7. The Table of Delian League Allies

[ back ] 1. Aigina was not an initial league member; entering after subjugation in 457–456 (with surrender of ships): Thucydides 1.108.4; Diodorus Siculus 11.78.4, with Figueira 1991:84–88, 112–113; 1993:110, 270–271. See ATL 3.193,197, 240; AE 51–52; IACP 621 (Figueira).

[ back ] 2. Anaphe is a late tributary (IG I³ 283.II.31 [428/7]; cf. 71.I.85–86; Thucydides 3.19.2); it is a likely dependency of Thera. See Wallace and Figueira 2010:67; cf. ATL 3.198, 239; IACP 735.

[ back ] 3. With phoros 10T+ (reaching 12T: IG I³ 261.I.16 [452/1]), Andros left off coining a bit before 480, so quite early and may be in transition to tributary status in the first assessment period. See Wallace/Figueira 2010:68–69; cf. ATL 3.198–199; IACP 736–737.

[ back ] 4. Belbina is a late tributary (IG I³ 71.1.88 [425/4]); it is a likely dependency of Aigina. See ATL 3.198; IACP 623 (Figueira).

[ back ] 5. Διῆς ἀπὸ Κηναίου (associated with Cape Kenaion) and the Athenai Diades (also from northwestern Euboia) formed a state with Hestiaia (IG XII.9 188.18–19; Strabo 10.1.5; cf. Homer Iliad 2.538). See ATL 3.198; cf. IACP 647.

[ back ] 6. Diakres, a dependency severed from Khalkis (IG I³ 278.VI.25–26 [434/3]; also 71.I.83–84 [425/4]: Διακρε̂ς ἀπ[ὸ] Χαλκιδέον; cf. Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Διακρία). See ATL 3.198; IACP 650.

[ back ] 7. Diakrioi were probably severed from Khalkis (IG I³ 285.II.101 [421/0]; also 71.I.83–84 [425/4]: Διά[κρ]ιοι ἐν Ε[ὐβ]οία[ι]). See ATL 3.198; IACP 650.

[ back ] 8. See under Khalkis (n. 16) below. See ATL 3.197–198; IACP 652–653.

[ back ] 9. Probably a dependency of Eretria, paid phoros 451/50 (IG I³ 262.I.24 [451/50]; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ῥυγχαι; e.g. IG XII.9 pp. 163–164). See ATL 1.199; IACP 655–656.

[ back ] 10. See n. 16 below. Note IG I³ 263.IV.34 [450/49]. See ATL 3.197, 199, 239; IACP 656.

[ back ] 11. Its small size and lack of resources render it a possible early tributary (IG I³ 265.II.112 [447/6]; 71.I.98 [425/4]. ATL thought Imbros part of the Thracian Khersonesitai. For the Athenian presence on Imbros, see Figueira 1991:36–38, 253–255. It could also be that the Imbrians were considered non-tributary Athenians in the early league. Cf. ATL 3.199, 206; IACP 742.

[ back ] 12. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely initial tributary (cf. IG I³ 259.VI.14 [454/3]). See ATL 3.198; IACP 743.

[ back ] 13. Karystos was the first state compelled to join the league (Thucydides 1.98.3; Herodotus 9.105). See Wallace and Figueira 2019:82–84; cf. ATL 3.198, 240; IACP 658.

[ back ] 14. See n. 16 below. See Wallace and Figueira 2019:82–84; cf. ATL 3.197–198; IACP 648.

[ back ] 15. Keria, very near to Naxos, but appearing in 425 as linked with Anaphe (IG I³ 71.I.85–86 [425/4]), was a likely dependency of a larger neighbor. See ATL 3.198; IACP 751.

[ back ] 16. A group of likely tributaries, as smaller states, are absent from the first assessment period. Against the theory in which they were in transition from ship-contribution (ATL 3.238. 294), I see them as tributaries supplying paid rowers in lieu of money. Khalkis performed this role during Xerxes’s invasion (Herodotus 8.1.2; 8.46.20; 9.28.5). By virtue of their relatively high later phoros payments, Khalkis (5T) and Eretria (6T) are the most likely of these to have been ship contributors (although I am doubtful). See Figueira 1991:256–260; cf. ATL 3.197, 199, 239; IACP 648.

[ back ] 17. Kimolos is a late tributary (IG I³ 71.I.89 [425/4]); it is a likely dependency of Melos (cf. IG XII.3 1259 = Rhodes-Osborne #82). See ATL 3.24, 198, IACP 751–752.

[ back ] 18. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely tributary, either directly or as part of a Kean confederacy (IG I³ 262.I.21 [451/50]). See ATL 3.24, 198; IACP 750.

[ back ] 19. Kythera, with its perioecic towns, was captured by the Athenians in 424 and made tributary (Thucydides 4.57.4). See ATL 3.198; IACP 584.

[ back ] 20. See n. 16 above. Note Wallace and Figueira 2010:66–67. See ATL 3.197, 239, 244; IACP 755–756.

[ back ] 21. Lemnos as an early tributary is not entirely certain. It had been settled by the Athenians ca. 500 (Herodotus 6.41.2, 136.2, 140; Diodorus Siculus 10.19.6; Nepos Miltiades 1.5, 2.4–5), settlers’ status perhaps reconsidered in 440s. Thereafter some Lemnians were tributary; once jointly (IG I³ 261.I.3 [452/1]), later under Myrina and Hephaistia, while others served in Attic forces as an elite corps. Hence, since intermingled with Attic colonists, all the Lemnians may have served in person during the early years of the league before the whole island was tributary for a time. Cf. ATL 23, 57, 199, 289–290; IACP 756–758.

[ back ] 22. Melos, as a Dorian state, stood aloof (Thucydides 2.9.4), but was assessed (15T) in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.I.65 [435/4]), and conquered in 416/5 (Thucydides 5.116.2–4; cf. Plutarch Alcibiades 16.5–6; [Andocides] 4.22). See ATL 3.193, 197–198; IACP 759.

[ back ] 23. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely tributary (IG I³ 261.II.73 [452/1]). See ATL 3.188–199, IACP 760.

