In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

12 THE COINAGE DECREE: PART I THE DISCUSSION in the preceding chapters, working from the numismatic data and from the literary evidence for Athenian monetary legislation, has subjected the earlier interpretations of the Coinage Decree to thorough criticism for their implications about the financial and economic history of the Athenian arkhi. So far we have found intractable difficulties in contextualizing such legislation as economic self-aggrandizement, and, in addition, have questioned the symbolic significance of creating a monopoly for Attic silver coinage, measures, and weights. A consideration of the costs and benefits to Athens of any putative demonstration of hegemony in monetary and metrological matters has also made such "imperialism" appear counterintuitive. Finally, we have come to doubt whether any advantage accrued to the Athenians in monetary or metrological consolidation by prohibiting allied cities from minting coins per se, as compared to other actions, mainly undertaken by the allies themselves, that might serve the same ends and are well attested in the archaeological record. Not only do initiatives like changes in standard and standard coin help to disprove that there was ever a total ban on allied minting but the variety of modes of adjustment to the local circulation of foreign money call into question the necessity for the Coinage Decree as usually reconstructed. This exploration has instead pointed toward the subject of administrative efficiency in the sphere of tribute collection as one likely context for the more immediate motivation(s) behind any Athenian legislative act about money. Once again, however, the hypothetical imperatives emerging from tribute collection do not superficially offer a good "fit" with the traditional interpretation of the Coinage Decree, for a prohibition on allied minting seems disproportionate to the goals sought. The actual treatment of non-Athenian coins in the receipt of the tribute suggests an "evil" that was tolerated, an experience hardly in keeping with the usual portrait of the punitive aspects of the decree. Expediting tribute collection, moreover, is only the most governmentally conspicuous payoff from unifying weights, measures, and coins, out of a series of the reciprocal economic benefits, which renders problematic the almost universal appreciation that the decree was unwelcome Attic hegemonism. 320 CHAPTER 12: THE COINAGE DECREE: PARTI Accordingly, we consider now whether the epigraphical evidence can be interpreted in such a way that it contributes to an emerging revisionist reconstruction of monetary legislation during the fifth-century Attic hegemony or whether the data from epigraphy must remain enigmatically counterindicative. THE FRAGMENTS OF THE COINAGE DECREE We begin with a description of the inscriptions that have traditionally been assigned to the Attic Coinage Decree, 1 as it is usually called. We shall continue to use the same designation, despite the eminently sensible calls for a title more descriptive of its references to weights and measures. For the moment, we shall hold in abeyance the question of whether these documents represent portions of the same, single legal text rather than texts drawn from an (albeit) coherent body of law but constituting separate cnactments.i The fragmentary copies of the Coinage Decree and their major treatments in earlier scholarship may be summarized as follower' 1. A short, nonstoichedon fragment in Ionic lettering derives from the island ofSyme (IG13 1453A).4 The stone appeared to the first editor, Chabiaras, to be local limestone. The stone has since been lost. 1 IC 13 1453 may be consulted for the standard apparatus. 2 Minor disagreements of other editions with the texts of IC 13 1453, such as those concerning the dotting of letters that are preserved in other fragments, shall not be treated here, except where they touch on explication of content. 3 For an overview, see IG 13 1453, 2.893-99; ATL 2.61-£8, D 14 (except for the fragment from Odessa). Composite texts: E. Ziebarth, Beitriige {,urGesdiichte desSeeraubs und Seehandels in allenGriechenland (Hamburg 1929) "Anhang II," #74, p. 135 (Smyrna, Siphnos, larger Syme fragments); Tod CHI #67, pp. 1.163-64 (Smyrna, Siphnos, both Syme fragments); ATL 1.579 (T69), 2.67-68 (without Odessa); G.F. Hill (revised by R. Meiggs and A. Andrewes), Sources jOr GreekHistorybetween thePersianand Peloponnesian Uizrs 2 (Oxford 1951) B39, pp. 295-96 (without Odessa); H.W. Pleket, Epigraphica I (Leiden 1964) #3, pp. 9-11; Meiggs-Lewis/ #45, pp. 111-17; Erxleben AJP (1969) 136-139, cf. 131-36 for another apparatus criticus for each fragment; Koch, Volksbeschliisse 374-78. Englishtranslations: N. Lewis, The FifthCentury B.C.: Greek Historical Documents (Toronto 1971) 11-12; M.M...

Share