¹ The most important contributions up to 1939 (hereafter referred to by their authors' names only) were made by Köhler, U., Abh. Ak. Berlin 1869 ii 136–7Google Scholar; Loeschcke, G., De titulis aliquot atticis quaestiones historicae (Diss. Bonn, 1876)Google Scholar; Busolt, G., Philologus xli (1882) 652–718Google Scholar; Dahms, R., De Atheniensium sociorum tributis quaestiones septem (Diss. Berlin, 1904) 55–60Google Scholar; Couch, E. B., AJA xxxiii (1929) 502–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nesselhauf, H., Klio, Beiheft xxx, 1933, 58 ff.Google Scholar; Kahrstedt, U., AJP lvii (1936) 419–24Google Scholar; and Schaefer, H., Hermes lxxiv (1939) 225–64.Google Scholar

² Meritt, B. D., Wade-Gery, H. T. and McGregor, M. F., The Athenian Tribute Lists, vol. i (Harvard, 1939).Google Scholar see esp. pp. 455–7; vol. ii (Princeton, 1949); vol. iii (Princeton, 1950), see esp. pp. 68–9, 78–88, 195; vol. iv (Princeton, 1953).

³ In the case of Gale, the name has to be restored: on the grounds for this, see ATL iii 86. In the case of Chedrolos, the word ἄτακτος has to be restored completely, but it is rendered virtually certain by the letter-spacing: see the photographs of the Second Stele, fragments 38, 46, and 51–2 in ATL i 84, 86; cp. also Meritt, B. D. and West, A. B., Harv. Stud. Class. Philol. xxxviii (1927) 34.Google Scholar

⁴ ATL iii 82 (for Miltoros, Pharbelos, Othoros and Chedrolos in List 19); ATL i 187 f.; iii 86 (for Gale).

⁵ For the earlier payments of Othoros and Chedrolos see esp. ATL i 11 (fig. 9), 64 and iii 61, 64, where the revised readings of ATL ii for Lists 7–9 and 12–13 are explained. It should be noted that the Thrakian Panel is complete for 443/2 and again for this year, 435/4.

⁶ For the position of all these cities (not always known) see the Map and Gazetteer sections of ATL (i 461 ff.; ii 84 ff.). For Chalkidike, cp. also Bradeen, D. W., AJP lxxiii (1952) 356 ff.Google Scholar

⁷ The Hellespontine Panel is complete for 443/2, 442/1 and 435/4; the Island Panel for 443/2, 442/1 and 441/0; and the Karian Panel, to which all the Rubric islanders except the Diakres apo Chalkideon would probably have belonged if they had been paying then, is complete for 442/1, 441/0 and 440/39.

⁸ In List 22 an unprecedented quota (33⅓ dr.) appears in the ἰδιῶται Rubric opposite a city-name (lost) which occupied two or more lines. This could indicate a new member (cp. ATL iii 81, n. 28), though this would be odd in the middle of an assessment period: but it could also represent a partial payment on behalf of the Poleis Krossidos (Tindaioi, Kithas, Smilla, Gigonos and Haisa) who are all probably absent in the following years.

⁹ E.g. by West, A. B., CP xxx (1935) 81Google Scholar; Schaefer, 240 ff.; Meritt, , AJP lv (1934) 281 ff.Google Scholar; Kahrstedt, 420 f.; cp. also Schwahn, W., RE xx 1 (1941) s.v. Phoroi, 550Google Scholar (against Loeschcke); ATL iii 83.

¹⁰ E.g. by Lenschau, T., Bursians-Jahresbericht ccxliv (1934) 52 f.Google Scholar (against Couch); Gomme, A. W., CR liv (1940) 67 ff.Google Scholar; Meiggs, R., EHR lv (1940) 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ ( Athens, 1953) 35 ff. Cp. now Mattingly, H. B., CQ lv (1961) 156 f.Google Scholar

¹² For ATL's arrangement see esp. Meritt, , Athenian Financial Documents (Ann Arbor, 1932) 3ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., Documents on Athenian Tribute (Cambridge, Mass., 1937) 98 ff. and works there cited; ATL i 191 ff.; ii 29 ff. For Mattingly's views see Historia x (1961), 148 ff., esp. 166–8; loc. cit. n. 11, 154 ff.; and below, pp. 67 ff. (Wade-Gery and Meritt).