[ back ] 24. Naxos possessed a military sufficient for a defection from the alliance and was the first ally subjugated by Athens (Thucydides 1.98.4; Aristophanes Wasps 354–355; cf. Thucydides 1.137.2; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F 10.3; Plutarch Themistocles 25.2 and Nepos Themistocles 8.6). Its earlier prominence is attested (Herodotus 5.28, 30.6–31.1). Keria and Sikinos may have been its dependencies, along with other insular poleis. Note ATL 3.197, 230–240; IACP 761.

[ back ] 25. See Wallace and Figueira 2010:68–69; Figueira 1998:482, 582; cf. ATL 3.26, 239.

[ back ] 26. Pholegandros is a late tributary (IG I³ 71.I.87 [425/4); it is a likely dependency of Thera. See ATL 3.198.

[ back ] 27. For Posideion as a possible former dependency of Hestiaia, see ATL 3.541–542 on Strabo 9.2.13; 10.1.7; IG XII.9 1189.20, 28, 29. As a dependency of Karystos, see Wallace and Figueira 2019:82–83; cf. IACP 660. Note IG I³ 71.92–93 [425/4].

[ back ] 28. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely tributary (IG I³ 262.I.22 [451/50]). See ATL 3.198.

[ back ] 29. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely tributary (IG I³ 262.I.20 [451/50). See ATL 3.197–198.

[ back ] 30. Sikinos is a late tributary (IG I³ 71.I.90 [425/4]); it is a likely dependency of Thera (cf. IACP 772). Note ATL 3.198.

[ back ] 31. See n. 16 above. See ATL 3.197, 239; Wallace and Figueira 2010:66–67.

[ back ] 32. Also see n. 16 above. See Wallace and Figueira 2011:243–244. Cf. ATL 3.197, 239.

[ back ] 33. Its small size and lack of resources render it a likely tributary (IG I³ 261.IV.31 [450/49]). See ATL 3.198–199.

[ back ] 34. See n. 16 above. IG I³ 263.IV.19 [450/49]. See Wallace and Figueira 2019:87; IACP 660. Cf. ATL 3.197, 199, 237.

[ back ] 35. Thera was a non-ally (Thucydides 2.9.4), but joined with Athens in the early Archidamian War (cf. IG I³ 68.22 [426/5]). It was eventually assessed in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.I.68 [425/4]).

[ back ] 36. See under Mytilene (n. 63) below. See IACP 1022.

[ back ] 37. Assos (later classed as Hellespontine) and Gargara (n. 47) lay to the west of Adramyttion along the north shore of the gulf amid the mainland holdings of Mytilene. Recruitment may well have operated, especially vis-à-vis Mytilenean ambitions, delaying entry (but note IG I³ 259.IV,9 [454/3]). Aiolian Assos turned out perhaps to be just strong enough to avoid the embrace of the Mytileneans (note FGrH 118 F 96). In the absence of evidence, we, nevertheless, class Assos and Gargara (a colony of Assos: Strabo 13.1.58) among the first allies, but only very hesitantly. See ATL 3.204. Note IACP 1005, 1007.

[ back ] 38. Among the northernmost of the states included in the Ionian District was Astyra, a community eventually called Ἀστυρενοὶ Μυσοί, a denomination suggesting hellenization (IG I³ 259.III.6 [454/3]). Astyra lay on the Gulf of Adramyttion ([Scylax] 98; Strabo 13.1.51; 13.1.65). Adramyttion was never tributary, becoming under Persian sponsorship a haven for the Delians expelled by Athens (Thucydides 5.1; Diodorus Siculus 12.73.1). That alone would incline us toward removing Astyra from early alliance. It stood on the northern coast of the gulf (below Mt. Ida?), activating our criterion A (note Xenophon Historia Graeca 4.1.41). It was in Ionia possibly as an early cession from Mytilene. See ATL 3.204; IACP 1005. See also Assos (n. 37).

[ back ] 39. See under Erythrai (n. 46). See ATL 3.204; IACP 1064.

[ back ] 40. Along with the Samians and Lesbians, the Chians were autonomous ship-contributing, with Chios autonomous for the entire life of the phoros-system (Thucydides 3.10.5; cf. Athenaion Politeia 24.2). The Chians and Samians had actively checked Spartan navarch Pausanias. See below also Mytilene (n. 63) and Samos (n. 74). See ATL 3.204, 249–250; IACP 1066.

[ back ] 41. The Dioseritai were located between Lebedos and Kolophon (Stephanus. Byzantius s.v. Διὸς ἱερόν) on the coast (Thucydides 8.19.2). This community grew up around a sanctuary to Zeus, later achieving separate status. They are mentioned in the “Kolophon Decree” (IG I³ 37) in lines 26–27 (n.b., Lebedos is also restored there). Meiggs-Lewis suggests that arrears of phoros were being forgiven. A Kolophonian, Apollophanes, honored in an Attic decree, kept Dios Hieron under Attic hegemony during the troubles affecting Notion in the early 420s (IG I³ 65.11–14; cf. 37.27). It is quite conceivable that Kolophon, Notion, and the Dioseritai comprised a single state in the early fifth century. See IACP 1070. Cf. ATL 3.204.

[ back ] 42. Elaia lay along the northern shore of the Elaitic Gulf (Strabo 13.1.67). It along with neighbor Pitane can be marked as initial members, although such classification is questionable, since it may well be that all allies on the gulf (i.e. Kyme, Myrina, Gryneion) were later adherents. See ATL 2.200–204; IACP 1040–1041.

[ back ] 43. Some have put (improbably) Elaiousa outside the Erythraian peninsula (Strabo 13.1.67; Pliny Natural History 5.138), near the Harmatos promontory far to the north. However, the name is so generic that a site on the peninsula near Erythrai is probably preferable (n. 46). See IACP 1070; cf. ATL 3.204.

[ back ] 44. Themistokles fled eastward ca. 472–468 to make Asian landfall at Ephesos, after intimidating a ship captain (Thucydides 1.137.2–3; cf. Nepos Themistocles 8.7). That choice must imply that Ephesos lay outside the league, as an allied city would almost certainly have surrendered him forthwith. He then used a Persian intermediary from τῶν κάτω Περσῶν ‘the Persians [living] below’ (Thucydides 1.137.3). The availability of a suitable intermediary suggests prominent Persians still held estates in the vicinity of Ephesos. Themistokles asked a year’s leave before coming to Artaxerxes: a reasonable implication is that Thucydides thought this stay was also in Ephesos. Cf. ATL 3.199–204; IACP 1071. See also nn. 50, 54 below. Cf. ATL 199–204; IACP 1071.

