dependency by the same Alkibiades, in 408bc(Thuc. 8.80.3; Xen.Hell.
1.3.15). Not so Kalchedon, which, save for the year when Alkibiades kept
control of that part of the Asiatic coastline, passed into Spartan control.
References to thedekatereappear in early fourth-centurybcsources, but
it is not clear whether they refer to the Hellespontine toll, or to other
revenues raised in a similar way.^127 At any rate, the Hellespontinedekate
was the best known toll of this kind (Dem. 20.60; 23.177), while the need
to provide protection for ships in the Straits was already apparent at the
time of the Greco-Persian Wars, and recognized by the Athenians in the
appointment of‘guards’, theHellespontophylakes, who acted as military
policemen, based at Byzantion.^128
In the third centurybc, Rhodes became the city’s dominant Aegean
partner. So the attempt to reintroduce the toll at the Bosporus, which the
Rhodians interpreted as a direct blow to their commercial interests,
became the lightning rod for a declaration of war in 220bc. There are
several separate but inter-related aspects of this conflict between two
former partners. Polybius, as we have seen, uses the incident to explore
Byzantion’s unique position, which enabled the Byzantines to set terms
for ships and merchants wanting to trade in the Pontic area. They had
further strengthened their territorial position by the recent purchase of
Hieron and were in the process of acquiring territory in Mysia, on the
Asiatic shore of the Bosporus.^129 Stephanos of Byzantion refers to Astike,
(^127) There may already have been a number of different technical applications of this
term. The Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3bc(Agora I7557) actually mentions two
dekatai(Stroud 1998, 4 ll. 59–61; pp. 27, 31, 81–4). Stroud speculated that the‘twin’dekatai
referred to twice inAgora I7557 (ll 59 and 61), may represent the toll going into the
Bosporus and the second charge for the return trip (83). But he recognized that the
intervening period between the Athenian control of Chrysopolis and the reference to
Charidemos of Oreus collecting taxes in 357bc(dekátas lambánein... toùs dekatēlügous
...axiōn toùs hautou tōn telōn... kuríous eínai[under the control of the own custom house
officials]: Dem. 23.177), was one of major disruption in the Straits and Bosporus. See also
RO26, and commentary, 122–9. Rhodes and Osborne follow E. Harris in seeing the‘two
tenths’as down-payments for that particular year, rather than monetary taxes raised from
tolls, although they admit difficulties with the reference to the previous year’sdekatai.
Bresson noted the similarities between Agyrrhios’decree and the law from Samos (Syll.^3
976, ll. 25–6, where theeikostēfrom Anaia is referred to), which seems the clearest parallel
for a grain tax (Bresson, 207–8). A more wide-ranging investigation of the law is now
available in Magnetto et al. 2010, esp. 243–44 for the text and 246, 248, for new translations
by R. Stroud and U. Fantasia. No additional clarification emerges for ll. 59–61 as far as the
‘twindekatai’are concerned. Harris’s interpretation of the down-payment does seem to
answer the context ofAgora I7557 convincingly, and shows that thedekatewas a concept
that was acquiring a number of applications, in addition to the one associated with the
Athenian toll station at Bosporus.
(^128) Rubel 2001; Gabrielsen 2007, 294, 310–11.
(^129) Byzantion’s purchase of Hieron: Plb. 4.50.2–3; Dionysios Byz.Anaplousfr. 58;
Byzantine sanctuary of Zeus Ourios, on the east side of the Bosporos, opposite the entrance
Regionalism and regional economies 243