^{page 145 note 1} ‘Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea’, C.Q. N.S. xvi (1966), 191–2.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Smith, G., ‘Athenian Casualty Lists’, CP xiv (1919). 351–64.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} There are also represented one monument to Argives, two to Ionians or Aeolians, and two to Lemnians, which I do not include in the above statistics. A few other lists of names may have been casualty lists; cf. SEG xxi. 98–103.Google Scholar Lists with demotics or patronymics must be of another type; the deme names on SEG xix. 39Google Scholar show that this does not list casualties.

^{page 145 note 4} e.g. IG i ². 937Google Scholar and 938, known only from Pittakys's transcriptions, are said by him to have been like IG i ². 933.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 5} These were in different hands on IG i ². 943Google Scholar and SEG xix. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 6} Cf. SEG xix. 118Google Scholar and IG i ². 928Google Scholar; SEG xix. 134Google Scholar and IG i ². 958, 965, 966Google Scholar; SEG xix. 136Google Scholar and IG i ². 960, 963, 968.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 7} See Appendix I.

^{page 146 note 1} See Hesp. xxxvi (1967), 321–8.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} For this date see ATL iii. 174–5.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} Compare Thuc. 1. 63 with the epigrams.

^{page 146 note 4} See Appendix II.

^{page 146 note 5} See Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 43–55.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 6} Jahresh. Oest. Arch. Inst, i (1898), Beiblatt, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 7} e.g. IG i².944+ probably belongs to 431, although this depends upon Wilhelm's restoration of Alope in line 3; cf. Raubitschek, , Hesp. xii (1943), 25–7Google Scholar. IG i ². 933Google Scholar is a large monument of several stelai and should be the result of one of the two major disasters of the 50s, Tanagra or Egypt.

^{page 146 note 8} See Appendix III.

^{page 146 note 9} Cf. Hesp. xxxvi (1967), 321–8; xxxiii (1964), 21–9; 43–7.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} It occurs, e.g., on IG i ². 928, 929, 933 940, 949, 965.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Names with Ionic letters were added or IG i ². 949, 952, 960Google Scholar, and SEG xix. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} IG i ². 929. 62Google Scholar; 943. 4. In SEG xxi. 123. 2Google Scholar there is a name in large letters covering two columns; it must represent an important official, probably a general.

^{page 147 note 4} IG i ². 950. 180.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 5} SEG xxi. 131. 11–16.Google Scholar For an interpretation of this title, see Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 6} SEG xix. 42b, Col. III. 1; SEG xxi. 13117–20.Google Scholar On SEG x. 424Google Scholar, Stele VII. 4, 6, 8 are some endings representing either taxiarchs or trierarchs.

^{page 147 note 7} SEG xix. 42b, Col. III. 2.

^{page 147 note 8} SEG xix. 42b, Col. II. 35.

^{page 147 note 9} IG i ². 953. 3Google Scholar; 950. 3, 42; 951. 8 and 34: SEG xix. 42b, Col. II. 33, Col. III. 30; xxi 131. 22, 24, 2S, 28. The title nauarch, sometimes cited (Smith, , op. cit. 358Google Scholar) from IG i ². 953Google Scholar, does not seem to have existed there but is rather a result of dittography in Pittakys's copy; cf. Hiller ad loc.

^{page 147 note 10} IG i ². 950. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 11} IG i ². 929. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 12} In SEG xix. 42A, Col. II. 34, Mastro-kostas plausibly restored ; this cannot be absolutely certain, as titles of other petty officers would fit.

^{page 147 note 13} In IG i ². 929. 49Google Scholar and 952. 36, this apparently is a name, not a title. But in IG i ². 950Google Scholar, at the top of Col. II, two lines seem to have been deliberately erased; the first began with and may therefore represent a title.

^{page 147 note 14} IG i ². 928. 54, 965. 8Google Scholar; SEG xxi. 123. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. Hiller, ad loc.; Wilamowitz, , Aui Kydathen. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} For the monument of 409, see Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 43–7;Google Scholar, one of the surviving stelai of SEG xix. 42Google Scholar contains two columns headed Antiochidos, yet has anathyrosis which indicates that the monument contained more casualties.