[ back ] 45. See under Mytilene (n. 63). See IACP 1023.

[ back ] 46. Erythrai was probably ship contributing in 478/7. Erythrai paid phoros as high as 9T and 10T, 1,100 drachmas Erythrai was also a fairly late minter, terminating coining ca. 450 (Figueira 1998:583). Boutheia, Elaiousa, Polikhna, Pteleon, and Sidousa are called “Erythraioi” on quota-lists (e.g. IG I³ 263.II.13–17 [450/49]). All presumably belonged to a unitary Erythraian state at the outset of the alliance. During the turmoil reflected in the “Erythrai Decree” (IG I³ 14), an apotaxis occurred and a syntely of peninsular Erythraians was established. In a second stage of devolution that syntely was itself sundered ca. 443/2 (IG I³ 269.I.21–25). See Jensen 2012. Cf. ATL 202, 204; IACP 1074.

[ back ] 47. See Assos above (n. 37). Note IACP 1007. Cf. ATL 3.204.

[ back ] 48. Gongylos of Eretria was a lieutenant of Pausanias in control of Byzantion who undertook confidential dealings with Xerxes on his behalf, later deemed treasonous (Thucydides 1.128.6–7; Diodorus Siculus 11.44.3; Nepos Pausanias 2.2–3). Gongylos was forced into exile in Pausanias’ downfall and received a grant of territory in Aiolis. Spartan Thibron later received accession of his descendants in 399 (Xenophon Historia Graeca 3.1.6; cf. Anabasis 7.8.6). Just as for Themistokles, the Persians impeded the Delian League advance by placing prominent Greek defectors in its path. Two of Gongylos’ towns, Gambrion and Palaiogambrion were not members of the league. The others were tributary Gryneion and Myrina. It is perverse, however, to argue as ATL, that these were merely nominal grants. Gambrion and Palaiogambrion do not amount to much of a gift in themselves. In contrast, Gryneion was later thought to offer revenue of 50T by itself (Nepos Alcibiades 9.3). Gryneion and Myrina both lay on the Elaitic Gulf and thus lay considerably toward the east of the open waters of the Aegean (Strabo 13.3.5). If Kyme may be considered doubtful, they are more so (n. 54). Cf. ATL 3.200–204; IACP 1042.

[ back ] 49. Poorly attested Hairai or Airai paid 3T in the first assessment period (IG I³ 259.III.25 [454/3]), falling to 1T (266.I.12 [446/5]). Lying on the neck of the Erythraian peninsula, it is a likely initial member and tributary. It may have been a dependency of Teos or Klazomenai. Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1063.

[ back ] 50. We have determined that Ephesos was a non-ally. It lay at the mouth of the Kaystros River on a gulf deeply indenting the coastline. Its neighbors to the southwest were the smaller communities of Isinda, Pygela, and Marathesion. Further inland, Magnesia was never a tributary ally. All the aforesaid three may be excluded from the alliance at the initial assessment on our principle of recruitment for smaller allies who were anchored to larger allies (ATL saw Isinda as paying under Ephesos in Assessment Periods I and II). Over high terrain inland lay Magnesia on a tributary of the Maiandros in an area where Persian control may have approached close to the sea. Cf ATL 2.80; 3.22, 204; IACP 1076.

[ back ] 51. Karene was noted by Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Καρήνη), a fact explained by ATL by its discovery by Craterus in the assessment of 454/3. He may just as easily have seen it on a lost portion of IG I³ 71 of 425. It lay near Atarneus, which belonged to the mainland possessions of Chios (Herodotus 7.42.1; cf. Herodotus 6.29.1 [emended]; Livy 27.21.4–5; Pliny Natural History 5.122). With its likely location inland (in the foothills of Pindasos), Karene is probably to be excluded from the original alliance under criterion A or as a tributary of Chios or a Lesbian city, if indeed it was ever an ally of Athens. Cf. ATL 199, 204, 241; IACP 1043.

[ back ] 52. Klazomenai, in central coastal Ionia, on the neck of the Erythraian peninsula (actually or almost insular: Thucydides 8.14.3, 31.3), was a likely early member. Its 1.5T assessment renders it a tributary (IG I³ 259.IV.21 [454/3]). I would not countenance ship contribution as ATL. Cf. ATL 3.204, 242; IACP 1076–1077.

[ back ] 53. Kolophon lies about eight miles inland. The valley of the Kaystros made it accessible from the core of Lydia. There was an Attic intervention at Kolophon ca. 450, where provisions of a reorganization are eventually the subject of IG I³ 37 of 447/6. Notion is a separate tributary, but Thucydides describes it as Νότιον τὸ Κωλοφωνίων ‘Notion of the Kolophonians’ (3.34.1). Occasioning his remark was another bout of unrest where the Persians had exploited stasis to seize Kolophon itself. The stasis spread to Notion, where Persian intervention stimulated an Attic response saving the city (3.34.2–3). ATL thought Kolophon was suspect as an early ally. With ATL, I class both cities among the original allies, but with no great assurance. Its phoros level is 1.5–3T (IG I³ 259.III.21 [454/3]), but it may not even be ruled out that Kolophon with its neighbors also attempted to serve in person in the early years of the alliance. See ATL 3.203–204, 241; cf. IACP 1078.

[ back ] 54. According to Plutarch (Themistocles 26.1), when Themistokles reached Asia at Kyme, he learned that he was hunted in coastal Ionia (πολλούς … τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ) and escaped to Aigai, an Aiolian polisma. This sequence confirms that most of Ionia was already liberated. Was there danger for him at Kyme as a league member? Aigai was never included on the quota-lists. Phoros: 12T: IG I³ 261.V.2 (452/1), See ATL 3.200–203; IACP 1044.

[ back ] 55. Larisai is classed as an Attic tributary by virtue of its appearance in IG I³ 71.I.152 [425/4], and placed by ATL inland of Kyme on the basis of Aelius Aristides (27, 3.534D; Strabo 9.5.19); on a tributary of the Hermos and at the foot of Aspordenos (?). It was settled by Egyptians under Cyrus I (Xenophon Historia Graeca 3.1.7; cf. Cyropaedia 7.1.45), and became hellenized (cf. Herodotus 1.149.1). While ATL views it as a likely apotaxis from Kyme, it may also be removed from our original membership under criteria A and C. The alliance barely penetrated the Hermos valley. See ATL 3.199; IACP 1045.

