payment from the Other Gods in 423/422-is altogether more 
serious. It has been accefted in both standard works and thus 
given more currency. I the Treasurers of the Other Gods 
were already operating in the Opisthodomos in 423/422, then 
the arrangements of IG 13 52A .13-18 were already in force and 
that virtually imposes the 434/433 dating. 7 The supplement, 
however, is far from certain and there are surely valid altern­
atives to [---tie;; nputavEliae;; EXe;; 'On: lo8086 1.10 v 'Ap]tEI.l.l[Boe;; 
'Ayp]OtEpa[e;;--]. Before Meritt and Lang proposed it without 
argument in 1965, Meritt had thought of [tEe;; nputavlEiac; 

3 KaUet-Marx 112f, and Money, Expense and Naval Power in Thucydides' 
History 1-5.24 (Berkeley 1993) 10sff. 

4 Cf A.11S-18 carefully with B.21-2S. This point was well taken by G. L. 
Cawkwell, Thucydides and the Pewponnesian War (London 1997) 107-10. 

5 Kallet-Marx 112 n.84: cIf the decrees are in fact related in content to the 
extent that the sum of money in decree A voted for payment ... was the 
amount specified in decree B (line 22), then the latter should not perhaps be 
much later than decree A: 430 in that case is a likely date.» For the much 
discussed adeia vote in B.1S-19 see infra. 

6 See ML 212 no. 72; IG P 369, p.342, where the supplement is noted only in 
the apparatus criticus. 

7 This thought probably ensured ready acceptance of the supplement. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATTINGLY 115 

EOEAEA\)S\)ta~ 'Aph£~.lt[oo~ 'A'Yp]o'tEpa[~--]. But in line 30 we 
find just OoOE!Co.'tEt 't£~ 1tp\)'tavda~ and this shorter form of the 
date is found in lines 33, 39, 41£, 44f, and 79. 8 Another solution 
may perhaps be discovered by deeper probing. The accepted 
supplement in line 55f is rather clumsy and I underline the 
offending phrase: ['to.OE 1tap£ooo]av h[Ol 'ta/ltal 'tOY liAAoV SEOV 
r6p'YO]LVO~ O[ivdoo 'l!CaplIEi)~ !Cal XO\)Vo.PXOV'tE~ t!C'tOy £!Co.OtO 
X]PELU1'tO[V t1tl 'AIlEtVtO lipxov'to~ o'tpa't]qo'i[~--]. It does not 
correspond satisfactorily with the parallel passage as supplied in 
line 77f, where I again underline the crucial elements: [OE\)'t]£p­
[av MoLV 1tap£oooav] h Ol 'ta[lltal tOV liA]AoV SEOV r6p'YOlVO~ 
0 , , ~ 'I '[' I ' S' ., S ' ] , , LVEtuO !CaplE\)~ !Cal X0\)V apxov'tE~!Ca E!CaqloYEOV a1to 
'to[v XPEllo.'tOV]. I propose instead [---!Cal XO\)v6.PXOV'tE~ a1tO 
'tOv tEPOV X]pEllo.'tO[V in line 56£ and in line 58f [- - -'t fi; 
1tp\)'tavElia~ !CaS' E!Cao'tov SEOV 'Aph£lll[OO~ 'A'Yp]o't£pa[~--]. 9 

The only sure early epigraphic reference to the Opisthodomos 
apart from IG P 369.19f. is in the fragmentary decree IG P 207, 
which has there the wide dating bracket 440-420. This can 
surely be narrowed. In line 10 we find the 'modern' mid­
dle/passive imperative form EvEX£OSO[ v]. The earliest dated 
examples of this are in the Halieis Treaty and the second 
Methone decree, both inscribed in 424/423. The safe dating for 
IG P 207 would seem to be the later 420s. It gives no support 
to the view that the Opisthodomos was already available for 
banking funds in 434/433. 10 

The evidence on the adeia vote required byIG P 52 B.15-19 is 
also awkward on the traditional Kallias dating. It is missing from 
the accounts of 433/432, where one would expect it, as between 
76 and 166 talents were spent from Athena's funds on Cor­
cyra. ll There seems to be no room for it either in the accounts 
of 432/431, though Meritt once followed Kolbe in inserting in 

8 See M. Lang, -The Abacus and the Calendar, II" Hesperia 34 (1965) 232 
n.7, 234, 236 (new text); B. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth 
Century (Ann Arbor 1932) 131f, 140. 

