72 MARK wOOLMER
on the quantity of transactions being conducted in their markets. With regard
to commercial taxes and duties, therefore, the Athenian concern with increas-
ing public revenues was intrinsically linked to, and indeed dependent on, con-
tinued market activities. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that both were
considered when Athenian trade policy was being decided.Concern with Exports as Well as Imports
Now that we have shown that a desire to stimulate market activity was a
key factor prompting Athens to institutionalize its relationships with foreign
merchants, it is important to discuss a related issue: exports. The belief that
Athenian trade policy was primarily focused on securing imports has resulted
in scholars generally overlooking the importance of exports to the Athenian
economy. Bresson (Chapter 2 in this volume) redresses this balance through an
analysis of Aristotle’s views of foreign commerce. Bresson concludes: ‘In order
to be able to import, it was also necessary to export and find the adequate
resources to do so. Furthermore, the cities had to search for the appropriate
partners so as to provide and receive the commodities: this was self-evident for
Aristotle’. Although Aristotle never explicitly states that exports are required to
finance imports, Bresson shows that this belief underpinned much of his theo-
rising on interregional exchange (e.g., Arist. Eth. Nic. 5.5.14). Isocrates (4.42)
also demonstrates awareness of the link between deficit and surplus when he
states: ‘Moreover, each city does not own a territory that fully satisfies it needs,
but at certain times is in some way lacking, at other times producing things
other than they truly need’. Similarly, Plato’s Socrates, aware of the symbiotic
relationship between imports and exports, and recognizing that a state can-
not survive without foreign trade, posits that the only viable way of financ-
ing imports is by exporting commodities of an equivalent value (Pl. Resp.
2.11. 369b–370e). Significantly, Amemiya has calculated that during an average
year in the fourth century BCE, the value of Athenian imports was roughly
equivalent to that of its exports – approximately 2,760 talents.^23 Although, as
Amemiya himself recognizes, these figures are highly speculative, they nev-
ertheless support the idea that imports were intrinsically linked to exports.
Thus, a state that was concerned with securing imports was, by necessity, also
required to have a concern for exports because the latter paid for the former.
Bresson’s analysis of the honors and privileges bestowed to merchants (in par-
ticular ateleia and priority loading/unloading) emphasizes this point. Bresson
shows that many of the honors bestowed by Athens created favorable condi-
tions for the import and export of goods, indicating that the Athenians consid-
ered both to be important. Although none of the extant honorific inscriptions
explicitly mention the export of commodities, Xenophon (Xen. Vect. 3.2) sug-
gests that the majority of merchants who imported goods to Athens would