The Ancient Greek Economy. Markets, Households and City-States

56 ALAIN BRESSON (TRANSLATED By EDwARD M. HARRIS)

Finally, let us note that the connection with Thucydides and the absence of

συνθῆκαι linking the Corcyreans to other cities makes it impossible to accept

the suggestion of Gauthier that on the basis of the Rhetoric one make a dis-

tinction in this passage between συνθῆκαι that will be negotiated with more

powerful states (political aspect) and συμβολαὶ that will be negotiated with the

aim of making a profit (legal and commercial aspect). Furthermore, doesn’t the

treaty between Amyntas and the Chalcidian League,^60 described by the term

‘agreement’ (συνθῆκαι), specifically contain clauses about exports (ἐξαγωγή) ,

with the entire agreement called a συμμαχίη?^61 It is not possible to make a dis-

tinction between συνθῆκαι and συμβολαί.

There remain, however, two points to explain, which we will discuss

together: on the one hand, we need to know if in addition to σύμβολα and

συμβολαί guaranteeing the rights of persons there also existed agreements

specifically concerning products, that is, συνθῆκαι that constitute a long-term

commitment and affect commercial products; on the other hand, we need, if

possible, to show that there are sources indicating that commerical partners

sought each other out not only to secure imports but also to export products.

As for the first point, let us first note that the existence of agreements men-

tioning commercial products is demonstrated by documents such as the treaty

between Amyntas and the Chalcidice mentioned above,^62 which has special

clauses about timber, which, it should be emphasized, are found in the context

of a more extensive agreement about the exchange of exports and imports.

But already in 407/6 the decree passed for Archelaus of Macedonia has a clause

concerning wood (according to the most plausible supplement) and oars:^63

30–31 [χσύλ]α καὶ κοπέας καὶ

[ἄλλα hόσον ἐδέοντο παρ’] αὐτõ ἀγαθά

Naturally the evidence for the relations between Athens and the Bosporan

kingdom fits perfectly into the category of συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν εἰσαγωγίμων.^64

We also know that similar privileges had been granted in a treaty with the

Mytilenians.^65

But one might object in the case of the timber from Macedon and in the

case of grain from the Bosporus that we are dealing with treaties about imports

aimed at achieving self-sufficiency for a city. That would naturally ignore the

fact that in order for there to be imports there must also be exports: the king-

doms of Macedonia and of the Bosporus would have reaped large benefits

from these. One could nevertheless object that in terms of grain, a necessary

commodity for feeding a population, and wood, a strategic material par excel-

lence, it was the Athenians who were the buyers and not their partners.

When it comes to Macedonia during a very long period, and all the more

so in the case of the Bosporan kingdom, with exemption from duties and the

right of priority in loading cargoes, which the Athenians enjoyed, one might