9 For t£.pa XP"llata of the Other Gods see IG P 52 A.29f. lCae' £lCaOtOV eEOV 
may have been inadvertently omitted by the mason before altO tOY iEP<N 
XPElJ.&tOV in line 53 and inserted in line 59 at the end, where it fits equally 
well. 

10 On the imperatives see Mattingly 157f; IG P 75.26 ([tltjapaoeov), 61.38 
(eiJ9uvio9ov). IG P 157 (oEX,ioeov, line 14) was dated ca 425 by Meritt ("Attic 
Inscriptions of the Fifth Century," Hesperia 14 [1945] 97f) because of the close 
similarity of its lettering to the Halieis treaty. 

II See IG P 364: the totals in lines 12f, 23 are incomplete. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

116 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

the first payment <p<JE<Pl<JUIlEVO 'to bEllO. This conjecture is not 
even recorded in IG P. No comparable supplement has been 
suggested elsewhere this year. 12 The adeia vote in fact is first 
recorded for certain in the second payment of 418/417, though 
there is room for it in the sixty-letter lacuna of the first. If its 
appearance is slightly erratic, it continues to be noted down to 
the first payment of 415/414. Kallias' strict rules may have been 
modified by this period.13 

Boards of Treasurers of the Other Gods certainly existed in 
430/429, 429/428, and 423/422. Were these the same as Kallias' 
board? This numbered ten, one from each tribe, chosen by lot 
as Athena's treasureres. Such boards are found from 4211420 
onwards. 14 In IG P 383 of 429/428 only five treasurers seem to 
be listed with their secretary.15 Boards of ten are sometimes 
listed incompletely, but never with less than seven members. 
Moreover, though the tribal order may be disturbed, traces of it 
remain. Thus in 442/441 eight treasurers of Athena were 
recorded, only six with demotics: the order is III, VII, VIII, IX, 
X, IY' In 420/419 nine treasurers of the Other Gods were listed 
in the order VII, I, IV, V, VI, III, X, II, IX (IG P 472.13f). At 
this point I must reproduce the text of IG P 383.1-11 (stoich. 
27): 

]2 See W. Kolbe, -Ein chronologischer Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des pelo­
ponnesischen Krieges." Hermes 34 (1899) 390f; Meritt (supra n.8) 80 and PI. 1. 

13 See Ie P 370.15 for the second payment. In line 6 'tE~ 1tp1J'tuvdu~ 
<pcreq)t(JUIlEVO'tO OEj!O 'tEv iioetav p;1 'to'i~ 'tplepclpxol~ E1t' "AP"{ would exactly fill 
the gap. The fourth payment, being from Samos (line 18f with Ie P 2, p.962), 
would not require adeia. The third (line 16£) may have been below a new 
limit, substantially raised since Kallias. For further adeia records see 370.28 
and 33 (417/416), and 63f (415/414). West wanted to restore the adeia phrase 
in line 48 (416/415), but the other payments this year seem to lack it. Was 
adeia waived for the Sicilian expedition? It was this late evidence for the adeia 
vote that persuaded Kallet-Marx (supra n.3: 112 n.84) to favour 418/417 for Ie 
P 52B and there is much force in this view, though her own date is demon­
strably too low. 

14 Ie P 52A.10-15; 472.9-19 
]5 This is generally assumed. Boards are almost always listed with their sec­

retaries: 473.7-10 is an isolated exception. The pattern of 383.1-9 (names of 
tamiai + secretary vacatl'taoe 1tUPEO[ocruv- -]) would neatly parallel 472.2-5 
(epistatai + secretary vacatl Vtpxuv'to 'tov tpyov - -) and 474.1-5 (epistatai + 
secretary vacatl ['ta]oe aVEYPUcpcrUV tP"{u 'to v£o- -). 

