1. Historical conditions

The first mention of the treaty of Callias can be found in the Athenian historians and orators of the 4^th century BC, whose information is reproduced by their successors with more or less accuracy.¹ According to these testimonies Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, after his successive defeats by Cimon in Cyprus, sent his satraps and commanders of his army, Artabazus I and Megabyzus, to Athens, seeking for the signing of a peace treaty. An Athenian envoy, led by Callias, was sent to Susa.²

Concerning the date of the mission and the signing of the treaty there is disagreement amongst the scholars. Others suggest that it was signed in 450/449 BC, others in 449/448 BC and others in 424/423 BC. It has also been suggested that it was signed immediately after the Battle of Eurymedon in 466 BC and it was renewed in 464 and 449 BC.³ Finally, since the treaty is not mentioned by Thucydides and Herodotus, some consider it a creation of the Athenian propaganda of the 4^th century BC, which sought to compare it to the treaty of 386 BC between the Spartans and the Persians (peace of Antalcidas), under which the Greek cities of Asia Minor came under the control of the Great King once again.

Herodotus, though, reports the mission of Callias at Susa, something which shows there were at least some negotiations, without, however, determining its goal.⁴ It is also clear that the Athenian orator Isocrates refers to an existing text when he publicly compares the peace of Callias with the treaty between the Spartans and the Persians in 387/386 BC.⁵ In favour of the existence of the treaty one might also use the references of Theopompus and of Plutarch concerning the building of an altar of Peace in Athens and the honorary decrees offered to Callias.⁶

Irrespective of whether the treaty was signed or renewed in that year, the terms which have been delivered to us appear to belong to the treaty of 449 BC or to have been confirmed by it, since from that date onwards a period of detente to the relations between the Greeks and the Persians starts. The fact that Herodotus does not mention the signing of a treaty might reveal that it was short-lived and probably its conditions were eventually imposed by the activity of the Athenian navy.⁷After all, such a thing can be inferred from the information Plutarch gives that some satraps did not comply and the Athenians had to campaign against them, like in the case of Chersonessos in eastern Thrace.⁸ This seems to be the case in a greater degree if this was indeed a treaty that was successively violated and had to be renewed twice before it was finally ratified.

2. Terms of the treaty

1) The Greek cities of Asia Minor become autonomous.⁹ According to certain scholars the Athenians ensured the independence, but not the excemption from the imperial taxation of the cities. They either stabilized the amount of the tax towards the king, preventing arbitrary demands, or they began to exploit the taxes themselves.¹⁰ Nevertheless, concerning the “archaios dasmos” (ancient tax),¹¹ that is the tax paid by the cities of Asia Minor to the Persian king, from the references of Thucydides it becomes clear that it was abolished.¹² Also, the contributions into the Delian League are a result of the impositionof the Athenian hegemony in the years to follow and must be considered independantly from the treaty of Callias.

2) No Persian satrap can come close to the coasts in a distance less than three days.¹³

3) The Persian ships would not enter the harbour of Phaselis in Pamphylia, i.e. they would not sail along the western coast of Asia Minor beyond this point. Also, warships would not advance any further from the islets of Cyanon and Chelidonion.

The lack of information concerning the position of the abovementioned islets has allowed the formulation of different opinions about the third term of the treaty. It has been suggested that these were islands of Pamphylia. Thus, this term concerns the restriction of the entrance of ships of both sides in this region, which was the den of Peloponnesian pirates, whereas the second term forbade the presence of the Persian troops in the region to the west of the Alys river to Sardis , where the Greek cities were. According to another view, it is accepted that up to that line the troops of the king were not allowed to approach, whereas the troops of the satraps could not come near the cities of Ionia to a less than three-days distance. It seems more plausible however, as the terms are documented by the ancient texts, that the Persian warships could not sail westwards beyond the harbour of Phaselis and further than the straits of Bosporus, where some scholars locate the abovementioned islets, whereas the Persian troops in general could not come any closer than a three-days walk to the coasts of the Aegean. Thus the Athenian generals Pericles and Ephialtes heading towards the Black Sea with 50 ships met no Persian ship on their course.¹⁴ The Athenian navy was now the only ruler of the Aegean Sea.

4) The Greek side is bound only not to invade the land of the Great King.

The references of Thucydides to the lack of fortification in many Ionian cities when he describes later events¹⁵ led to the hypothesis that the Athenians had agreed to destroy the walls of the Greek cities in Asia Minor. In reality, however, the Athenians proceeded in such actions against the Greek cities not only in Asia Minor but elsewhere, but these should not be correlated with the peace of Callias, but with the Athenian hegemony. Finally, it has been suggested that the Athenians¹⁶ agreed not to found any colonies in Asia Minor, an argument which seems to be totally unjustified.¹⁷

The terms of the peace of Callias, either agreed, either enforced, are a turning point in the history of the 5^th century BC, not only because they constitute an acceptance of the defeat by the Great King, but also because they gave the Athenians the ability to impose their hegemony. Furthermore, the ideal conditions were created in Athens, thanks to the economic prosperity, as well as the necessary time, to be adorned with works of art like the Parthenon. It has also been suggested that the representations of the battles between the Gods and the Giants, the Lapithes and the Amazons, the Men and the Amazons, portrayed on the monument, are a statement of the triumph of civilization against the Barbarians, which was affirmed by the peace of Callias.

The situation was, nevertheless, not ideal for the cities of Asia Minor, since from the Persian authority they came under the Athenian control, from which they would try to free themselves many times in the future.