¹³ In the sense of ‘not in company with others’ (which is all that is required here), rather than ‘individually’: Couch, 512, cites Aristophanes, , Ach. 504 ff.Google Scholar and Thucydides vi 37.1; cp. also Plato, , Parm 137AGoogle Scholar; Xenophon, , Anab. ii 3.7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Couch, 513; Gomme, loc. cit., n. 10, 67 f.; loc. cit., n. 11, 35 f.

¹⁵ For αὐτός in this sense, but with an active verb, cp. Sophokles (who may have been chairman of the Hellenotamiai in 443/2, see Lewis, D. M., BSA 1 (1955) 15Google Scholar; Meritt, , AJP lxxx (1959) 189)Google Scholar, O.T. 341; Thucydides iii 65.2, iv 60.2.

¹⁶ For Athenians, Schaefer compared Lykourgos i 34; Ath. Pol. 48.2; Aristotle, Pol. 1272B; IG i² 16, line 12. For others, cp., e.g., IG i² 39 = ATL ii 70 (D 17), line 6 (Chalkis). The article is probably not just ‘generic’ but meant to signify certain individuals named in supporting documents (cp. Dahms, 58).

¹⁷ For the distinction between ἐγγράφειν and ἀναγράφειν see ATL iii 74.

¹⁸ Reiske's supplement.

¹⁹ ATL iii 84: presumably based mainly on A9.

²⁰ ATL iii 77, cp. iv 121, s.v. Taktai, suggests that the assessment figure was ‘revealed’ to the ambassadors of the cities when they arrived at Athens in Maimakterion: they could then simply accept it or appeal. If this was true in 425, one wonders why the court only began to hear appeals in Posideion. With Schaefer's view (225 ff.) of the assessment system of Aristeides, however, any interval could be taken up with meetings between the Taktai and the various embassies, and the first draft of the τάξις φόρον would be the outcome of the former's calculations based on the accounts presented by the latter.

²¹ ATL iii 79 f. thinks they were an innovation in 430 and that before that year the appeals were heard by a heliastic court and were few in number: but this depends partly on its interpretation of the βονλή Rubric (see p. 34, below). On Mattingly's view, loc. cit. n. 11, 156 f., the earliest evidence for them belongs to 426/5 (IG i² 218 and A9, lines 17–18) and the only other evidence to 425 (Ag, lines 16 ff.). This is economical, as he says, but I feel that it may be a false economy.

²² IG i² 39 (ATL ii D17), lines 25–7, (cp. IG i² 17 (ATL ii D16), lines 11–12), may thus be applicable to all future assessments: but cp. ATL iii 295; Mattingly, , JHS lxxxi (1961) 128.Google Scholar

²³ For assessment decisions by the Ekklesia in exceptional cases, cp. ATL ii 48 f. (D3), lines 5–9, 29–32 (Methone); ibid., 75 (D21), lines 17–18 (Aphytis).

²⁴ ATL ii 112 T 98a (Pollux viii 97); iii 12 ff.; Busolt-Swoboda, , Griechische Staatskunde ii 1133.Google Scholar 448/7 is ATL's date for D7; Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 12, 150 ff., argues for 425/4, which would reduce, but not nullify, its value as evidence for procedure in die Pentekontaetia.

²⁵ I.e. when the Demos voted for the second alternative, the Taktai were instructed to erase Methone from the present assessment-list: the precise significance of is obscure, but the inference made by ATL iii 135, n. 9, that the Taktai only assessed a city when there was a change in the amount, seems unnecessary: Methone, already in arrears and perhaps still robbed of most of her normal resources by the activities of Perdikkas, may well have presented an exceptional case, calling for special instructions from the people to its assessors. Of course, if the year was not an assessment year, then a proposal that the Ekklesia should itself make an assessment straight away for Methone would be quite understandable: but for the date of D3 see below, n. 80.