]6 See Ie P 457.12-20. In line 15 only K[-6-] is preserved, but K[01.4:u~] of 
VIII is surely preferable to K[E'tno~] of IV. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATTINGLY 

'ta~{a[t] 'tOV aU[ov 9EOV Ent 'tE<; ~OA]­
E<; £t K[ a ]AA{o'tpa'to[ <; - 11 -] 

npO'to<; [E}ypa~~a'tEU[EV Ent 'Ena~Ei]­
vovo<; apxov'to<; 'Av'tt[ - 10-] 

5 0<;, 'AAKicp[p]OV 'AV<Xq>Au[ono<;, - 6 -] 

'tOY 'Avay[upa]oto<;, K[ -12 -] 

'tto<;, Xapt[ - - ot<; - : - - - - - - - -] 
'EAE'\)(J{Vt[O<; Eypa~~a'tEuEv '1Jacat] 
'taOE napEO[ooav napaOExoa~EVOt] 

10 napa 'tov n[pO'tEpoV 'ta~tov ot<; ... ] 
o'tpa't[ 0<; - - - Eypa~~a'tEuEv - - -] 

117 

Though only the tribes of the second and third tamzaz are 
known, R. Develin has boldly argued that the five men were 
listed in tribal order-IX, X, I, II, IllY but his arguments are 
flawed. His tribe for the first tamias depends on my hazardous 
guess 'Avn[cp6v Pa~v6<H]lo<;. Thucydides asserts that Antiphon, 
whom he clearly knew, played no part in Athenian public life, 
preferring to work behind the scenes until the crisis of 411. So 
he would appear a very unlikely treasurer in 429/428. 18 More­
over, 'Avn[<pov <l>pEappt]lo<; and 'Av,tt[llaxo<; 'EpIlE'i]lo<; are 
equally possible supplements. The first, father of a Councillor 
of ca 420, may still have been active a decade earlier. Antima­
chos was parhedros or hellenotamias in 416/415. Tribe IV or V 
might be open for the first treasurer. 19 Alternatively he might 
be a complete unknown like Alkiphron Anaphlystios, with a 
demotic and tribe beyond conjecture.20 Develin's tentative sug­
gestion for the fourth treasurer was K[aA/..ta<; fap'YE't]no<;. A 
family from Gargettos (Aigeis) is known from 2541253 on, 
which alternated the names Thrasippos and Kallias. But, though 
an isolated Thrasippos Gargettios is known from ca 445, no man 
from the deme with the very common name Kallias is recorded 
before the first half of the third century. So Kallias Gargettios 
must be rejected for the treasurer. 21 Could Develin find 

17 «Prytany Systems and Eponyms for Financial Boards in Athens,» Klio 68 
(1986) 78, and Athenian Officials (Cambridge 1989) 121,441. 

18 Mattingly 225; Thuc.8.68.1. 
19 Antiphon Phrearrhios see IC P 1040.19; Antimachos: IC P 370.53, 55, 57 

with W. E. Thompson, «The Regional Distribution of the Athenian Pentakosi­
omedimnoi,» Klio 52 (1970) 442 with n.2. 

20 There are only four entries in LCPN II for Alkiphron. 
21 For the Gargettos family see LCPN II s.'1J. KaA.A.ia~ nos. 127-30; for the 

earlier Thrasippos see IC P 433.31. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

118 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

another man from Gargettos, with a seven-letter name begin­
ning with kappa? At first it looks hopeful. There are no less 
than seventy-one such names! But the great majority are very 
rare, ranging from one to four LGPN II entries. They can 
surely be ignored. Kratios (9), Kephalos (8), Kritias (7), and 
Kydenor (6) can also be discounted-they make little showing 
in the fifth century and have no links with Gargettos or Aigeis. 22 

The least uncommon names are Ktesias (38), Kointos (18), and 
Kleophon (17). Kointos is known only from the second cen­
tury B.C. onwards. Only one man called Kleophon (no. 1) comes 
from the fifth century apart from the demagogue from Achar­
nai: indeed it is possible that the kalos ca 440-430 may be the 
demagogue in his youth. It is also conceivable that the name 
Kleophon was invented by his father Kleippides, as Euryme­
don was devised for the general of 427/426, Paralos for Perikles' 
son and Pasiphon for the secretary of 413/412.23 Two men 
called Ktesias come from the very early fifth century (nos. 2-3). 
Three (nos. 4-6) seem to belong to the period ca 445-425-an 
official cited in the Eleusinian epistatai decree of ca 432, the 
proposer of a decree for the Eteokarpathians and a litigious 
politician attacked by Aristophanes in 426/425. They could all 
be the same man. There is also a war-casualty of ca 411 from 
Antiochis, who may be from another family.24 More interesting 
is a Ktesias Euagidou Philaiades of ca 346/345. The family 
stemma can be reasonably established: 

22 Kleitos (8) and Kelados (6) are confined to the Roman Imperial period. 
The family of the oligarch Kritios accounts for the sixth/fifth-century 
occurrences of the name, except for Kritaias Aphidnaios of 423/421 (no. 4). 
There is a Kratios a war-casualty of ca 450 (IG P 1146.32) and Kratios Alope­
kethen, whose son was voted against at an ostrakophoria of the 480s. The 
fifth-century Kydenor-father of a Council secretary ca 390 (IG F 49)-was 
also from Alopeke. Kephalos seems to appear only in the fourth century. 

