APPENDIX 11

THE POLITICAL CHANGES IN IONIA AFTER THE REVOLT

§§42 and 43.3 throw important light on the Persian attitude to their subject peoples in the west, and certainly on Artaphrenes as a shrewd administrator. The revolt had taken six years and considerable mil- itary effort to suppress. Three political changes are now made, two by the satrap, the third by Mardonius. Another account of it sur- vives, DS 10.25.4, where the third is also ascribed to Artaphrenes: ÑEkata›ow ı MilÆsiow presbeutØw épestalm°now ÍpÚ t«n ÉI≈nvn, ±r≈thse diÉ ∂n afit¤an épiste› aÈto›w ı ÉArtaf°rnhw. toË d¢ efipÒntow, mÆpote Íp¢r œn katapolemhy°ntew kak«w ¶payon mnhsikakÆsvsin, OÈkoËn, ¶fhsen, efi tÚ pepony°nai kak«w tØn épist¤an peripoie›, tÚ paye›n êra eÔ poiÆsei tåw pÒleiw P°rsaiw eÈnooÊsaw. épodejãmenow d¢ tÚ =hy¢n ı ÉArtaf°rnhw ép°dvke toÁw nÒmouw ta›w pÒlesi ka‹ taktoÁw fÒrouw katå dÊnamin §p°tajen.1 Artaphrenes had to reimpose his authority, but also had the practical interest of ensuring stability, particularly economic stability, which in turn meant that tribute could flow in: cf Starr (1975) 82, Briant (1996) 511, and other references cited on êndrew, §19.3. We may accept §42.1, that he summoned representatives from each polis, in view of the arbitration requirement; but we can accept Diodorus to the extent that Hecataeus was the, or one of the, representative(s) from Miletus: he had influence there, and could be presented to the Persians as someone who had not fully supported the revolt (5.36, 125; pp. 53, 54, 56 with n. 191, 62). Herodotus’ égg°louw means ambassadors or representatives (Powell sv); if making Hecataeus a

1 “Hecataeus of Miletus was sent as ambassador by the Ionians, and asked why Artaphrenes mistrusted them. He replied, lest they should remember what they suffered after their defeat. Well, said Hecataeus, if suffering ill treatment creates mistrust, being well treated will make the poleis well disposed to the Persians. Artaphrenes took the point; he gave the cities their laws back, and assessed fixed tribute according to their ability to pay”. For most of book 10, Diodorus probably used Ephoros; Ephoros may have got the anecdote from a äVroi of Miletus or else- where in Ionia; outside Ionia the events would not be well known: even so, at least here, Mardonius has dropped out. 534 appendix 11 sole presbeutÆw, ambassador, is more honorific, it reflects the trans- mission of the anecdote, not its substance.2 But Artaphrenes was also a realist, and behind the story (however much improved in the telling) we may detect a willingness at least to listen to the grievances of the Greeks; if he could meet them consistently with his own policy, it was conducive to stability. Herodotus seems alive to this. To his audience, it might be paradoxical that the Persians were behaving well towards the defeated Ionians; but what Artaphrenes did was xrÆsima kãrta, and efirhna›a.3 But he also exercised his authority: he compelled (±nãgkase) the Greeks to arbitrate, and determined (¶taje) their taxes.

1 The arbitration requirement of §42.1

Artaphrenes perceived f°rein ka‹ êgein, plundering,4 as a problem. That conditions were unsettled in the aftermath of the revolt can be seen from several passages: the belief in Zancle that Ionia was a source of manpower (note to §§22–24); the guard on Chios (cf on frourª, §26.1); Histiaeus’ ability to recruit young men (see on ÉI≈nvn, §28.1), and generally operate as he did at Thasos and Atarneus, §28; and the Thasians strengthening their walls, and building ships, §46.2. Formally, plundering could occur in four situations: l˙ste¤a, piracy or freebooting; fighting between poleis; cross-border trespassing; and sÊlh, the legally recognised right of seizure of goods by way of reprisal.5 No system of arbitration could stop piracy; though news

2 Although it is presented as an ex post facto piece of biography, an aphorism attaching to a wise man, the basic accuracy of the anecdote is accepted by Tozzi (1963) 320–1. Of course the Ionians were in no position to make demands. 3 For another possible occasion when Artaphrenes could learn about the Greeks’ views, see Appx 1 para 13. The practical approach of the Persians towards defeated peoples (as opposed to their rebellious leaders) is noted on êndrew, §19.3, and kakÚn oÈd°n, §20. 4 For its meaning, carrying off moveable property and driving off animals, see on sunyÆkaw, §42.1. 5 The noun sÊlh is rare in the singular (cf LSJ sv); sulãv came to connote exercising this right, though in Herodotus it always means robbing or desecrating temples (§§19.3, 101.3, 118.1). It originally meant that a man of polis A who had suffered loss in a raid from polis B could raid the territory of polis B for recom- pense; as trade developed it was adapted to a wider concept of self-help: if a man of polis A was owed (or claimed to be owed) money by a man of polis B, he could seize goods of any citizen of B either as recompense or as security for his debt: see