²⁶ ATL iii, 12–14.

²⁷ Loc. cit., n. 11, 37.

²⁸ The latter preserves the parallelism better and is in general more likely; but the former cannot be logically excluded, and even third parties, such as Athenian Metics, might have had some commercial interest in places like Othoros.

²⁹ Loc. cit., n. 10, 68 f.; loc. cit., n. 11, 37.

³⁰ Assuming that the court sat collectively, like the large heliastic courts of 1000 or 1500 (Pollux viii 123, Dem. xxiv 9, Plut., Per. 32.4) or more (Lysias xiii 35—2000; Andokides i 17–6000), the number of jurors merely indicates the importance, not the amount of the business it was expected to deal with. Nevertheless the business inferred from this Rubric seems neither large nor important.

³¹ Perhaps it is for this reason that the entries in the ἰδιῶται Rubric of List 21 are by place-names (Othoros, etc.) instead of by the normal corporate names of their citizen-bodies (Othorioi, etc.), except in the cases of the Diakres apo Chalkideon and the Tindaioi, who may represent country districts with no established community centre. (Yet note Steph. Byz., s.v. ) This was probably also done in Lists 22 and 23, but the names do not survive sufficiently to be sure. In the βουλή Rubric of List 26, on the other hand, Symaioi and Bysbikenoi occur.

³² AJA xxix (1925) 27; cp. ATL i 477. West's emendation of Thuc. v 18.6 on this basis (AJP lviii, 1937) 166 ff.) has been challenged by Gomme, loc. cit., n. 11, 38 ff.

³³ ATL i 489; iii 61; cp. ii 86. See also Bradeen, loc. cit., n. 6, 371. He accepts Meritt's siting of Gale in Sithonia and conjectures that Miltoros was somewhere ‘inland near Sithonia’, as its rubric history is similar and it was Chalkidian (Theopompos, frag. 152, Jacoby): because of their slightly different rubric history he groups Othoros and Chedrolos with Pharbelos, which as an Eretrian colony (Steph. Byz., s.v.) is not likely, in his opinion, to have been in or near Sithonia: he places them tentatively near Dikaia (Dikaiopolis), that being the only other Eretrian city to default in 432/1. But Dikaiopolis' absence then may well be involuntary, as she is in the ἀπαρχή Rubric with Methone in ATL's Period VII.

³⁴ For the position of Berge, see ATL i 474; iii 219; Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. iii 575.Google Scholar For its tribute record, see ATL iii 46, 62 f.; Lewis, D. M., BSA xlix (1954) 26–8.Google Scholar

³⁵ Rather than with Chalkidike, as by Kahrstedt, 423: cp. Bradeen, loc. cit., n. 6, 375, n. 103.

³⁶ The other cases are Dies apo Kenaiou, Dies apo tou Atho, Kedriatai apo Karias, Kryes apo Karias, Neapolis ap' Athenon, Cherronesitai ap' Agoras, and possibly Pasandes apo Kaunou and Karbasyandes apo Kaunou. See the Gazetteer in ATL i, s.vv. and on the Chersonese, Ehrenberg, V., Aspects of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1946), 121 ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Thus in the cases of Pasanda and Karbasyanda ἀπό seems to mean ‘in the neighbourhood of’, cp. ATL i 532; Bean, G. E., JHS lxxiii (1953), 21 f.Google Scholar

³⁸ IG xii 1.977 = Syll. ³ 129 = Tod, , GHI ii no. 110.Google Scholar Their modifier in List 22 merely locates them: cp. the use of in the cases of Thermai and Oine as an optional variant for

³⁹ ATL i 448; cp. Busolt, 659 ff., Dahms, 58 ff., for earlier searches along these lines.

