The study of Athenian history in the fifth century, and particularly in the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, derives much of its flesh and blood from inscriptions, but most inscriptions lose their full value if they cannot be dated. From the Peace of Nicias in 421 onwards it was customary to include the name of the archon in the prescript of decrees, but before the Peloponnesian War the practice was rare and random. The alliances with Egesta, Leontini and Rhegium (IG i2 19, 51, 52) were dated in this way, but not the treaty with Hermione (SEG × 15). The settlement imposed on Chalcis by Athens after the crushing of her revolt is not dated (IG i2 39), whereas earlier regulations for Miletus (IG i2 22) include the name of the archon of the year. Sometimes a single archon's name will date a whole series of records: the first tribute list, for example, is explicitly dated by archon, but the name is lost and the lists that follow are numbered only in relation to the first; the archon, however, is recorded in the thirty-fourth list, and the name is preserved, Aristion archon for 421/0, and from this we can safely infer that the first list records the payments of 454/3. Similarly the early accounts of the Parthenon, while recording the first secretary of the Boule, do not mention the archon and merely add the number in the series; but from 437/6 at least the archon's name was added, and the survival of the name of Crates, archon for 434/3, at the head of the thirteenth list enables us to date the remaining records in the series.

By 446/5 the Delian League had become the Athenian empire. Peace had been made with Persia, but Athens had firmly retained her hold over the allies. More important, Sparta recognised the Athenian claim in the Thirty Years' Peace. ‘We will allow the cities their independence,’ Pericles could say on the eve of the Peloponnesian War, ‘if they were independent when we made peace.’ So much is clear, but the chronology and nature of the development of Athenian imperialism are both uncertain. We are coming to know or reasonably to guess considerably more of the decisive transition to empire following the Peace of Callias, but the imperial measures of those crowded years can only be appreciated in true perspective if we have a right understanding of the preceding period. The main purpose of this study is to re-examine the development of Athenian imperialism in the fifties.In his concise summary of Athens' rise to power, Thucydides emphasises the significance of the reduction of Naxos: to contemporaries Athenian action may have seemed less questionable. The Persian danger was still serious, and history had shown that the largest of the Cyclades might be a menace to the Greek cause, if it got into the wrong hands. Certainly the League was still popular after the collapse of Naxos, as Cimon's Eurymedon campaign clearly shows. From Caria to Pamphylia the Greek cities welcomed freedom from Persia and gladly entered the League: only at Phaselis was the show of pressure needed.

No abstract

Note on Transcriptions xiv Abbreviations xvi i 1 'Nestor's Cup': 750-700 в.с. i 2 Law on the Constitution: Dreros, 650-600 B.C. 3 Glaukos Friend of Arcliilochos: 625-600 в.с. 4 Cenotaph of a Corcyraean Proxcnos: (?) 625-600 в.с. 4 5 The Foundation of Cyrene: late seventh century в.с. 5 6 The Athenian Archon-List. 7 (4) Greek Mercenaries in Egyptian Service: 591 в.с. 8 (1) Law from Chios: 575-550 в.с. 9 Aristis, Son of Pheidon at Nemea: с. 560 в.с.

No abstract