Curiosity got the best of me when I applied to review this book, despite having an initial response of Quoi de neuf? The Athenian Empire is an extensively studied subject, which appeared not to suffer from any lack of attention. I have to admit I was sorely mistaken in my judgement. Leah Lazar’s Athenian Power in the Fifth Century BC is a wonderful monograph that sheds a new light on a well-trodden path of study, in this case the Athenian empire. By exploring various different geographical regions and revisiting known inscriptions and placing them in their proper local context, Lazar provides a new look at the fifth-century Athenian empire, its diverse strategies and its interaction with its subjects. The result is a resounding success in clarifying how the Athenians and their subjects, though not on equal terms, nevertheless each possessed agency to influence the relationship. The local context thereby provided the needed leeway, depending on what the Athenians desired from which subject or ally.
The introduction offers a brief insight into the source material and the previous scholarship on the Athenian empire. This includes a discussion of the three-bar sigma and the subsequent re-dating of certain decrees, and what this implies for her research. Outside the scope of ancient history, she shows her prowess in navigating treacherous terms like ‘empire’ or ‘imperial’. She demonstrates that in the case of fifth-century Athens, these terms are warranted, unlike previous hesitation to apply such words on this particular polity. The use of comparative work on empires and empire-building is particularly illuminating in this instance. By using Michael Doyle’s programmatic and flexible definition of empire—despite its emphasis on one centre contra the periphery—Lazar is able to mark the Athenians as imperial, their political entity showcasing all the characteristics of empire that are normally clouded by terms such as ‘the Delian League’. She makes clear, however, that viewing this polity as an empire did not negate the possibility for negotiations between the subservient communities and Athens, just as subjected polities within empires were not simply receiving orders top-down. Regionality, flexibility, and negotiation are the pillars upon which she (rightly) builds her argument.
That emphasis on negotiation and agency emerges more fully in the following chapters, which are divided into two parts. In the second chapter, Lazar elaborates on the concept of negotiation and how the results of the process can be perceived in the known epigraphic material. Normally, these were assumed to be the end product of the strong-handed Athenian control raining down orders upon the subjected community, as in the case of Chalkis in the 440s. Her case for flexibility comes from comparison with the epigraphic record from interactions between the Successor Kings and Greek poleis, and from a re-reading of the material available for the fifth-century Aegean dominated by Athens. Lazar neatly divides the key elements of negotiation into two parts: temporal and regional. She thereby distinguishes between the ways various factors influence the wiggle room for negotiations. There is an acknowledgement that in certain cases, like after the suppression of the revolt in Euboia, the space for negotiation was arguably more limited than in the cases of larger subjects that had not revolted. Similarly, in certain geographic scenarios—such as the communities controlling trade through the Bosporus—the Athenians were less willing to enforce their demands to risk upsetting the status quo. The subjects, such as the people of Byzantion, certainly were aware of their status and the possibilities it offered. One mechanism for ensuring the adherence to the stipulations made in these interpolis agreements included the exchanges of oaths.[1] Another such mechanism was less rigorous in its application, and more flexible, namely, the privileges and honours granted to proxenoi and others representing their communities in exchanges with Athens. These exchanges often relied on pre-existent elite networks, in which these elites acted as the representatives of their communities for the negotiations. Whether they represented democracies—however much appreciated and beneficial it could be while interacting with the Athenians—was of lesser importance.
The third chapter, in congruence with the second, revisits the tribute system and demonstrates the possibilities for negotiation within that system. Lazar analyses the way tribute was collected, adapted, and replaced throughout the existence of the empire. The adaptation of this disliked element of the empire—eventually being scrapped and replaced by the 5 percent harbour tax empire-wide—displays precisely those fine features of the interactions between ruler and subject that Lazar argues for. In certain cases, communities volunteered for a different form of contribution—the Athenian lists contain multitudes of assessment, such as ataktoi, autai, and idiotai—meaning that again we were not dealing with a one-size fits all approach. Instead, tribute granted the chance for negotiations, and sometimes offering a voluntary assessment led to possible favourable terms, especially if the community entertained friendly relations with the Athenians. On the basis of fragmentary speeches, notably by Antiphon, and of the language contained in decrees, it becomes clear that even rebellious allies like the Chalkidians had room to manoeuvre and to ‘persuade’ their rulers to accept a certain level of tribute. That orators and comedy writers alike could refer to notions of corruption regarding the collection of tribute shows a measure of personal agency for elite networks to exploit their personal ties for gains.