23 For Kleophon kalos see Beazley, ARV2 1144 no. 7 and 1590 (Kleophon 
Painter); for the evidence for th,; other three names see LGPN II. 

2. See I G P 32.30ff (ca 449-447?) with Mattingly 32ff, 193, 196£, 336£, 483f, 
and K. Clinton, -The Date of the Classical Telesterion at Eleusis," in <IliAta 
"E1t11 (Athens 1987) II 254-62; IG P 1454.4; Ar. Ach. 839; IG P 1190.98 with C. 
Clairmont, Patrios Nomos (Oxford 1983) I 195ff. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATTINGLY 

Euages I Philaiades 
I 

Deinias I (tamias of Athena 444/443: IG P 455.8f) 
I 
? 
I 

Euagides I 
I 

Ktesias (mining lessor: Agora 19, P 19.25) 
I 

Euagides II (choregos, men's dithyramb 328/327: IG IF 
3052) 

119 

We might well supply a Ktesias Phil aides as the missing grand­
father of the Ktesias of ca 346/345.25 He may then with some 
plausibility be identified with the proposer of IG P 1454. The 
prytany was either Oineis or Aigeis, to which the demotic 
Philaiadai belongs. Now it was not unusual for the proposer of a 
decree to belong to the prytany in office. Thoudippos of 
Arraphen proposed a short decree in the prytany of Aigeis in 
425/424 and in the same year probably Leon of Antiochis pro­
posed the Hermione Treaty in the Antiochis prytany. Peisan­
dros Acharneus honoured Lykon of Achaia in the Oineis 
prytany of 422/421 and Kleosophos and his fellow-prytanies 
honoured the Samians in 405/404. Finally Kleonymos, so active 
in the prytanies of Hippothontis and Kekropis in 426/425, was 
very possibly from the latter tribe. 26 If Ktesias no. 5 from 
LGPN II is Philaiades, there is really no room for a Ktesias 
Gargettios in the fifth century. Tribe III then seems virtually 
ruled out for the fourth tamias. With a demotic ending in -tios 
there is anyway a wide field open. The choice is effectively 
between demes in IV, V (2) and VII. For the fifth tamias there 
is no possible control on demotic or tribe. 27 We are left with the 
troubling sequence of tamiai from ?:X:I:IV:V or VII: ? The 

25 For this family see J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 
1971) 18M. Alternation of names by generations was, of course, common at 
Athens. 

26 See IG P 71.54f and LGPN II no. 1; IG P 31.6 with Mattingly 34f, 256; 
IG P 174.1-5 with Mattingly 178f, 201£, 249; IG P 127.M, 32. For Kleonymos 
see IG P 61.32ff with 68.3ff, ?30-33 with 69.1-4. LGPN II no. 10, Epieikides 
(Kekropis) of 329/328 might well be a descendant of the politician of the 420s 
and 410s. 

27 The demotics are Kettios, Sphettios and Prospaltios, Sypalettios. Ana­
phlystios, already taken by the second tamias, can be discounted. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

120 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

juxtaposition of tribes X and I is no more remarkable than the 
juxtapositon of V and IV in a board of ca 410 and of V and VI in 
the epistatai for the Hephaisteion statues in 4211420, neither 
chosen on a tribal basis. 28 The tamiai of 429/428 look more like a 
non-tribal, elected group of five than a truncated tribal board of 
ten. Fifth-century Athens had a great liking for five-man elec­
tive boards-the epistatai for years five to seven of building 
works ca 445, the epistatai for Eleusis and the Propylaia, the 
archontes for Miletos and the oikistai for the Kolophonians are 
good, varied examples of this. 29 A disputed passage of IG I 352 A 

