a1 University of Nottingham
The remarkably well-preserved treaty with Chalcis has long formed a fixed point in Attic epigraphy, since it is confidently associated with Pericles' suppression of the Euboean revolt in 446 B.C. But is this dating and interpretation really certain? From the decree itself we learn that it was modelled on similar arrangements for Eretria, of which fragments in Ionic script survive. Now Hesychios records a decree, passed ἐπὶ Διφίλον, which regulated the seizure of hostages from the wealthiest Eretrian families. The simplest hypothesis is that both this decree and a parallel one for Chalcis preceded D 16 and 17. But this lands us in serious difficulties. If ἐπὶ Διφίλον gives the archon-date we must put the extant decrees in 442/441, which is inconveniently late for the orthodox view. The alternative is to separate Hesychios' decree from D 16 and 17, as Gomme suggested. There would then have been new trouble in Eretria three years after the settlement, which necessitated fresh recourse to hostages. Now if we once allow that Athens could take such drastic action in peacetime, what guarantee have we that the Chalcis Decree represents the settlement after armed revolt? It also might be an example of arbitrary Athenian intervention in the face of suspected disloyalty. In trying to save orthodoxy we have exposed the weakness of its basis. Another line of defence proves even more damaging. It is fair to suggest that ἐπὶ Διφίλον does not after all give the archon-date. Very few decrees before 421 are dated by the archon either in their prescript or internally. The normal dating is by the secretary of Council for a particular prytany.