^{page 148 note 3} The fact that the tribal name is cut in much larger letters above the geographical heading has led some to doubt that this was part of a large monument often stelai. Pope, , Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions (New York, 1935) 77,Google Scholar suggested it was a special monument put up by the tribe Erechtheis. But it is hard to imagine why, at a time when public monuments were erected, the names should have been inscribed a second time. IG i ²928Google Scholar, four years earlier, was composed of ten individual stelai (cf. Hesp. xxxvi [1967], 321–7Google Scholar) and it seems most likely that 929 was also. The geographical rubric may have been repeated on the other stelai, but probably it was not felt necessary. The tribal name obviously was considered more important; contemporary Athenians were apparently not so impressed as we are by the wide range of military activity reflected in the geographical heading.

^{page 148 note 4} IG i ². 953Google Scholar, known only from Pittakys's copy, which seems defective, appears to have a more general heading in line 1. Line 2 seems to be a case of dittography, as are 3 and 4, but it may have contained a geographical rubric; cf. SEG x. 418.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 5} Hesp. xxxvi (1967), 327–8.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 6} See Appendix II.

^{page 149 note 1} IG i². 944+SEG x. 415 + SEG xii. 72 + SEG xxi. 124.Google Scholar The excellence and size of the lettering as well as Wilhelm's emendation of Alope led Raubitschek to the attractive suggestion that the date is 431. We do know that the monument was of more than one stele, had geographical rubrics, and listed some non-Athenians.

^{page 149 note 2} On IG i ². 933Google Scholar was added in a second hand beside the name Delodotos in line 13; it seems to have been a case of a foreigner having been erroneously listed with Athenians.

^{page 149 note 3} IG i2. 931/2 + SEG x. 407 +xii. 69; SEG x. 416Google Scholar; SEG xix. 40Google Scholar.

^{page 149 note 4} IG i ². 936Google Scholar, known from Pittakys, may be of the same type. Under the otherwise unknown heading are listed names, some of which appear to be non-Athenian. They are in early Attic letters except for the use of xi three times.

^{page 149 note 5} For the much-disputed question of the status of Lemnians, see, in the latest instance, Brunt, P. A., ‘Athenian Settlements Abroad in the Fifth Century, B.C.’, Ancient Society and Institutions, especially pp. 80–1 and n. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} Eleutherai is probably also mentioned on a sherd that depicts the public funeral stelai; cf.Walters, , Sitzb. München, 1913, Abh. 5Google Scholar, and Bradeen, , Hesp. xxxvi (1967), 324–5.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 7} Ag. I. 7009; see Hesp. xxxvi (1967), 326.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 8} Pausanias 1. 29. 7, mentions slaves' names inscribed on a stele, but the occasion is not clear. Slaves are listed in the crews of the triremes on IG ii ². 195¹,Google Scholar but this is not a regular casualty list.

^{page 149 note 9} IG i ². 950. 136–7Google Scholar (cf. Hesp. xxi [1952], 340. 1Google Scholar); SEG xii. 72. 2–3Google Scholar; xii. 73. 9–10; xxi. 135. 35.

^{page 149 note 10} Thuc. 2. 13. 8; Lysias 15. 6.

^{page 149 note 11} Cf. Pope, op. cit. 77, for a survey of opinion.

^{page 149 note 12} Line 68; cf. Wilamowitz, , op. cit. 85.Google Scholar The names were not included in PA.

^{page 150 note 1} Most pertinent is IG i ². 928Google Scholar, only four years earlier; later examples are IG i ². 944949, 950.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} At present, line 76 shows clearly only the letters EN with very faint traces that might be ΛPA. Earlier editors, however seem to have had little doubt about these letters; granted that they were correctly read, Osann's restoration seems almost obligatory.

^{page 150 note 3} Cf. Pope, , op. cit. 79. 42Google Scholar, for a summary of opinion.

^{page 150 note 4} Cf. Parke, , Greek Mercenary Soldier (Oxford, 1933), 16.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 5} These were Athenians at the war's out-break (Thuc. 2. 13. 6) but foreigners were serving by 411 (Thuc. 8. 92. 2 and Lysias 13. 71); cf. Busolt-Swoboda 1195.

^{page 150 note 6} Thuc. 4. 129. 2.

^{page 150 note 7} Op. cit. 358–9.