[ back ] 56. Lebedos, with its assessment at 3T (IG I³ 262.II.32 [451/0]) falling to 1T (266.I.13 [446/5]), was likely an early tributary state, if its fate was not indeed bound up with that of Kolophon. See ATL 3.204; IACP 1080.

[ back ] 57. On the first inscribed quota-list (IG I³ 259.VI.29–30 [454/3]), the Milesioi ἐκς Λέρο ‘from Leros’ appeared; they soon rejoined the Milesian polity. They probably also belonged to a Milesian sub-hegemony in the early years of the alliance. See ATL 3.204; and especially IACP 758.

[ back ] 58. Maiandrioi who perhaps lived in the lower reaches of the homonymous river valley (cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μαιανδρούπολις). As ATL notes, their community was only fitfully under Attic hegemony. This consideration and criterion C argue for exclusion from the early alliance. This territory may well have been effectively granted by Artaxerxes to Themistokles, because a substantial stretch of territory must have been appended to Magnesia to provide him so great an income (see above on Isinda [n. 50]; Lampsakos below [n. 117]). See ATL 3.203–204, 269 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 59. See Isinda above (n. 50). Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1082.

[ back ] 60. Serving ally for the entire duration of the phoros-system. See ATL 3.204, 249–250; IACP 1024–1135. See also Mytilene below (n. 63).

[ back ] 61. Miletos played an important role in the defection of the Ionians: its men betrayed the Persians in the aftermath of Mykale (Herodotus 9.99.3; 9.100). The place of its tyranny in a list of tyrants expelled by the Spartans (Plutarch Moralia 859D) demonstrates that Miletos was liberated in the aftermath of Mykale during 479. It was almost certainly a non-tributary ally originally (however perhaps tributary: IG I³ 259.III.19 [454/3]). One notes its high early assessment of 10T (263.V.18 [450/49]), its copious coining, albeit of fractions, throughout the history of the arkhē (Figueira 1998:589). See ATL 3.199, 204; IACP 1085.

[ back ] 62. Myous was granted to Themistokles for opson ‘garnishing’. Perhaps Themistokles and the Persians occupied sections of the khōra of Myous. The influence of early ally Miletos makes it doubtful that he exercised control over Myous itself, but it must be marked as a questionable member of the original alliance (see AE 54). It was later absorbed, or perhaps reabsorbed, into the Milesian state so that its status in the 470s might have been tributary dependency. See above on Isinda (n. 50); Lampsakos below (n. 116). See ATL 3.199–204; IACP 1088–1089,

[ back ] 63. The Lesbioi are consistently described as a common serving military force, so on a par with the Chioi and Samioi. However, rather than as a unitary state, they cooperated as allies. Mytilene was the dominant partner, controlling a considerable sub-hegemony. After the suppression of its revolt, it was subjected to a cleruchy, not phoros, until accorded its autonomy again (IG I³ 66). Antissa, Eresos, and Pyrrha, unlike Methymna, had cooperated in the revolt, and shared the fate of Mytilene. See ATL 3.153–154, 204, 249–250; AE 52; IACP 1026–1027, See also above Chios (n. 40); Methymna (n. 60).

[ back ] 64. See above under Gryneion (n. 48), although a regular payer of phoros (IG I³ 260.VIII.11 [453/2]). Cf. ATL 3.200–204; IACP 1041.

[ back ] 65. The island Nisyros is in Carian waters ([Skylax] 99). Its odd placement in the Ionian district is a telltale hint of earlier membership as a dependency of one of the stronger neighboring poleis, perhaps Miletos, or Samos, rather than Kos. Cf. ATL 3.204, 242; IACP 73–74.

[ back ] 66. See under Kolophon (n. 53). See also ATL 3.204; IACP 1089–1090.

[ back ] 67. The Ikarian allies, the Oinaioi (IG I³ 259.IV.7 [454/3]; 71.I.175–176 [425/4]) and Thermaioi (IG I³ 259.III.9–10 [454/3]), were either tributary, owing to their small economies or belonged to the hegemony of a stronger allied state, probably Samos. See ATL 3.204; IACP 740–741.

[ back ] 68. Probably a tributary with its phoros at 3T in periods 1–2 (IG I³ 260.VIII.7–8, 9 [453/2]), then falling to 2T (269.I.14 [443/2]), although an active minter of electrum fractions (Figueira 1998:93–109). Cf. ATL 3.204, 242; IACP 1090.

[ back ] 69. See above under Elaia (n. 42). See ATL 3.200–204; IACP 1049.

[ back ] 70. Priene with its modest assessment fits the pattern for Ionian tributary members of the league, although the willingness and ability of Miletos and Samos to go to war over Priene gives us pause for reconsideration (Thucydides 1.115.2; Diodorus Siculus 12.27.1; Plutarch Pericles 25.1). Thus, despite Priene’s presence on early quota-lists, both Milesians and Samians may have claimed it. That would explain how their dispute over Priene could have reached hostilities before Attic intervention. Thus, the issue of Priene’s recruitment into the alliance becomes problematical. Hence, classification as an independent early tributary is uncertain: did it belong to Miletos, then separate in an apotaxis when Miletos became tributary, whereupon Samos decided to press its claim? See IACP 1092. Cf. ATL 3.204.

[ back ] 71. See under Akhilleion (n. 80). Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1093.

[ back ] 72. See Isinda above (n. 50). Pygela was later (again?) under isopoliteia with Miletos (IEphesus 3110). See ATL 3.26, 204; IACP 1094.

[ back ] 73. See under Mytilene (n. 63). See IACP 1030.

[ back ] 74. See under Chios above (n. 40). Even when Samos was subdued in 439 by Athens after revolt, it was not tributary, but merely compelled to indemnify Athens (Thucydides 1.117.3; cf. IG I³ 48). See ATL 3.240–241; IACP 1095.

[ back ] 75. See under Erythrai (n. 46). Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1099.