(18-22) suggests that the five-man board of 383 does indeed 
belong with these. The basic structure is 7t<xpa 'tOY vvv 't<XllIOV --
7t<xp<x()€xaa.a8ov IXH 't<XJltm hot A<XX6v't€C;. The board to be ap­
pointed by lot seems here contrasted with the current tamiai of 
a somewhat different type. This is how Beloch and Wade-Gery 
took the passage, and I do not think that their view has been 
effectively demolished, though Wade-Gery later gave it Up.30 

I shall end with the problem of the Golden Nikai, of which at 
least three were to be completed under IG 13 52B.2ff. We may 
assume as a starting-point that there were no more than eight 
Nikai in the fifth century, seven of which were melted down in 
the crisis of 4071406. From the 3605 on we find ()t€pEiaJla't<X 'trov 
Nh:wv fII registered in the Chalkotheke and in IG P 468.28 (a 
Nike record) we have the cryptic reference [a]7to 'to 
()t€pEia[Jl<X'tOC; 1 Each Nike evidently had an armature (diereis­
rna) round which its various parts were assembled and the 
seven armatures were presumably kept in the Chalkotheke in 
the fourth century in the pious hope that the statues themselves 
might some time be restored.3! Methods of weighing the parts 
of the Nikai suggest that IG P 467-often associated by scholars 
with IG I 52B-should in fact be placed between 468 (426/425) 
and 469/470 (ca 410-). I can now improve on my earlier case 

28 See IG P 469.26ff with A. M. Woodward, ArchEph 100 (1937) 162 (seven 
epistatai); 472.2ff. 

29 IG P 433.23-28; 462-t.5; 21.4; 37.20-23, 42. 
30 See K. J. Beloch, RhM 43 (1888) 118f, Gr. Gesch. IF 247f; H. T. Wade­

Gery, -The Financial Decrees of Kallias (IG j2.91-2)," ]HS 51 (1931) 65; 
Mattingly 225ff. 

31 For this view see D. B. Thompson, -The Golden Nikai Reconsidered," 
Hesperia 13 (1944) 187ff, 207; W. S. Ferguson, Treasurers of Athena (Cam­
bridge [Mass.] 1933) 122 n.2; E. S. G. Robinson, ·Some Problems in the Later 
Fifth Century Coinage of Athens," ANSMN 9 (1960) 12; W. E. Thompson, 
-The Golden Nikai and the Coinage of Athens," N C SER. 6 10 (1970) 1-5. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATIINGLY 121 

(Mattingly 332f). The main points to note are these: (1) In 468 
three objects (drapery, right and left leg: 17f and 22-25) are 
weighed on their own; in the other lists items are always 
weighed in groups. (2) The 'appendix' on the diereisma (468.28) 
comes between the first and second Nike: in 467 and 4691470 
each new Nike seems to come immediately after the total 
weight of its predecessor. There are no such postscripts in the 
other records.32 (3) In 468.19 probably and in 467.8 the two 
arms+hands are weighed together; in 469.23 (=470.7) and 30-32 
the arms are weighed separately and once the left hand is 
weighed apart from the arm (469.25=470.9). (4) In 468 skelos 
includes the foot. This is proved by the weights, to be plausibly 
restored as XHHHHL\L\L\+ (lines 22-26). Thompson (supra n.31: 
185) estimated a leg at 1200 drachmas and a foot at 250 drach­
mas. In 467.5f and 469.31, 34, feet are weighed separately: note 
the emphatic phrase in 470.6. 33 (5) In 468.26 n[ -8-] may rep­
resent n[pooonov . ], possibly weighed on its own. In 467.8f we 
have the sequence [n]pocr[o]nov, XEP£. h[o]Plloe;. huno[o£pte;]. 
In 469.24f this is echoed by npocronov. <SPIlOe;: h un[ooElpte;] and 
in IP 1388.17 (=469.30) by [K]£<paA:fJ. cr'tP£<Pavll. EVOto[t]a. 
<SPIlOe;. unoo£pte;.34 

Cumulatively this evidence is impressive. It is backed up by 
epigraphy. IG 13 467 was cut by the mason responsible for IG P 
77, 78 (Athens copy), 80, 82, 89, and 172, whose work belongs 
to the late 420s and the early 410s. 172 is probably his last sur­
viving work. The spelling h[auplOv] in line 5 is otherwise found 
only in 73.43 (424/423),122.10 (ca 413-405),113.32 (ca 410), and 
181 his (ca 410-403).35 Walbank did not recognise 467 as this 
mason's work, but my Plate I, showing 467 and 80 at actual size 