^{page 150 note 8} Cf. Clerc, , Les Metèques Athéniens (Paris. 1893). 295–7.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 9} IG i ²84. 25Google Scholar; 188.535329. 14.

^{page 150 note 10} Pace Clerc, , op. cit. 44.Google Scholar On IG ii ². 1951. 46Google Scholar, no, 188, 341, the term nautai astoi is followed by citizens only, while both metics and foreigners are combined under the title xenoi.

^{page 150 note 11} SEG xviii. 153. 7, 13, 30Google Scholar. I accept this as genuine, but that is not essential to the argument here. A fourth-century forger could be expected to use official terminology.

^{page 150 note 12} IG ii ². 1951Google Scholar; in line 229 it is followed by foreigners, designated by ethnic; in line 451 by metics designated by deme and by at least one foreigner. This information is based on a new study of this list by Laing, Donald R., A New Interpretation of the Athenian Naval Catalogue, IG II ². 1951 (unpublished diss., Cincinnati, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 13} These are respectively the views of Clerc, , op. cit. 45–6Google Scholar, and Wilamowitz, , Hermes xxii (1887), 216–17.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} Thuc. 2. 31; 4. 90. I agree with Mattingly, , op. cit. 192Google Scholar, that this was unusual and caused by the absence of Athenian hoplites; cf. Clerc, , op. cit. 48Google Scholar. But the number of 1,600 metics, which fits so well his calculations, is clearly uncertain; many more Athenian hoplites must have been serving as epibatai.

^{page 151 note 2} Thuc. 3. 16. 1; Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 24.

^{page 151 note 3} Op. cit. 191–2.

^{page 151 note 4} Cf. Jameson, , Historia xii (1963), 400–1.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 5} This does not, of course, preclude special monuments. Pausanias 1. 29 mentions two to cavalry, two to generals, and four to allies. None of these, however, was in the demosion sema proper; see Appendix I. Those to Athenians were probably cenotaphs, on which were repeated names also listed on the casualty lists

^{page 152 note 1} If this simple fact had been kept in mind, rather than theories about the chronology of the pentekontaetia, there would not have been the debate over whether on IG i ². 929Google Scholar meant war-years or civil-years.

^{page 152 note 2} See above, pp. 146–8.

^{page 152 note 3} Op. cit. 191.

^{page 152 note 4} IG i². 945 + SEG x. 414.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 5} Thuc. 1. 57–65.

^{page 152 note 6} See above, pp. 146–7.

^{page 152 note 7} Cf. Meiggs, , HSCP lxvii (1963), 17–18Google Scholar, who plausibly dates this monument to 447 and suggests that some of the ‘other wars’ were in the Chalkidike.

^{page 152 note 8} Thuc. 4. 53–6; 66–74; 89; 101. 3–4.

^{page 153 note 1} Cf. Raubitschek, , Hesp. xii (1943), 48. 102Google Scholar; Mastrokostas , 1955, 187; Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 315Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, , Aus Kydathen. 84–5.Google ScholarGomme, , Comm. i. 311Google Scholar, takes the opposite view.

^{page 153 note 2} Op. cit. 191.

^{page 153 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 153 note 4} I confess that I do not understand the reason for Mattingly having stipulated, as noted above, the limitation ‘at least until the Peace of Nikias’. Perhaps he was thinking of lists like IG i ². 950Google Scholar; but I can see no reason for a change around 421.

^{page 153 note 5} Cf. IG ii ². 1951Google Scholar and SEG xviii. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 6} Thuc. 1. 106. 2; 2. 31.

^{page 153 note 7} See Jameson, , op. cit. 399–400.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 21–9.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} This would be true even if rowers were not included; each ship had at least 15 Athenians: a trierarch, 10 epibatai, and 4 archers. For the casualties in Egypt, see Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 24–5Google Scholar; Sicily, below, Appendix III; Aigospotamoi, Hesp. xxxiii (1964), 52.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Hist. xii (1963), 261–2;Google ScholarC.Q. N.s. xvi (1966), 176–7.Google Scholar This argument is made suspect, however, by the archaeological evidence, which indicates that the Amphiareion at Oropos was not important until the end of the fifth century; see the latest survey by B. Petrakos, 1967, 1–13.