⁴⁰ For Athenian interests along the coasts of Sitalkes' kingdom, see Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 276–8Google Scholar; ATL i 204, 465, 547; iii 215–16, 308–12; May, J. M. F., Ainos, Its History and Coinage (Oxford Class. and Philos. Monographs, Oxford, 1950), esp. pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ If correctly located by ATL i 509: the evidence there makes Thasos look the most likely candidate (cp. ATL iii 24, 88, 217), but Thasos' quota is unchanged in this period.

⁴² Abh. Ak. Berlin 1873, 22, n. 4; followed by Busolt, 663; Dahms, 59; Couch, 511; Schaefer, 242, n. 1.

⁴³ Busolt, 694; cp. Dahms, 60; Miltner, , RE xix 1 (1937), s.v. Perikles, 773.Google Scholar Schaefer, 237, connects their acquisition with Perikles' expedition to the Pontus.

⁴⁴ Fraser, Cp. P. M. and Bean, G. E., The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford Class, and Philos. Monographs, Oxford, 1954), 84 ff., 138 ffGoogle Scholar; ATL i 552 f., 562 f.; for the possibility that the Syme of these Rubrics was in Thrace, see Lewis, D. M., Towards a Historian's Text of Thucydides (Diss. Princeton, 1952), 44–6.Google Scholar Add now Cook, J. M., JHS lxxxi (1961), 56 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing for Knidos rather than Rhodes as the concealed syntely-head for both Syme and the Cherronesioi. Yet the latter must have been detached by 452/1, when they appear first in the quota-lists: why was Knidos left holding Syme until 434/3?

⁴⁵ Busolt, 686, followed by Dahms, 59, thought that they were under Rhodes until now, when they were removed to punish Rhodes for sympathising with the Samian revolt; but they had no evidence for this. The quota of Lindos rises from 600 to 1000 dr. between 440/39 and 433/2, those of Ialysos and Kameiros remain unchanged.

⁴⁶ ATL i 529 ff.: the cities are named individually in the Rubric, but share a common payment.

⁴⁷ Or. iv 35; cp. Xenophon, , Mem. iii 12.1.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On the Nesselhauf view, of course, Othoros simply changed its policy in 434/3, which is all too possible; it almost certainly joined the rebek in 432.

⁴⁹ ATL iii 212 f.

⁵⁰ Thuc. v 94–9.

⁵¹ A view not borne out by Thucydides, see de Romilly, J., Thucydide et l'impérialisme Athénien (Paris, 1947), 69 ff.Google Scholar

⁵² ATL iii 309, n. 45, 333 f., 339.

⁵³ Harpokration s.vv. ἀπόταξις and σνντελεῖς (= ATL ii 91, T 19–20); Hdt. vii 59.2; cp. ATL i 517 ff., 544. See also May, op. cit., n. 40, 75, n. 1.

⁵⁴ Or. vii, passim: a work of propaganda, but the setting is very interesting, cp. esp. chh. 21 ff.

⁵⁵ Cp. ATL iii 319.

⁵⁶ ATL i 471 f.

⁵⁷ ATL i 495 f.; iii 196.

⁵⁸ Robinson, E. S. G., Hesp., suppl. viii (1949) 324 ff.Google Scholar; id., Am. Num. Soc. Museum Notes ix (1959) 3 ff.; ATL ii 61 ff. (D14). See, however, Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 12, passim: he would date the Coinage Decree to c. 425.

⁵⁹ Cp. Nease, A. S., Phoenix ii (1949) 102 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meriti, , Doc. Ath. Tribute, 15Google Scholar; id., Hesp. xiii (1944) 218 f.; ATL iii 142 ff.; Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 380 ff.Google Scholar; ii 34.

⁶⁰ ATL ii 67 (D14), clauses 1–4.

⁶¹ ATL ii 75 (D21), lines 6–8; cp. Meriti, , Hesp. xiii (1944) 211 ff.Google Scholar: he regards the contributing cities in both cases (Methone and Aphytis) as identical, but may surely mean only that the system was to be the same. Aphytis' quota changes from 300 dr. to a figure requiring only one symbol in D21 (line 18): Meritt supposes a rise to 500 dr. If this is right, Aphytis may in fact have been made a syntely-head now over a group of small cities on Pallene or near it, of which Therambos was the chief.

