¹ My principal debts are to Malcolm McGregor, who shared his views on readings, and to Peter Rhodes, who has struggled to clarify various versions of this text. Special abbreviations:

Meiggs, AE = Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar

Meritt 1972 = Meritt, B. D., Hesp. 41 (1972), 403–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Meritt 1972 (n. 1).

³ Camp, J., Hesp. 43 (1974), 314–18Google Scholar; Meritt, B. D., Hesp. 45 (1976), 280–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ ‘The tribute lists and the non-tributary members of the Delian league’, AHR 35 (1930), 267–75.

⁵ iii. 267–8.

⁶ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der delisch-attischen Symmachie (Klio Beiheft 30; 1933), 10–13.

⁷ ‘The growth of Athenian imperialism’, JHS 63 (1943), 21–34, at p. 31; ‘The crisis of Athenian imperialism’, HSCP 67 (1963), 6–9; Meiggs, , AE 118–20.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘West's panel of ship-payers’, in Bradeen, D. W. and McGregor, M. F. (eds), Φόϱος: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt (Locust Valley, 1974), 170–8.Google Scholar

⁹ Most recently, McGregor, , The Athenians and their Empire (1987), 59Google Scholar, simply wrote, ‘To seek disloyalty among the islands, as some have done, is a futile exercise’.

¹⁰ ZPE 15 (1974), 163–7.

¹¹ Woodhead (n. 8), 177.

¹² West (n. 4), 274.

¹³ I count all names linked by ϰαὶ as separate and include Σ/ and [ . ]σουρι - -(list 4, V. 20, 23) as present.

¹⁴ ATL iii. 7–8.

¹⁵ I retain e.g. Ἄζειοι (IV. 32), though feeling less than confident about the restoration. [Ἔσσ]ιο[ι] (IV. 21) is perhaps even more doubtful.

¹⁶ ii. 444; iii. 61 n. 62.

¹⁷ Some of these fit the partial entries: Gentinioi and Priapes are candidates for V. 5 or 6, Gryneion, Daunioteichitai, Karyanda, Sigeion for III. 21 or IV 31.

¹⁸ This is the first point in the article affected by the ‘three-bar sigma controversy’. Where it is relevant, I shall say so. Mattingly, (Historia, 41 (1992), 129–31)Google Scholar dates IG i³ 17 to 418/7.

¹⁹ Of these, Didymoteichitai and Diosiritai are candidates for III. 21 and IV. 31.

²⁰ These are a candidate for V. 5 or 6.

²¹ I am trying not to be too positive about negatives. One might, for example, argue that the possibility of Hellespont weakness might cast some doubt on Daskyleion and Berytis; if they are allowed to be absent this year, despite their good record, they would allow four replacements.

²² Mattingly (n. 18), 131—2, dates this to 426/5.

²³ List 3, III. 8–10 = list 4, I. 31–2; the latter are not followed by more Carian names, and there is no particular attraction in supposing that the former were.

²⁴ But, if present here, it was not in close proximity to Kolophon and Notion, as it was in list 1, III. 21–3; list 2, VI. 10–12.

²⁵ Admittedly not an absolute certainty in list 1, II. 29.

²⁶ ATL i. 443 suggests Ταρβανε̃ς.

²⁷ Not the fourth, cf. V. 13 above on ATL i. 13, fig. 10.

²⁸ Those most important to the main problems as conventionally posed are Seriphos, Keos, and Andros, to which I have now (in the Appendix) added Mykonos. Grynches, Dardanes, Diesἀπὸ Κηναίου,Ikos, Kos, Lebedos, Palaiperkosioi, Parpasiotai, Polichnaioi Kares, Rhenaia, Teos, and Phegetioi are the others; I have left out some rare payers in Caria.

²⁹ The most substantial differences are caused by the recognition that col. I of list 2 is really an appendix to list 1. Since Nesselhauf wrote, list 2 has gained 3 columns. Since Meiggs, AE 524, list 2 has gained a line in each column.

³⁰ Nesselhauf (n. 6), 10–13; ML p. 87; Meiggs, , AE 110Google Scholar (making part of the point).

³¹ Azeioi, Alindes, Amynandes, Arisbaioi, Astyrenoi, Bolbaies, Thydonos, Killares, Kolophon, Lindion Oiiatai, Maiandrioi, Mysoi, Nisyros, Olaies, Oranietai, Parion, Polichnaioi Kares, Polichnitai, Sambaktys, Siloi, Skepsis, Thrambaioi-Skionaioi, Tarbanes, Telmessioi-Lykioi, Tyrodiza, Hyblisses. Disappearing from the lists does not necessarily mean non-payment. Some of these demonstrably pay through other states.