The fourth chapter, and the last of the first half of the monograph, deals with the Athenian festival culture and the integration of its allies. Celebrations such as the City Dionysia or the Panathenaia were prime venues for ambassadors and athletes to attend and discuss their situation with representatives of the Athenians. Moreover, Lazar tries to answer whether these festivals were also conducive to integrating the allies into a ritualised network, making them ‘buy in’ to the Athenian empire, as it were. The possible spread of related festivals such as the Athena Polias cult in Priene or the Dionysia on Rhodes could indicate a positive or negative reception of this intent. The persistence of such a perceived connection at Priene through a fourth and second century B.C.E. decree recalling the friendship of the two peoples, an apoikia relationship and the sending of goods to the Panathenaia, seems to support such a notion. The connection with the Dionysia in Rhodes is more tentative, as Lazar admits, and also of a different character. In this case, the Rhodians wished to compete with the Athenians but employed their model of the Dionysia, implying that there was (negative) reception of the Athenian festival. Emulating—and hopefully surpassing—the Dionysia was then a tool for the Rhodians to demonstrate their independence vis-à-vis the Athenians.
The fifth chapter inaugurates the second part of the monograph, the regional studies. It starts with an investigation of the Northern Aegean, around the Thermaic Gulf and Thasos. The initial paragraphs are dedicated to providing a geographical and chronological setting, placing the analysis in the part of the Thermaic Gulf from Thasos to the Thracian coast, and in the fifth century B.C.E. The examples chosen for exploring the interactions with Athens are Methone, Aphytis, multi-polis entities like the Bottaians, the Macedonian and Thracian kings, and, finally, Thasos as a competitor for power in the region. Its peripheral location vis-à-vis Athens and the base of its power, as well as the presence of strong local polis in the form of Thasos, meant the Athenians had to diversify their approach to maintain success in this region. The groupings of multi-polis entities provided a sterner opposition due to their size, whereas in dealing with the Macedonian and Thracian kings, it was imperative to maintain and cultivate personal ties with these rulers. In the case of Thasos and its success, emulation proved to be the decisive factor. The Athenians founded colonies of their own in this area to strengthen their grasp. In the case of Neapolis, the warm relationship they entertained meant the Athenians could countenance the Thasian apoikic tie. The Neapolitans decided to erase their previous tie with the Thasians from a decree and instead to stress their loyalty to the Athenians. The decline of Thasian power in the region demonstrates the efficacy of the Athenian strategy.
The next chapter deals with Rhodes and the eastern Mediterranean. Notwithstanding the limited amount of evidence for the fifth century compared to the Hellenistic period, the ties that Rhodes maintained with Egypt and the wider Eastern Mediterranean can be retraced further back into the Archaic period. At an early stage, the island was therefore a key hub in the trade networks flowing from this area into the Aegean and Athens. The Rhodian communities already possessed a fair share of influence in the immediate area, such as the Karian mainland, even if it did not take the form of the later Hellenistic possessions. The mosaic of power networks that could be found under the umbrella of the later Rhodian polis therefore were assessed separately for the payment of tribute, in an attempt to skim off profits from the networks these poleis possessed. So rather than integrate themselves into the wider trade network, the Athenians simply preferred to rely on the status quo and cream off wealth from it. Particularly striking is Lazar’s refreshing analysis of the decree for the Eteokarpathians, in which special effort is made to include regional powers such as Kos and Rhodes, to get them involved and to help this new community thrive. Despite it being a top-down injunction, the Athenians were aware that without local support, even their best thought-out imperial designs were unlikely to succeed.
Wrapping up the regional investigations is a dive into Athens, Daskyleion, and Kyzikos—and their connections to the Bosporus trade route and the riches of the Black Sea. In this political arena, Athenian power overlapped with Persian satrapal influences in an effort to control the resources and trade flowing in and out of this narrow strait. Similar to the picture portrayed for the other regions, Lazar again shows how the Athenians maintained a rather aloof approach to the communities that were well connected to the Black Sea. Instead of directly interfering and dictating policy, the Athenians were content to rely on pre-existent trade networks and to apply a delicate touch by skimming off profits from the constant flow of goods and grain coming through the Bosporus. Again she demonstrates how the Athenians had a keen understanding of the local power dynamics and how this resulted in an approach that favoured negotiation and collaboration and following local precedent.
A short conclusion brings together the insights from all these chapters. What Lazar rightfully stresses is a flexible hegemon bent on maximising its profits throughout the Aegean. Yet she does not emphasise the more benign face of the empire too much and never overlooks that these friendlier approaches were only a viable option due to the force of violence that stuck behind it. Indeed, in some of these contexts like the Northern Aegean, the Athenians were never afraid of leaving the carrot behind and bringing the stick down on unwilling communities with full force. Where local partners were compliant, however, there was always room for flexibility, as captured in the rich epigraphic record of the empire. Lazar brings together other strands of evidence too, like fragmentary literary sources and numismatics, to create a vivid and refreshing image of the Athenian Empire, one that deserves to be read and commented upon.
Notes
[1] One reference that was missing in this part, in my opinion, is Sebastian Scharff’s monograph on the oath in interstate politics: Eid und Außenpolitik. Studien zur religiösen Fundierung der Akzeptanz zwischenstaatlicher Vereinbarungen im vorrömischen Griechenland. Stuttgart 2016.