[ back ] 76. Teikhioussa is described as [Μι]λέσιοι [ἐκ Τ]ειχιόσσε[ς ‘Milesians from Teikhioussa’ on the list for 454/3 (IG I³ 259.VI.21–22) and would have been a part of the Milesian state in 478/7. Like Leros, Teikhioussa was reincorporated into the Milesian state in the second assessment period. See under Miletos above (n. 61). See ATL 3.204 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 77. In the absence of direct evidence, Teos with its 6T assessment (IG I³ 262.II.12 [451/0]) and mint (perhaps continuous: Figueira 1998:595) lies in the marginal, upper band of tributaries. The inscribed public imprecations are not suggestive of an independent foreign policy: Meiggs-Lewis #30 = Osborne-Rhodes #102. Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1101.

[ back ] 78. See under Oinaioi (n. 67). Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 741.

[ back ] 79. Probably an early tributary (IG I³ 259.II.29? [454/3]): Abydos was the Asian terminus of Xerxes’ pontoon bridge (Herodotus 7.33, 37.1, 44–45; cf. 8.117.1, 130.1), and the Abydenes were mobilized as guards (Herodotus 7.95.2). Abydos would have been an early priority for liberation. The Athenians may have occupied Abydos even before the attempt on Sestos in 479 (Herodotus 9.114.2). Cf. ATL 3.204, 206; IACP 1003.

[ back ] 80. Dependency of Mytilene, first attested as tributary in 425 with the other former dependencies of Mytilene (IG I³ 71.III.124–141 [425/4]), separated from Mytilene after its revolt (Thucydides 3.50.3). If it was not dependent on Mytilene as early as 478/7, it was not yet a league ally. See ATL 3.21; IACP 1003–1004.

[ back ] 81. Alopekonnesos was separated from the larger community of the Khersonesitai by the first assessment period for reasons unknown (IG I³ 261.III.29 [452/1]) and may be considered as an early tributary or tributary dependency. See ATL 3.206 (doubtful charter member); IACP 904.

[ back ] 82. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.21; IACP 1004.

[ back ] 83. Arisbe, between Perkote and Abydos, was perhaps near enough to the coast to qualify as an initial ally (Homer Iliad 835–839; Strabo 13.1.20; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἀρίσβη). No phoros payment is firmly attested until 443/2 (IG I³ 269.II.2; restored in 260.IV.16 [453/2]), meriting some doubt. See ATL 3.206; IACP 1004.

[ back ] 84. The Artaioteikhitai lived inland on the River Rhyndax (flowing into the Propontis east of Kyzikos): IG I³ 71.III.114–115: ἑπὶ τõι Ῥύνδακι), and make a late appearance on the lists in 428/7 (IG I³ 283.II.10). Their name implies a fortified center for a district inhabited primarily by non-Greeks, eventually partially hellenized (a polikhnion: Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἀρταία). See ATL 3.204; IACP 976.

[ back ] 85. Artake on the island or peninsula of Kyzikos was another probable original signatory (cf. Herodotus 6.33.2), if not then a part of Kyzikos. The judgment of early membership is valid for the offshore island state of Prokonnesos, but the Halonesioi who are found assessed in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.III.101 [425/4]) were earlier a part of Prokonnesos ([Skylax] 94). See ATL 3.206; IACP 977 (with Kyzikos?).

[ back ] 86. The presence of Pausanias and his agents in Byzantion (n. 93), notwithstanding the organization of the Delian League there, may indicate early accession of the neighboring cities, Astakos, Kalkhedon, and Kios. Yet recall their status as virtual islands in Persian-controlled Bithynia, with Astakos and Kios situated at the eastern termini of gulfs extending from the Propontis. The ATL opted for original membership. Any of these three could have refrained, intimidated by local Persian military power. Astakos is the most doubtful; later events (leading to Attic colonization in the 430s?), reveal it challenged by local pressures (Strabo 12.4.2 C563; Memnon FGrH 434 F 12; cf. Diodorus Siculus 12.34.5 [emended]). Cf. ATL 3.206, 241; IACP 977–978.

[ back ] 87. Well inland to the southeast of Abydos lay Astyra, a late entry on the lists (IG I³ 71.III.86 [425/4]). Its degree of hellenization may also be suspect (Strabo 13.1.23; Steph. Byzantius s.v. Ἄστυρα); ATL cites Xenophon Historia Graeca 4.8.35. Cf. ATL 3.204; IACP 1005.

[ back ] 88. The Azeoi were an ethnos, partially hellenized, living in the region of Dardanos and Abydos (Stephanus Byzantius Ἀζειῶται; Hesychius s.v. Ἀζειῶται; Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 48). Although phoros payers in the first assessment period (IG I³ 261.IV.28 [452/1]), they satisfy criteria A and D for exclusion. Cf. ATL 3.207; IACP 1006.

[ back ] 89. Berytis (or Birytis), which the list annotates as ὕπο τῃ Ἴδῃ ‘below Mt. Ida’ (cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Βέρυτισι; s.v. Βήριθρος). The Barrington Atlas (56) favors a placement northwest, on Kallikolone. See ATL 3.204–205; IACP 1006 (never called a polis).

[ back ] 90. This Thracian site stood at either Rodosto or Panados (Ptolemy Geography 3.11.4; Pliny Natural History 4.43). ATL excludes it, noting that the capture of the Corinthian Aristeus at Bisanthe in 430 indicates Odrysian control (Herodotus 7.137.3; Thucydides 2.67.1–4). It was later given to Alkibiades during the Ionian War and subsequently offered to Xenophon (Nepos Alcibiades 7.4; Plutarch Alcibiades 36.3; Xenophon Anabasis 7.5.8). Bisanthe had a short history in the alliance (IG I³ 71.III.120 [425/4]; 77.IV.10; 100.III.9), at Odrysian sufferance or when they were too weak to interfere. See ATL 3.204–205; IACP 914–915.

[ back ] 91. Opposite the mouth of the river Rhyndax, well offshore, was the island of Bysbikos or Besbikos, now Kalolimenos ([Skylax] 94; Strabo 12.8.11; Pliny Natural History 5.151). On IG I³ 278.VI.34 (434/3) it is listed among those whom idiōtai ‘private individuals’ enlisted as allies. Previously, it could have been a dependency of another allied state, probably Kyzikos, separated through apotaxis. Yet ATL may well be correct to exclude it from initial membership. See ATL 3.204–205; IACP 978.

[ back ] 92. Brylleion, appearing on IG I³ 279.II.18 [433/2] and IG I³ 71.III.111–112 of 425/4, was perhaps a dependency of Kios (appearing late through apotaxis) or merely near Kios, as the citation of Ephorus in Stephanus Byzantius is corrupt (s.v. Βρύλλιον; cf. Ephorus FGrH 70 F 45). It was either a dependency of Kios or not initially an ally. See ATL 3.204; IACP 989–990 (identifying with Myrleia).