]2 See IG] 467.2f; 469.26-29. 33. In 470.5f there seems to be room for some 
kind of postscript: this is clearer in Woodward's text (supra n.28: 163), which 
IG3 basically follows. But close comparison of 470.6-10 with 469.22-26 (the 
same Nike) shows that 470 should be restored as stoichedon ca 64, not ca 75 
as 469. Moreover, the weight of the first Nike (470.5) should be read probably 
as TTHHH[-13-?] rather than TTHH [--]. The gap beween the two Nikai 
records virtually disappears with these adjustments. 

33 Thompson (supra n.31) 183ff. 
H Thompson (supra n.31: 193) showed conclusively that K£<paATt was fourth­

century usage for ltpOOC1l1tov. In 468.26 we are offered It[6o£ &OO? .. ], but this is 
impossible, since skelos here is leg+foot. 

35 See M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies (Toronto 1978) 51, 309f (no. 57). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

122 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

(letters at 10 mm.), surely reveals the same three-chisel hand 
following the same strict rules. 36 

IG P 52 B.2f, as we have seen, ordered the completion of at 
least three Nikai. If it must still be dated 434/433, then we have a 
disturbing picture of the fifth-century Nikai: 

434/433 Nikai ABC 
426/425 Nikai D E (468) 
ca 420 Nikai F G (467) 
ca 410 Nikai H I J K (469/470) 

The embarrassing total is eleven. Even if we assume that Hand 
I are identical with two earlier Nikai, we are still left with 
nine-not eightY We can only escape, I think, by abandoning 
the 434/433 Kallias dating for the alternative 422/421. Then the 
Nikai of 467 can be two of his ordering. We thus obtain this 
pattern: 

426/425 
422/421 
ca 410 

Nikai A B 
Nikai C D E F 
Nikai G H 

Nikai were twice dedicated in pairs (468, 469.26-39), so we may 
conjecture that Kallias arranged for the completion of two pairs. 
C and D will be the pair represented by 467 as it survives. E and 
F are listed in 470.1-10 and F reappears in 469.22-26. There are 
exactly eight Nikai on this scheme. 38 

I have reserved for two Appendices some more detailed 
evidence supporting my late dating of IG 13 52 A-B, but hope to 
have shown already that the balance of probability favours 
4221421 and that Wade-Gery was wrong to abandon his own 
advocacy of that date. 39 

CAMBRIDGE 

December, 1998 

36 For the rules see Mattingly 235, 303 n.87 (correction). 
37 Neither H nor I can be the first Nike in 467, which weighed exactly two 

talents. H weighed 2 T 200/300 drachmas and I under 2 T (470.5, 10). The 
groups in I are quite differently arranged than in the second Nike of 467. 

38 In the fourth century admittdly only one Nike was dedicated in 374/373 
(JG2 1421+1423, 1424). But it would form a pair with the sole survivor from 
the fifth century (JG2 1388). 

39 For this see ]HS 51 (1931) 57-85; 53 (1933) 135 (withdrawal). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATTINGLY 123 

Appendix I 
Spelling Criteria for IG P 52 A-B 

Wade-Gery long ago argued (supra n.30: 64, 78-82) that the change 
in feminine dative plurals from -acrl, -Ecrl to -cue; began in the 420s 
and was complete about 418: the Kallias decrees have -acrl in B.21 and 
-ale; in A.6, 18, and 29. In ZPE 83 (1990) 120 Table C (=Mattingly 
514f) I updated his evidence. The case seems stronger now. 

I would now add two other telling epigraphic criteria, which have 
been neglected in this debate. The first case involves non-assimilation 
and assimilation of final nu before initial lamba, on which L. Threatte 
(Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I [Berlin 1980] 633f) comments: 

tV assimilated to EI.. is well attested in the fifth and fourth centuries ... 
The article is occasionally assimilated before A. ••• But usually the 
article is not assimilated before A. in the fifth century ... The only 
other case of assimilation of v to A. is in 6>1.. I..EYO\JO'tV IP 28.6 (387/6), 
decree ... 6>1.. was certainly normal ... Only o.v before A. •••• 

My Table A resumes the evidence on the article. 

