AIO 819 Law on approvers (<i>dokimastai</i>) of silver coinage, 375/4 BC

Law on approvers (dokimastai) of silver coinage, 375/4 BC

AIO 819 Date: 375/4 BC

The lawmakers (nomothetais) decided.^[1] In the archonship of Hippodamas (375/4). Nikophon proposed:^[2] to accept Attic silver coin (argurion) when [it is determined] to be silver (argurog) and bears the public stamp (dēmosiog charactēra).^[3] Let the (5) public approver (dokimastēs) sit among the tables and approve (dokimazetō) on these terms every day except when there is a deposit of money (chrēmatōg katabolē), but then in the Council chamber (boleutēriōi).^[4] If anybody presents [foreign silver coin (xenikon argurion)] having the same type as the Attic (10) let him test cut it (?) and return it to the man who presented it.^[5] But if it has a bronze or a lead core or is debased (kibdēlon), let him cut it through immediately and let it be sacred property of the Mother of the Gods and be deposited with the Council. If the approver (dokimastēs) does not sit, or if he does not approve (dokimazēi) in accordance with the law,^[6] let the conveners (sullogēs) (15) of the People flog him with fifty lashes of the whip. If anybody does not accept the silver which the approver (dokimastēs) approves (dokimastēi), let him be deprived of what he is selling on that day. Denunciations shall be made (phainein) for matters in the grain market (sitōi) to the grain guardians (sitophulakas),^[7] and for matters in the Agora and the rest of the (20) city to the conveners (sullogeas) of the People, and for matters in the import and export market (emporiōi) and the Piraeus to the managers (epimelētas) of the import and export market (emporio), except for matters in the grain market (sitōi), and for matters in the grain market (sitōi) to the grain guardians (sitophulakas). For matters denounced (phanthentōn), let the officials (archontes)^[8] have authority (kurioi ontōn) to determine (25) those under ten drachmas, but let them bring (esagontōn) those over ten drachmas before a jury-court (dikastērion). Let the court presidents (thesmothetai) provide for them, allotting a jury-court (dikastērion) when they request it, or let them be punished (euthunesthōn) with a fine of [1,000?] drachmas. Let there be a share of a half for the denouncer (phēnanti) if he convicts the man whom he denounces (phēnēi). (30) If the seller is a slave or a slave woman, let them be flogged with 50 lashes of the whip by the officials (archontōn) to whom each matter has been assigned. If any of the officials (archontōn) does not act in accordance with what has been written, let him be reported (eisaggelletō) to the Council by whoever wishes of the Athenians for whom [it is permitted (exestin)], (35) and if he is convicted let him be deprived of his office, and let the Council impose an additional penalty (prostimatō) of up to 500 drachmas. So that there shall also be in Piraeus an approver (dokimastēs) for the shippers (nauklērois) and the merchants (emporois) and all the others, let the Council appoint one of the public slaves (dēmosiōn), if one is available anywhere, (40) or buy one, and let the receivers (apodektai) allocate (merizontōn) the price. Let the managers (epimelētai) of the import and export market (emporio) take care that he sits by the stele of Poseidon,^[9] and let them use the law in the same way as has been stated for the approver (dokimasto) in the city. Inscribe this law (45) on a stone stele, and set it down in the city among the tables and in Piraeus in front of the stele of Poseidon. Let the secretary of the Council request a contract from the official sellers (pōlētais) and let the official sellers (pōlētai) introduce it into the Council.^[10] The (50) approver (dokimastēi) in the import and export market (emporiōi) shall be eligible for a fee (misthophorian) in the archonship of Hippodamas (375/4) from when he is appointed, and let the receivers (apodektai) apportion (merizontōn) as much as for the approver (dokimastēi) in the city; and in the future he shall be eligible for a fee (misthophorian) from the same source as the mint workers (argurokopois).^[11] (55) If any decree has been written anywhere on a stele contrary to this law, let the secretary of the Council demolish it (katheletō).^[12]

Previous - Matthaiou, Ἔξι Ἀττικὲς ἐπιγραφὲς 15-34 Next - Matthaiou, Ἔξι Ἀττικὲς ἐπιγραφὲς 97-116
Greek text

References:

AIO 819 (Translated text) (AIO)

SEG 26.72 (PHI)

SEG 67.58

RO 25

Matthaiou, Grammateion 2017 b, 43-54 (ll. 3-4, 9, 39, 52) (Grammateion)

Matthaiou, Ἔξι Ἀττικὲς ἐπιγραφὲς 77-95

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, P. J. Rhodes

Images: Agora Excavations - (1)
Aleshire - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Law

Original location: Piraeus (stele of Poseidon) , Agora (among the tables)