⁶² ATL ii 48–9 (D3), lines 13–16; (D4), lines 41–7. Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 11, passim, argues for winter 426/5 as the date of D3.

⁶³ The fluctuations and later appearances in the war years of these Rubric cities raise problems which I cannot deal with here: see esp. Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 11, 158 f.

⁶⁴ For the latter, cp. ATL iii 114 ff.; Oliver, J. H.. Historia vi (1957) 254 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Points raised by Busolt, 669 (against Loeschcke).

⁶⁶ Cp. Couch, 510; Meritt, , AJP lv (1934), 284 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cp., e.g., Xenophon, Ps.-, Ath. Pol. ii 2–3, 11–13Google Scholar; IG i² 57 = ATL D4, lines 34–41; IG i² 58, lines 10 ff.; Meritt, , Hesp. xiii (1944), 218.Google Scholar For fourth-century evidence, Cp. Isokrates, , De Pace 36Google Scholar; Ath. Pol. 51.3–4; Lykourgos, , in Leocr. 27Google Scholar; [Dem.] xxxiv 37; xxxv 50–1. Ziebarth, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Seeraubs und Seehandels (Hamburg, 1929), 60 ff.Google Scholar, argued that the law quoted in [Dem.] xxxv 51 was fifth century, as its provisions applied to Athenians, metics and but these last need not be ‘subject-allies’.

⁶⁸ Hdt. vii 235; ix 9.2.

⁶⁹ Cp. n. 58 above.

⁷⁰ IG i² 53, lines 7–8; Cp. Meritt, , AJP lxviii (1947), 312 ff.Google ScholarIG i² 87 (treaty with Halieis of 424/3) probably contained a similar stipulation (see SEG x 80; Meritt, , Hesp. xiv (1945), 97 ff)Google Scholar, not inappropriately in view of Halieis' position and record.

⁷¹ Thuc. i 56.2; Cp. Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 200Google Scholar; Miltner, , RE xix 1, 773Google Scholar (quoting Plut., Per. 16.2); ATL iii 321.

⁷² For Methone and Ainos, see n. 82 below; but see also Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. ii 34Google Scholar on the need for caution here; Poteidaia, for instance, had not yet got an Athenian garrison in 432. Note also that Mytilene (privileged?) could expect to get archers and corn from the Pontus in 428, Thuc. iii 2.2, though the Hellespontophylakes were probably already operating some sort of rationing system (cp. n. 67 above, and ATL iii 311, n. 57).

⁷³ IG i² 71, lines 47–8 (much restored, though the general sense seems fairly clear); on the date, cp. ATL iii 313, n. 61; Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 12, 168; Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc., 621 f.Google Scholar For the blockade of 417/6, Thuc. v 83.4.

⁷⁴ Thuc. i 100.2. Cp. Hdt. ix 106.3, Diod. xi 37.1–3 for an earlier diplomatic crisis involving these emporia.

⁷⁵ IG i² 46, lines 7–9, But the length of line is uncertain, so it is impossible to be sure that these words all belong to one sentence or topic.

⁷⁶ IG i² 46, line 11; IG i² 71, line 23; Cp. Hdt. v 23.2, Andokides ii 11. For a similar monopoly in the fourth century, Tod, GHI ii, no. 162.

⁷⁷ Cp. IG i² 93, lines 11–18 (c. 413?); ib., 58, lines 10 ff. (c. 426?). It is to be noted that in 414/3 Athens thought she could get in more money by substituting for tribute a 5 per cent tax (Thuc. vii 28.4): assuming that this applied to all ports in the empire (for which Aristophanes, , Frogs 363Google Scholar, has been cited in evidence, but is most unlikely to be relevant), it suggests that the harbour masters were more established and reliable than the Eklogeis in the cities. Alkibiades' innovation in 410 (Polybius iv 44.4, cp. Xenophon, , Hell. i 5.19–22Google Scholar, Diod. xiii 64) was to levy tolls (at Chrysopolis) at ships merely passing by (παραγωγιάζειν).