[ back ] 93. Representatives of the Hellespontine Greeks would have been present at Byzantion when Spartan hegemony began to unravel. In 478, after Cyprus, Pausanias had besieged and liberated Byzantion where his arrogance alienated the east Greek allies (Thucydides 1.94.1–95.4; Diodorus Siculus 11.44.1–6; Nepos Pausanias 2.1–6; Plutarch Cimon 6.2–5). After the allied defection and Pausanias’ return homeward, Dorkis was sent there to take command, to no avail (Thucydides 1.95.5–7). Next Pausanias returned (Thucydides 1.128.3; Nepos Pausanias 2.6–3.3; cf. Aristodemus FGrH 104 F 6.2–3), presumably resuming control from Gongylos (Thucydides 1.128.6; Diodorus Siculus 11.44.3; with n. 48 above). Thereupon, the Athenians besieged Pausanias and drove him out forcibly (Thucydides 1.131.1; Plutarch Cimon 6.6; cf. Ephorus FGrH F 191, fr. 6; Diodorus Siculus 11.60.2). This second stay at Byzantion was long enough to establish the tradition of his manifest adoption of Persian mores (Nepos Pausanias 3.1–3; Plutarch Cimon 6.4–7). Ephorus seems to put it in the late 470s (Justin 9.1.3; Diodorus Siculus 11.60.2 [470/69]; cf. Ephorus FGrH 70 F 191, fr. 6). Therefore, Byzantion was not an initial ally, but was not the first city forced to ally (cf. Karystos in n. 13 above, at least a few years after the first assessment). Then Byzantion might well have first been a ship contributor, as suggested by its high assessment (whatever the date of its accession). Note the Byzantine casualties in IG I³ 1144.98 (ca. 464), suggesting personal service lasted into the 460s. Cf. ATL 3.199, 207, 242; AE 53; IACP 916.

[ back ] 94. Dardanos on the Hellespont was a probable tributary. The Persian Daurises subjugated the Hellespontine south shore (save Palaiperkote) during the Ionian Revolt, starting from Dardanos and ending at Parion (Herodotus 5.117). It is reasonable to conclude that the Greeks would have reversed this process during 479–478. See ATL 3.207; IACP 1007.

[ back ] 95. Dareion also turns up in the assessment of 425/4 (IG I³ 71.III.109–110), and bears the annotation in Mysia. It may as well have lain in the interior (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Δαρεῖον; IGRRP 4.1352). See ATL 3.204; IACP 978.

[ back ] 96. Stephanus notes Daskyleion with Bryllion (s.v. Βρύλλιον; Ephorus FGrH 70 F 45); not the capital of Hellespontine Phrygia, but a polismation ‘small polis ’ ἐν Προποντίδι (s.v. Δασκύλειον; Pomponius Mela Geography 1.99; Pliny Natural History 5.143). It appears early on the lists, including IG I³ 259.VI.16–17 of 454/3. The ATL has it a doubtful original ally, more likely as very dubious on account of small size, and possible quasi-hellenicity. Cf. ATL 3.207, 241; IACP 979.

[ back ] 97. The Daunioteikhitai (or Damnioteikhitai/Daminoteikhitai as sometimes named) have a record of early phoros paying (IG I³ 259.III.11–12 [454/3]). They were situated northeast of Perinthos ([Skylax] 67; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. πόλις Θρᾴκης) at a place well known in Byzantine sources as Daunion. Daunioteikhos and Didymoteikhos ‘Twin Fort’ were fortified positions in areas inhabited by (perhaps hellenized) Thracians, not true poleis, both probably outworks of Perinthos (modern Eregli). Their status in the early alliance depends on Perinthos (n. 133 below). See ATL 3.206; IACP 918.

[ back ] 98. See just above under Daunioteikhitai. See ATL 3.205. The Barrington Atlas (52A4) identifies Didyma Teikhe on the Granikos River in Phrygia (Polyb. 5.77.8), making of it an unlikely charter league member. See IACP 979. The name is generic/descriptive, and multiple so-named sites are not unlikely. Cf. ATL 3.205.

[ back ] 99. See under Khersonesitai (n. 109). See ATL 3.206; IACP 906.

[ back ] 100. Nothing is known of the Eurymakhitai, appearing in IG I³ 264.III.16 (448/7) and 265.II.46 (447/6), who are listed both times in a sequence Thracian state—Island state—Carian state—Hellespontine state. ATL thought the date of their disappearance from the lists suggested a location in the Karian interior or in eastern Thrace. The rationale for Meiggs’ diverging in favor of the European shore of the Propontis cannot be reconstructed. Their name suggests a quasi-hellenized ethnos, whose non-Greek name was given a Greek and epic approximation. Ethnic nature alone should probably exclude them from the early alliance. See ATL 3.224, 240. IACP 1250 treats it as an “unlocated” polis.

[ back ] 101. The Gentinoi (attested ca. 3 times, starting IG I³ 261.I.8 [452/1]) were probably quasi-hellenized, and possibly located on Mt. Ida, as their supposed foundation by the sons of Aineias might imply (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Γέντινος) or inland in the valley of the Skamandros (BA 56). Note ATL 3.204–205, 224, 240; IACP 1008.

[ back ] 102. The Halonesioi who are found assessed in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.III.101) were earlier a part of Prokonnesos ([Skylax] 94). See Artake above (n. 85). See ATL 3.204 (non-polis in IACP).

[ back ] 103. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). Note ATL 3.20; IACP 1009.

[ back ] 104. In the southwestern Asian Propontis lay small Harpagion and Priapos (which may have later incorporated Harpagion) along the coast; they might well have been early allies (note Thucydides 8.107.1). Cf. ATL 207, 240; IACP 979.

[ back ] 105. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.23; IACP 1009.

[ back ] 106. See above under Astakos (n. 86). To resist Persian control, it needed help; did it come from the League or from Pausanias at Byzantion? Note Byzantine help there in 416 (Diodorus Siculus 12.82.2). Cf. ATL 3.206, 242; IACP 980 (member of unknown date).