Findspot: Agora (Great Drain) (Ag. I 7180)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] While there are ca. 550-600 inscriptions of the 4th-century Athenian democracy (403/2-322/1) inscribed with decrees of the Athenian Council and/or Assembly, there are only about a dozen inscribed laws. This is the earliest surviving, preceding by one year RO 26. A new law was needed when a measure changed Athenian law as revised between 410/9 and 400/399. See IG I³ 104 with n. 1; and on the reasons for the relatively low number of inscribed 4th-century laws, Lambert, in Hyperboreus 22 (2016), 231-32. M. Canevaro, "Making and changing laws in ancient Athens", in E. M. Harris and M. Canevaro eds., Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law (this chapter published online, 2015), sect. 7 (cf. JHS 136, 2016, 39-58) reconstructs the process of making new laws, mainly on the basis of Dem. 20, Dem. 24, Aischines 3. 38–40: following a preliminary vote in the Assembly permitting consideration of new laws, specific proposals were published in front of the monument of the eponymous heroes and read out in three consecutive Assemblies, in the third of which lawmakers (nomothetai) might be appointed; opposing laws had then first to be repealed (by a court?), with advocates appointed by the Assembly to defend them; and improper new laws were subject to being overturned by a writ against an inexpedient law (graphē nomōn mē epitēdeiōn theinai). Two passages of the orators may cast an oblique light on the obscure question, who were the nomothetai: (a) Dem. 20.93, where there is mention of “those who have sworn the oath”, which might be a reference to the nomothetai enacting new laws, or to a body of jurors responsible for repeal of old laws inconsistent with the proposed new law (cf. Canevaro 2016). Only if it refers to the nomothetai will there be an implication that the nomothetai functioned like a jury (and were therefore over 30 years old); (b) Aischin. 3.39, where “the prytaneis shall hold an Assembly labelling it (epigraphein) nomothetai”, which may imply that the Assembly should sit under a different name as “nomothetai” or that the appointment of nomothetai should be an item on the Assembly’s agenda. [Canevaro and A. Esu now make a strong case for the former interpretation in C. Bearzot et al. eds., Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia, 2018, 105-45, especially 130-36, sect. 5. See also Canevaro, Klio 100, 2018, 70-124, for arguments against the authenticity of the document found in the manuscripts at Dem. 24.20-23, which influenced older interpretations of nomothesia. SDL]. [2] Nikophon is unidentifiable. The law he proposed determined what coins are to be “legal tender” and specified arrangements for approving them, providing for a new approver for the Piraeus (ll. 36-44). The law implies that there was already an approver for the city (ll. 4-5, 52-53). While there is no direct evidence as to the previous law(s) on this topic, it seems that the appointment of the Piraeus approver was the main, perhaps the only, innovation and that all or most of the rest of the law re-enacts existing law (for a similar combination of innovation and re-enactment see IG II³ 1, 320). During the later stages of its 5th-century Empire Athens had sought to impose the use of Athenian coinage throughout the Empire (OR 155). Here, in the early years of the Second Athenian League, the focus is not on the allies, but on addressing problems created by the circulation of counterfeit and imitation Attic coins in Athenian markets, and particularly in the Piraeus, where such coins would have been liable to enter circulation via international trade. Although foreign imitations of Athenian coins were quite widespread in the Levant in the 4th century and especially in Egypt, where dies for striking them have been discovered (see T. Figueira, The Power of Money, 1998, 529-34, and A. Meadows, Revue Belge de Numismatique 157, 2011, 95-116), it seems that fewer reached Athens than was formerly believed, since it now appears that many coins once thought to be imitations are genuine Athenian coins of the late 5th century (C. Flament, in N. Holmes ed., Proceedings of the XIV International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009, 2011, 170-77). For a later Athenian decree dealing with coinage, weights, and measures, see I Eleus 237. [3] These are the two criteria for determining legal tender: the coin is silver, and bears the public stamp. The ways a coin might be unacceptable are specified in ll. 10-11: if it has a bronze or lead core or is debased (i.e. contains an admixture of base metal). On the methods of coin testing, Ar. Frogs 723, speaks of coins made of pure metal "ringing true", and later [Arrian], Discourses of Epictetus 1.20.7-9 notes the “many means the silver tester uses to test it – sight, touch, smell and finally hearing; he throws the denarius down and listens closely to the sound, and is not satisfied with ringing it once, but becomes a sort of musician because of the great attention he pays to this.” (transl. Melville-Jones/G. Davis). Physical evidence from surviving Greek coins suggests that they were quite commonly test cut, in other words scored through to the core to determine if they were silver all through (see e.g. M. Price and N. Waggoner, Archaic Greek Coinage. The Asyut Hoard, 1975, plates I-XXXII). On the issue of the acceptability, or not, of foreign coins with a stamp like the Athenian, see n. 5. [4] “Public approver”: the Greek implies that he is a public slave (demosios). As such he is liable to be whipped if he fails to perform his duties (l. 15). Two features of this work made the appointment of a public slave appropriate: (a) its technical, and essentially non-political, nature, (b) its sensitivity, especially in a context where there was obvious scope for corruption. A public slave