TABLE A 

Non-assimilated Assimilated 

434/3 317.1 'tOY A.6yov 
434/3 292.2 'to,:, [A.6yov - -] 
430/29 321.29 [- - -'t]OI.. A.6y[ov] 
426/5 300.1 'tOY A.6yov 
421/0 82.32 [- - -'tE]V I..UVltuo[EI)PO-

J.1luv - -J 
421-415 472.149£ 'tOY Il..laov 
409/8 474.190,249 'tEV A£.lUV Ep[yuoluv): 

'tOY I..lalVOV 
409/8 475.214 [- - 'to Jv I..la[ tv Jov 218,221£ 'tOI.. I..latvOv: 

'tOI.. I..lat[ vo Jv 
52A.9,28 'tOY AoytO'tov: 'tOI.. A.6yov 

The second case involves non-assimilation and assimilation of final 
v-apart from tV, av and the definite article-before y, K and x. 
Threatte notes (629f) that "'Assimilation is least common in these 
cases ... Fifth century instances are rare ... In this century [the 
fourth], especially during the first half, these assimilations are at their 
greatest frequency." Table B shows the main evidence. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

124 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

TABLE B 

Non-assimilation Assimilation 

ca 430/29 1454A.5ff Kap7taetOV x:a[i]: A.6 'to]y KapmxetOv 
[x:OlVO]V ypU\jIat 

1454B.48 O'tTtAl]V x:a'ta[ - -] A.18 [- -OOOt oE] vuy 
XneeATtqKlo[ t] 

422/1 91.8f [- -EV 'tOt 7tpool6e]v 92.10f 7tpO<;evoy x:ai: 
xp6~[Ot --] au'toy xai 

420-415 172.4 [- -u ]u'toy x:a[- -] 
411 312.52: l.epoy XP£I.l(l'tOV 

313.72 
410/9 375.23f ['A]A.o7t£X(1)ev x:al 2 [t]EpOy XPE/lU'tOV 
408? 118.7,44 [ --x:]a'tuAoyoV x:a't[ --] 21 7tAl1'Y yE r; 

: 7tpo[xoi]vtClv x:a 
407/6 123.4 [- -aq>h o]x:av Ka[PXE- 10 [- -'Avvt~a]y 

OOVtOt- -] rtox:ov [ or; - -] 
405/4 127.8, 15 'tOtr; vuv x:al.: 'troY 19 [E]aV Of 'tt avay-

aAAoov x:otvilt x:a toy yt YVl] 'tat 
403/2 IP 2b.7 [- -a]u['t]oy X[puorot 

O'tEq>UVOOt] 
52A 19 examples 
52B.15,26 IlEOEv XPEO[e]a[ t: 'tolv 28 h67tooa /lEy 

xpe~'tov Xpu[ 00:- - -] 

Apart from one isolated outlier each table shows a concentration of 
assimilation ca 410: in B there is an earlier nucleus of examples ca 420. 
This all squares with dating Kallias 422/421. However, as the Eteo­
karpathian decree (IG P 1454) has been dated ca 440 and that might 
seem to favour 434/433 for Kallias, I devote a second appendix to 
defense of my dating. 

Appendix II 
The Eteokarpathians and Athens 

Jameson's claim that IG Il 1454 should be moved from the early 
fourth century to the later fifth has been fully corroborated by 
rediscovery of the squeezes (see IG P 2, pp.899, 902). In 434/433 the 
Eteokarpathians opted to join the Athenian Empire on favourable 
terms and were enrolled under the rubric 1tOAf<; C1.\l"CUl <popov 'tC1.x­

Oa~fVC1.t. In 1454.5-13 the koinon is thanked for a generous gift to 
Athens, recognised as a benefactor and assured of its autonomy. By 
spring 427, however, the situation has changed. They have lost their 
special status and are enrolled in the Ionic panel, like any subject ally 
(IG P 283 coLm.i). Now, in 'List 25' and 'List 26' they are missing 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HAROLD MATTINGLY 125 

from the rubric corresponding to the pre-war rcOAES <xtmx.t (281 
coI.III.54-58, 282 col.lI.34-42). In IG 13 these lists are still dated 
430/429 and 429/428. But I hope to have shown (Mattingly 525) 
conclusively that the lists must be dated 426/425 and 427/426. I have 
one more point to add to this case. In 282 co1.IV. 9f Brykos 
Karpathou pays both for the current and the previous year. In 283 
col.II.26-32 and co1.m .1-35 Brykos is missing from the Ionic panel, 
which admittedly has some gaps. But all Brykos' neighbours survive 
on it-the Eteokarpathians, Arkesseia, Karpathos, Saros, and Kasos. 
On balance it would be an economy of hypotheses to assume that 
Brykos defaulted in 428/427 and paid up the following year. 