[ back ] 107. Kallipolis was a Greek city (as [Skylax] notes) on the Mysian peninsula. Its appearance under the rubric πόλες αὐταὶ φόρον ταχσάμεναι ‘self-assessed tributary cities’ (IG I³ 278.VI.12 [434/3]) suggests late accession, initiated by the ally itself. See ATL 3.204; IACP 962.

[ back ] 108. Kebren lay well into the interior of the Troad. It is also likely that its ties to the alliance may have waited until the power of Mytilene was consolidated along the coast. See ATL 3.204–205, 240; IACP 1010.

[ back ] 109. Even after the battle of Eurymedon, Kimon fought in the Chersonese against the Persians, who “were unwilling to surrender” the peninsula. Assisted by Thracian allies (Plutarch Cimon 14.1) in a substantive confrontation, Kimon took thirteen hostile warships. The enemy may well have staged out of the Black Sea and rendezvoused with Persians and Thracians based to the north of the Propontis. Doriskos was not a likely point of origin for the naval forces (pace ATL). Casualties were recorded at Kardia in a casualty list usually assigned to 464 (IG I³ 1144.35), also listing losses from the Madytioi (l. 34). Further hostilities, probably associated with the dispatch of settlers ca. 446/5, generated another casualty list, including one general (IG I³ 1162.1). The peninsula received substantial Attic colonization during the sixth century, with the Khersonesitai serving under the Kimonid ‘tyrants’. When the quota-lists begin, their assessment was 18T, appreciably above our threshold for ship contributing. The Khersonesitai paid phoros collectively in the first and second assessment periods (to 448/7). Their components appear through apotaxis from 448/7: Elaious, the Khersonesitai [ἀπ’] Ἀγορᾶς, Limnai, Madytos, and Sestos. Thereupon, settlers were sent there under the leadership of Perikles (Plutarch Pericles 11.5, 19.1; Diodorus Siculus 11.88.3; cf. Andocides 3.9; Aeschines 2.175: Figueira 1991:134–136, 260–262). A review of civic status likely then occurred, because the components of the Khersonesitai paid nothing like their earlier sum. Kardia at the neck of the peninsula is absent from extant quota-lists. Cf. ATL 3.206.

[ back ] 110. See under Khersonesitai (n. 109). See ATL 3.206; IACP 905.

[ back ] 111. See above under Astakos (n. 86). See ATL 3.206, 241; IACP 982 (member of unknown date).

[ back ] 112. Kolonai is situated to the interior of Lampsakos (Strabo 13.1.19; cf. Arrian Anabasis 1.12.6), a non-tributary until 425/4 (IG I³ 71.III.87). See ATL 3.204; IACP 983.

[ back ] 113. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). It was the place of refuge for Pausanias after forcible ejection from Byzantion (Thucydides 1.131.1; Nepos Pausanias 3.3). The Delian League made no attempt to dislodge him initially. See ATL 3.24; IACP 1011.

[ back ] 114. Kyzikos was the richest of the cities of the south shore of the Propontis and most likely a charter member of the alliance. At 9T, its highest attested pre-war assessment (from IG I³ 269.II.23 [443/2]), it was just below our threshold above for ship contribution. We shall treat it as a tributary, although the Kyzikenes may well have fought alongside their allies early in the 470s. If Artake and Zeleia were parts of Kyzikos, that might cement the identity of that state as a ship contributor (n. 85, n. 151). On its coinage, mainly in electrum: Figueira 1998:591. Cf. ATL 3.24, 204, 242 (possible ship contributor); IACP 984.

[ back ] 115. ATL accepted Lamponeia as an initial member. It lay near Assos and Gargara, themselves doubtful charter confederates, but inland (Strabo 13.1.58) from the Adramyttine Gulf. Its membership is even more doubtful for that reason and for its small size. Cf. ATL 3.206; IACP 1011.

[ back ] 116. Artaxerxes granted cities to exiled Themistokles for symbolic alimentation, intending Magnesia for his bread, Myous for opson ‘garnishing’, and Lampsakos for his fish (Thucydides 1.138.5: Diodorus Siculus 11.57.7; Plutarch Themistocles 29.11; Nepos Themistocles 10.3 Aristodemus FGrH 104 F 10.5; ΣAristophanes Knights 84 = Suda s.v. Θεμιστοκλῆς; Athenaeus 1.29f). Lampsakos is a difficult case, as it lies far from Themistokles’ block of territory surrounding Magnesia. ATL argues for its early membership in the alliance, suggesting the grant of Artaxerxes had only potential force. Meiggs rightly counters with the evidence for a direct link between the Lampsakenes and Themistokles. A Hellenistic inscription vouches for the survival of a festival in his honor that goes back at least to the lifetime of Kleophantos, Themistokles’ son (Hill, B 122 = ILampsacus #3). His apocryphal letters preserve a tradition of his intervention on behalf of the Lampsakenes to get their tribute to the king lowered (Hercher, Epistographi Graeci p. 761). The letters contain amid sheer fabrication bits of information derived both from Atthidography and, more to the point in this particular case, from Charon of Lampsakos. Because of Attic interests in the straits, Lampsakos had had more interaction with Athens than predictable for a city at such distance. It had contested Kimonid control of the Chersonese (Herodotus 6.37–38), and the marriage with its tyrannical family was a gambit in the Peisistratid Hippias’ policy of rapprochement with Persia (Thucydides 6.59.3; Aristotle Rhetoric 1367b19). Lampsakos was a critical position for the Persians in the geopolitics of the Propontis, near the eastern exit from the Hellespont and quite possibly more accessible to Persian influence than cities to the southwest. The relationship of Themistokles may have preceded his exile and perhaps even the Persian War. The grant of Artaxerxes could have been intended to aid in drawing Lampsakos back into the Persian fold with favorable terms for tribute, mediated by Themistokles, as an inducement. In any case, I think a slight consideration stands against the view of Meiggs (AE 53–54) that Lampsakos was not a charter member of the league. Instead, we may see the city as a ship-contributing ally, whose independent military status made it a suitable target for Themistoklean diplomacy. The size of its assessment (an assessment reaching 12T: IG I³ 262.IV.5 [451/50]) and its record of minting—Lampascene electrum staters were reproduced down to mid-century—support this conclusion. See ATL 3.199–201, 242; IACP 987.

[ back ] 117. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.25, 199; IACP 1011.

[ back ] 118. See under Khersonesitai (n. 109). See ATL 3.25, 206; IACP 908.