was directly responsible to the People to a degree that did not apply to a citizen official. In general on public slaves see now P. Ismard, La démocratie contre les experts. Les esclaves publics en Grèce ancienne (2015). “Among the tables”: in Greek the word for “table” is the same as that for “bank” or "money-changer". “Except when there is a deposit”: on days when there is an incoming payment of public revenue in the presence of the Council (cf. Ath. Pol. 48.1), the approver is to be there to approve those coins. [5] It has been debated to what extent returning to the presenter a foreign coin bearing the same stamp as the Attic implies that it is officially approved as legal tender. R. Stroud, Hesp. 43, 1974, 158-88, the first editor of this inscription, suggested that return did imply approval, and is followed recently by S. Psoma, Revue Belge de Numismatique 157 (2011), 27-36 (SEG 61.118); B. Rutishauser, Athens and the Cyclades. Economic Strategies 540-314 BC (2012), 167-68, and C. Pébarthe, Symposion 2011, 253-56 (SEG 62.56), cf. notes to RO 25, D. T. Engen, Historia 54 (2005), 359-81. Other scholars, however, beginning with T. V. Buttrey, in O. Mørkholm and N. Waggoner eds., Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (1979), 33-45, have argued that, in a world in which states sought to exercise monopolistic control over currencies circulating in their territory (and ll. 3-4 of this inscription arguably imply such a world), it would have been clearly understood that such imitation coinage could not be legal tender. Instead, the imitation coin would be returned to the bearer who would have the option e.g. of exchanging it at a bank or money-changer's for its silver value. See also J. Ober, Democracy and Knowledge. Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens (2008), 220-45; J. Kroll, RBN 157 (2011), 3-26, especially n. 41. Some such "returned" coins might in practice have ended up back in circulation internationally, or even on Athenian markets, though in Attica there would always be the risk of their being refused as not legal tender. Matthaiou 2017 has now raised the possibility that where, at l. 9, the text describes the action to be taken in this case by the "approver", it might be restored ἐκ̣[κόπτων], "score it", or "test cut it". He expresses some caution, in the absence of parallels for this verb, but in our view this restoration is plausible. It would clarify the situation with these coins: they are to be cut to check that they have a silver core, and are returned to the bearer. There is physical evidence from surviving coins of their being test cut in this way (cf. n. 3). [6] The wording is not “in accordance with this law”, the implication being once again that there were other laws on this subject. [7] Ll. 18-23 are important evidence for the organisation of the major Athenian markets in which coinage was used: the grain markets in the city (18-19) and the Piraeus (22-23), both supervised by the grain guardians (sitophylakes, cf. Ath. Pol. 51.3-4); “the Agora and the rest of the city”, implying incidentally that a significant volume of transactions took place in the city outside the Agora; “the (import and export) market” (emporion), that is the vast, enclosed, customs, warehouse and wholesale market complex in the Piraeus harbour where imports and exports were traded, supervised by its own managers (epimeletai, Ath. Pol. 51.4, who are mentioned here for the first time. Cf. R. Garland, The Piraeus, 1987, ²2001, pp. 83-95, 152-57). The arrangements made here also cover transactions in the Piraeus outside the official markets (21), reflecting the strong foreign presence in the port, but the omission of other Attic demes is notable. Any arrangements for dealing with suspect coins in deme markets and more generally in demes were perhaps left to private or local regulatory initiatives; and local monetary transactions would be underpinned by an expectation that the parties would know eachother, in contrast to the larger, but also on the whole more "faceless", transactions in the major official markets. [8] I.e. the officials named in ll. 18-23. [9] Not otherwise known. Was this stele inscribed with import market regulations? [10] Like IG II³ 1, 320, this law was inscribed because it delivered a message of long-term public significance to interested persons affected by it, with copies in the two main locations in which the two approvers are to work. However, inscribing laws on stone was uncommon, and a specific contract is required for the inscription, a procedure otherwise found only before ca. 400 BC. [11] It is notable that the public slave is paid a fee or salary (misthos). In contrast to other cases where slaves are paid a fee (e.g. IG I³ 476 n. 6), this can scarcely have been paid over directly to his owner, the Athenian People, and implies that these public slaves must have lived independently to a fair extent and may have been in a better position than others eventually to buy their freedom. The arrangements for the allocation of funds to spending authorities were determined by law, but since the budget for the current year had already been fixed, this law requires a special budgetary allocaton to pay the salary of the new Piraeus approver from the time of his appointment. In future years his salary is to come from the same fund as is used to pay the mint-workers. [12] Laws were of higher validity than and would override decrees (cf. Andokides 1.89: "no decree, neither of the Council nor of the Assembly, is to have more authority than a law", with J. Sickinger in Symposion 2007, 2008, 99-112). However, inscriptions were endowed with a strong sense of agency, and here, as commonly, rescinding measures was expressed in terms of destroying the stelai on which they were inscribed.

Added: 29 Jul 2014
Updated: 8 Jan 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_819