¹ See Studies in Fifth Century Attic Epigraphy (1973), p.12 with n.10.Google Scholar We cannot then read .

² Op. cit., pp.20–2Google Scholar; see Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire (1972), pp.531 and 537Google Scholar; Mattingly, , CQ N.S. 16 (1966), 179–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar and BSA 65 (1970), 133–42.Google Scholar

³ Compare ATL ii List 26.coI.ii.34–49 with 21.col.vi.5–37; 22.col.ii.76–100; 23.col.ii.68–82.

⁴ ATL ii List 25.col.iii.54–65. It is also worth watching the positioning of this Hellespontine appendix in the lists. In List 25 it is at the right-hand bottom corner of the front face of the stele, in 26 it is on the left lateral face, and in 27 actually at the top of the reverse face. Only in List 25 is it in immediate contact with the main Hellespontine panel.

⁵ I made my main point already in CQ N.S. 16 (1966), 180Google Scholar. Meiggs ignored it in his rebuttal (op. cit., pp.574–7). Instead he dealt with my claim that the rubric headings in List 26 were much closer to the pre-war headings than those in List 25. I am less sure of this now, despite Meiggs's qualified approval. Bradeen and McGregor have shown that can be read with fair certainty in col.ii.43 f. See their p.13 and text. I do not know how to restore this, but- like Meiggs-remain extremely sceptical about the ATL version which Bradeen and McGregor retained . For typographical changes see their p.13.Google Scholar

⁶ They could read no more letters than in ATL ii, but tacitly confirmed that crucial sigma against the blank in IG i² 216. See their p. 17 and text.

⁷ See ATL i, Register pp.440 f. (note in A9 of 425 B.C.), 242 f., and 382. Apart from A 9, the latest example comes in List 4.Google Scholar

⁸ The ATL editors read , since they place the only alternative (see i.191 and 533)

⁹ See ATL i.452 f.: Bradeen, and McGregor, , op. cit., p.22 (ATL view).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Note the entries in col.i.45 f. and the odd quotas in col.ii.26 f.

¹¹ Meiggs, (op. cit., pp.532 f. and 536) argued that 428/7 B.C. was a probable, but not certain date for List 27. I would now agree with him. For Notion in 425 B.C. see A 9 col.ii.107 (H vacat ).Google Scholar

¹² See col.ii.25 and Meritt, , Hesperia 13 (1944), 211–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no.2 (= ATL ii D21).For the archons and their upkeep (lines 6–8) see in particular pp.218 f. The ATL editors' view of epiphora prevented them from seeing that Therambe's supplement could-indeed should-be explained by this clause of the Aphytis decree. They treated both it and Aige's parallel anomaly (col.ii.26) in List 25 as fines for late payment. For a wider view of epiphora (simply ‘additional payment’; it may be voluntary) see Eddy, S., AJPh 94 (1973), 62–4.Google Scholar

¹³ Lines 7 f.:

¹⁴ Or Meritt's rÓ involves an odd spelling (for ), but it is not unparalleled. I had earlier thought of here (BSA 65 (1970), 135 n.33).Google Scholar

¹⁵ What survives runs .A force of 800 men would suit the general context, which concerns defence matters.

¹⁶ Meritt's restoration–as in ATL ii–was– . Purely exempli gratia–to show the structure of the sentence, as I see it–I would hazard the supplement

¹⁷ As Meritt argued in Hesperia 13 (1944), 216Google Scholar. I challenged this in CQ N.S. 11 (1961), 161 with n.5Google Scholar and, despite his brief attempt at refutation in GRBS 8 (1967), 51 f., I think that my point has not yet been answered.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In the Methone clause we find the import defined as an annual quota from Byzantion, free of duty and subject only to prior notification of the Hellenophylakes. For the text see IG i².57 (ATL ii D 4).34–41.

¹⁹ The Hellenotamias in List 25 (prescript, line 3) is presumably the chairman to whom money was paid in 426/5 B.C. See IG i².324 (Meiggs and Lewis no. 72), 2 f.,

²⁰ See Thuc.2.9.4 and ATL ii A 9, col.i.65 and 68; List ‘33’ (Meiggs and Lewis -henceforth ML- no. 75), col.i.10.

²¹ See col.iii.23 and the improved text of IG i².65+ in ATL ii D 8.21–5. U. Köhler was the first to read ; see IG i.257 (pp.137 f.).Google Scholar

²² Essentially 1 follow ML no. 68, where Meritt's tentative textual suggestions are reported on p.186. For his comment see AJPh 88 (1967), 30.Google Scholar

²³ See ML p.187. Meritt thought that a separate decree was needed for Samos and Thera and restored accordingly.Google Scholar

²⁴ See D 8.5–7 (a plausible restoration, retained in.ML). In line 22 Meritt supplied , which would strengthen my point if accepted. Meiggs and Lewis do not adopt it, but it is not clear how they would construe the phrase or whether any other meaning could be found here. Exemption from appointing collectors seems to be the point.

²⁵ Op.cit., pp.3 and 14.Google Scholar

²⁶ Op.cit., pp.8 f. They fairly agree that the condition of the surface of the stone has not changed significantly since the first editors' days.Google Scholar

²⁷ Op.cit., pp.9 and 12 f. (they print ).Google Scholar

²⁸ Op.cit., p. 15. This description, which might suggest that chisel cuts survived, should be compared with one that follows– ‘The top of the omicron…survives in colour; the bottom and right side are cutting; on the left a series of punches joins colour and cutting.’Google Scholar

²⁹ Op.cit., pp.18 f.Google Scholar See especially Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques i, no. 224.Google Scholar

³⁰ Op.cit., p.14Google Scholar. See especially Rangabé, , Antiquités helléniques i, no. 223.Google Scholar

³¹ Op.cit., p.19Google Scholar. Pittakys (1853, no. 1252) also read in line 24!

³² ATL ii A 9, col.i.9.

³³ See on this Bradeen, and McGregor, , op.cit., p.14. They wanted to restore Hephaisteia in col.iii.26 opposite the appropriate quota HHH.Google Scholar

³⁴ See ATL i.280 f. (Register) for the evidence.Google Scholar

³⁵ Michael Osborne kindly helped me examine this part of the stone in the Epigraphic Museum in August 1976 and would, I think, agree with this judgement of mine at least. I am also most grateful to the CQ reader for some pertinent criticism. I have tried to take proper account of his points and the article has gained somewhat in presentation.