Between 434/433 and 429/428 then we can be fairly sure that the 
Eteokarpathians remained autonomous and that the decree may fall 
in this period. The secretary Teisias should be the general Teisias 
Teisimachou Kephalethen of 417/416, on whom Davies (supra n.25: 
50lf) must surely be mistaken: he can hardly be the man who 
features in Lys. 12 as a friend of Alkibiades and Councillor under the 
Thirty. How long a gap should be postulated between Teisias' post as 
secretary and his generalship? I tabulate the fifth-century evidence and 
mark with'S' those men known to have been secretary and not just 
members of Counci1. In brackets after each name I note the number 
of the relevant LGPN entries. 

TABLE C: Careers of Generals ca 444-405 

Council 

HIPPONIKOS KALLIOU ALOPEKETHEN (13) S 
ARCHESTRATOS L YKOMEDOU (5f) S 
METAGENES KOILEUS (4, 8) S 
KALLIAS KALLIADOU (27f) 
KALLISTRA TOS EMPEDO OETHEN (5,94) S 
L YSIKLES (5, -) 
CHAROIADES EUPHILETOU (If) S 

KLEON KLEAINETOU KYDATHENAIEUS (43) 
ALKIBIADES KLEINIOU SKAMBONIDES (23) 
PASIPHON PHREARRHIOS (3) S 

444/3 
442/1 
434/3 
43312 
429/8 
429/8? 
430129: 

428/7? 
428/7 
422/1 
41312 

General 

426/5 
43312 
43312 
432/1 
418/7 
42817 
427/6 

424/3 
419/8 
410/9 

The gap is certainly variable. The longest known is of eighteen years 
(Hipponikos). Now Hipponikos was born ca 480-his son Kallias 
was in his thirties in 4211420-and, in view of his wealth and power, 
he was surely not made to wait till his mid-fifties for the generalship. 
We should assume a first generalship in the 430s. Only 439/438 and 
433/432 are ruled out, when other men from Antiochis held the post 
(IG P 48.46, 364.20f). If we discount Hipponikos, the gaps range 
from one to eleven years. Set at thirteen years Teisias' gap must be 
very near the limit. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

126 A FRESH LOOK AT THE KALLIAS DECREES 

The Eteokarpathians' gift was a cypress tree for the temple of 
Athena, queen of Athens (1454.5-12). Was this for the doors of the 
Parthenon? In IG P 461 we seem to have fragmentary accounts for 
this work, specifying cypress in line 35 and elm in 33 (woods much 
used for Greek temple doors: Theophr. Hist. Pl. 5.4.2 with 3.14.1, 
5.3.5). Were the doors completed by 438, when the image of Athena 
was installed? Certainly they were in place in the three main chambers 
of the Parthenon by 434/433, when the treasures stored in them 
began to be published in annual inventories. But what of the western 
hall? W. Kolbe plausibly identified this as the Opisthodomos 
(Phil. Woch. 51 [1931J 72-84) and, though others have thought of the 
western part of the old Polias temple or a building between the 
Parthenon and the later Chalkotheke, I find Kolbe's view still most 
attractive: certainly the name did come to be applied to the western 
part of the Parthenon in later days. The Opisthodomos definitely 
had doors (IG P 52A.16ff), not just metal grilles. I submit that in 
431, when the Athenians decided to create an iron reserve of 1,000 
talents and keep it apart from the other funds (Thuc. 2.24.1), they 
proceeded to get the west chamber of the Parthenon ready for this 
purpose. By 430, when the Eteokarpathians' gift arrived, the Opistho­
domos could duly receive its doors. Subsequently Athens decided to 
bring the rest of Athena's funds into the Opisthodomos and by 
early 425/424 money was first withdrawn from this location for the 
war. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MATIINGLY PLATE 1 

(a) IG J3 467 (detail) 

(b) IG J3 80 (detail)