⁷⁸ ATL ii 50 f. (D7), lines 11 ff.; Cp. Hill, B. H. and Meritt, B. D., Hesp. xiii (1944), 11 ff.Google Scholar; Wallace, W. P., Phoenix ii (1949), 70 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D. M. Lewis, ib., ix (1955), 32ff.

⁷⁹ For Thera, Cp. ATL iii 198, n. 24, 336—probably a case of acquisition by force. Cp. also Mattingly, loc. cit. n. 11, 159 f.

⁸⁰ But the alternative restoration [Μαρονῖται] in List 23, ii 67, is possible (cp. ATL ii 3), and the date of ATL's D3 is disputed: cp. ATL iii 133 ff.; Mattingly, loc. cit., n. 11, passim (he would date the entry of Methone to 431).

⁸¹ ATL ii 48 (D3), lines 18–23; for the site of Methone, , ATL i 489.Google Scholar

⁸² ATL ii 48 (D3), lines 13–16; ib., 49 (D4), lines 41–7. Methone may have had to maintain an Athenian or mercenary garrison: cp. May, op. cit., n. 40, 77–84 on Ainos; he dates the revival of her local coinage to c. 435 and notes that it is largely small change—suitable for paying troops, but not for trade—down to c. 417/6. Ainos supplied a force of peltasts in 425 (Thuc. iv 28.4) and a contingent for Sicily in 415 (Thuc. vii 57.5).

⁸³ ATL ii 75 (D21), lines 5–6, 8, cites the same Methone Decree as a precedent for two regulations which are not covered by the surviving Methone decrees and require another, earlier than D21, which was for some reason not reinscribed with ATL's D 3–6; lines 17–18 (cp. D3, lines 29–32) also suggest the precedent of Methone, both in the solution adopted and in the procedure for taking a separate vote: cp. Meriti, , Hesp. xiii (1944), 216 ff.Google Scholar Note also that Selymbria may have provided a partial precedent for Methone: cp. ATL i 547; May, op. cit. n. 40, 76.

⁸⁴ Brunt, P. A., ‘The Megarian Decree’, AJP lxxii (1951), 269 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cp. Adcock, F. E., CAH v (1927), 477 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Cp. J. de Romilly, op. cit., n. 51, 22 ff.; Meyer, E., Forschungen ii (1899) 296 ff.Google Scholar; Schwartz, E., Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Bonn, 1919), 92 ff.Google Scholar; Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 465 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cp. Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. iii 2 (1904), 810 ff.Google Scholar, for his and earlier views; Bonner, J. R., CP xvi (1921), 238 ff.Google Scholar; Miltner, , RE xix 1, 777Google Scholar; Gomme, , Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 448Google Scholar; ATL iii 320 f.

⁸⁸ Cp. Nesselhauf, , Hermes lxix (1934), 286 ff.Google Scholar; ATL iii 304, n. 15.

⁸⁹ E.g. under a decree passed c. 446 B.C., as a reprisal for the massacre of the Athenian garrison at Megara (Thuc. i 114.1); cp. Thuc. i 67.4

⁹⁰ ATL iii 321, n. 87.

⁹¹ Thuc. i 41.2.

⁹² Loc. cit., n. 84, 271, n. 9.

⁹³ Hist. Comm. Thuc. i 448.

⁹⁴ Megara seems to have shown an active interest in Byzantion in 411–09 B.C., cp. Thuc. viii 80.3; Xen., Hell., i 1.36, 3.15; Plut., Alk. 31.4.

⁹⁵ Loc. cit., n. 84, 276 f.

⁹⁶ Cp. ATL iii 320; Wade-Gery, and Meritt, , Hesp. xvi (1947), 279 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sealey, R., Proc. African Class. Ass. i (1958), 61 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ I should like to record my gratitude (without incriminating them in any way) to Professor A. Andrewes, Mr. D. M. Lewis and Mr. R. Meiggs for valuable help and criticism during the preparation of this article.