³² iii. 267–8. I list the names again: Akanthos, Andros, Chalkis, Eretria, Hestiaia, lasos, Keos, Kythnos, Paros, Poteidaia, Seriphos, Siphnos, Styra, Tenos.

³³ Ibid. iii. 268 n. 1.

³⁴ West (n. 4), 26.

³⁵ ‘The Athenian navy and allied naval contributions in the pentecontaetia’, GRBS 10 (1969), 179–216, at p. 192.

³⁶ Woodhead (n. 8), 176–7.

³⁷ Blackman (n. 35), 183. But on p. 191 he excludes them from the ship-payers of 454 on grounds of distance.

³⁸ Inconsistently with its general view, ATL iii. 321 n. 88 plays with the idea that Aesch. Eum. 295–6 refers to trouble in Poteidaia in 458: ‘It is not impossible that Potidaea remained recalcitrant until Kimon made his Five Years' Truce in 451.’ I would not press the Aeschylus reference (on which see Macleod, C., Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), 20–1), but trouble seems very likely.Google Scholar So also Meiggs, , HSCP 67 (1963), 9Google Scholar (not repeated in AE).

³⁹ Blackman (n. 35), 191; Meiggs, , AE 119Google Scholar (restating points he had already made in 1963 (n. 38)).

⁴⁰ It has taken me a long time to accept the warning of Blackman (n. 35), 192, that disaffection may not be the cause of all absences.

⁴¹ Ibid. 190 with 214–16.

⁴² Meiggs, , AE 107–8.Google Scholar

⁴³ New evidence for the Samians: Dunst, G., AM 97 (1972), 153–5Google Scholar, whence ML (rev. edn, 1988), 310.

⁴⁴ Meiggs, , AE 112.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See n. 10.

⁴⁶ Meiggs, , AE 115–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See n. 22.

⁴⁸ Various views in Gehrke, , Historia, 29 (1980), 17–31Google Scholar; Robertson, N. D., Phoenix, 41 (1987), 356–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rhodes, P. in CAH v ²59.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Meiggs, , AE 112–14.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Meiggs, , JHS 63 (1943), 23–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing against Highby's earlier date. His date has been accepted even by Mattingly, , AJP 105 (1984), 345–6.Google Scholar The only dissentient I can find is Smart, , Phoenix, 31 (1977), 250–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who has argued, very improbably, for 406.

⁵¹ Hard, but not impossible. Erythrai, with eight ships at Lade (Hdt. vi. 8. 2), and thus quite possibly an original ship-contributor (Blackman (n. 35), 182), could have continued to be a ship-contributor, while Boutheia operated on behalf of the states which paid tribute. Even if I did not accept the orthodox date for the Erythrai Decree, I think I would find this an improbable set-up.

⁵² CAH v² 59.

⁵³ Given that Koresia is a coast-town, a story parallel to that invented for n. 51 is improbable.

⁵⁴ An up-to-date account of the evidence by Rhodes, in CAH v ²60.Google Scholar The key evidence about Karystos is a contribution of the new fragments.

⁵⁵ CAH v² 501–2.

⁵⁶ Ibid. 123–5, 127–30.

⁵⁷ See n. 10.

⁵⁸ Kern, O. and Kern, E. (eds), Carl Otfried Müller: Lebensbild in Briefen an seine Eltern (Berlin, 1908), 341.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Schoell, R., Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Griechenland (1843), preface.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Boeckh, A., Staatshaushaltung der Athener² (Berlin, 1851), ii. 373.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. 377.

⁶² Ibid. 373.

⁶³ Meritt 1972, 405.

⁶⁴ The point is generally made by observation, but he says as much himself in Ἐφημερὶς ἀρχαιολογιϰή, 1st series, p. 693.

⁶⁵ I attach no importance to Kirchhoff's apparatus on IG i, p. 97, ‘῾῾Η Η Pitt.’, which might lead one to suppose that Müller had something different; there is no evidence that Kirchhoff had independent access to Müller's notes and he prints ΗΗ in majuscule, ῾῾ΗΗ in minuscule.

⁶⁶ AJP 47 (1926), 174.

⁶⁷ For Galepsioi in list 8; see ATL iii. 50 n. 43 for the possibility that this was a regular amount.

⁶⁸ Meritt 1972, 406 n. 15.

⁶⁹ Kraay, C. M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, 110.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ BSA 33 (1932–3), 101–13.

⁷¹ Ibid, 111–12.

⁷² ATL i. 171.

⁷³ ATL iii. 7–8, with a qualification in n. 8.

⁷⁴ ATL i. 171.

⁷⁵ ATL ii. 79 and elsewhere; scepticism from Meiggs, , AE 159.Google Scholar