[ back ] 119. See under Khersonesitai (n. 109). See ATL 3.25, 206; IACP 909.

[ back ] 120. The Markaioi were situated in a mountainous area of the Troad (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μαρκαῖοι for Mt. Markaion). As only very early or lately assessed and of dubious degree of hellenization, they may be excluded (Craterus FGrH 432 F 23). See ATL 3.25, 204.

[ back ] 121. Metropolis παρά Πρίαπον ‘near Priapos’, a late entry (IG I³ 71.III.118–119 [425/4]; 77.IV.8–9[422/1]) was possibly inland and another hellenized community (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μητρόπολις). It is to be excluded from the first assessment. See ATL 3.204; IACP 988.

[ back ] 122. Up the Rhyndax from the Artaioteikhitai, well into the interior, lay Miletopolis (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μιλητούπολις; Pliny Natural History 5.142; Strabo 12.8.10). A late adherent to the alliance (IG I³ 100.III.5 [410/9 or 414/3]), only lightly hellenized according to Demetrios of Skepsis (apud Strabo 3.1.58). The name may imply a trading outpost. See ATL 3.204; IACP 988–989.

[ back ] 123. The Mysians “in the Chersonese” (as the lists name them) appear in the first phoros period (IG I³ 259.V.15 [454/3]) and then disappear until 425/4 (71.III.69–70). They were the quasi-hellenized inhabitants of the peninsula along the north flank of the gulf of Kios ([Skylax] 93; Skylax fr. 8–9; cf. Strabo 12.3.3; 12.4.8; 14.5.9). Location and ethnic identity exclude them. See ATL 3.204, 240.

[ back ] 124. Accepted as founding ally by ATL, which also accepts Lamponeia as initial member of the alliance. There is no particular reason to do so, as Neandreia was situated behind the Mytilenean dependencies of the west coast of the Akte of the Troad (Strabo 13.1.51). At some point, Neandreia may have acceded to Mytilene as it expanded its sphere of influence. Cf. ATL 3.207; IACP 1012.

[ back ] 125. Neapolis (IG I³ 71.III.105–106 [425/4]: παρὰ Χερρόνε[σον]) might be classed with the Khersonesetai, although ATL has doubted this. Its first appearance on the lists is in 442/1 (IG I³ 270.II.25), with the annotating phrase ἀπ᾽ Ἀθηνῶν suggesting Attic refoundation. This part of the north shore of the Propontis may have taken some time to liberate from Thracians aligned with Persia. See under Tyrodiza below (n. 150). Cf. ATL 1.449, 3.205; IACP 919.

[ back ] 126. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). Nesos is associated with the island of Pordoselene (IG I³ 77.IV.17 [422/1?]). See ATL 3.25–26; IACP1049–1050.

[ back ] 127. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.26; IACP 1012.

[ back ] 128. Of the Otlenoi, nothing is known except their placement in a likely restoration on the IG I³ 71.III.116 [425/4] between Artaiaoteikhos and Pythopolis and between the same two cities in IG I³ 77.IV.6 [422/1] (note Agathokles FGrH 472 F 2). See ATL 3.204; IACP 990.

[ back ] 129. At the mouth of the Hellespont into the Propontis, small Paisos is a likely tributary. See ATL 3.207; IACP 990–991.

[ back ] 130. Plutarch quotes Neanthes of Kyzikos (BNJ 84 F 17a–b) and Phanias of Eresos (fr. 10 Wehrli) that Perkote and Palaiskepsis were also granted to Themistokles, ostensibly for his “furniture” and “clothing” (cf. Athen. 1.29f). It is possible that Palaiperkote, lying well inland, has been mistaken for Perkote. Conceivably these cities were a later grant that compensated Themistokles for Lampsakos, the control of which he could not achieve in actual practice. See Lampsakos, above n. 116. Neither qualify as original allies. Cf. ATL 3.207; IACP 1013.

[ back ] 131. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.26; IACP 1001–1002 (not a polis).

[ back ] 132. In the southwestern Propontis, small Parion is a likely tributary (IG I³ 259.VI.15 [454/3]). See ATL 3.206; IACP 991.

[ back ] 133. Perinthos meets the 10T criterion for ship contributing (IG I³ 261.V.3 [452/1]), and its position as the wealthiest and most populous of the cities of the northern Propontis supports a heightened strategic role, especially if Byzantion stood entirely apart from the league in the 470s. See ATL 3.206; IACP 920.

[ back ] 134. Coastal Perkote can also be admitted as an ally, but with some doubt because of its award(?) by Artaxerxes to Themistokles (above, n. 130). Antalkidas’ movements in 387 indicate Perkote as a naval station (Xenophon Historia Graeca 5.1.25–26). See ATL 3.206; IACP 1013.

[ back ] 135. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.26; not in IACP.

[ back ] 136. Polikhne, a small community near Skepsis, perhaps on a route toward the Gulf of Adramytteion (Strabo 13.1.45; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πολίχνα; Pliny Natural History 5.123). It appears late (IG I³ 71.III.76 [425/4]), and may be a hellenized community. See ATL 3.26, 204; IACP 1013.

[ back ] 137. See n. 104 above on Harpagion. Tributary from IG I³ 259.II.13 [454/3]. See ATL 3.206; IACP 992–993 (original member).

[ back ] 138. Early membership is a valid surmise for the western Propontine island state of Prokonnesos, found on the early lists (IG I³ 261.IV.17 [452/1]). See ATL 3.206; IACP 993–994.

[ back ] 139. Pythopolis lay in the interior from Kios on the Askanian lake (Pliny Natural History 5.148; Aristotle De mirabilium auscultationibus 54). Its inland site and late appearance on the lists exclude it from the original roster (IG I³ 71.III.17 restored [425/4]; 77.IV.7 [422/1]). See ATL 3.204; IACP 994.

[ back ] 140. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.26; IACP 1013–1014.

[ back ] 141. Selymbria was like Byzantion, a Megarian colony, presumably a tributary member of the early alliance, although merely one of a number of options for classifying it, including non-membership in conjunction with Byzantion. Assessment levels for Selymbria are just below the magnitude to invoke criterion D (size of the economy), but it was one of the richest in the Hellespont with a phoros of 9T (IG I³ 259.II.16 [454/3]). Its exposed position, especially when viewed in the context of the 470s, could support non-tributary, ship-contributing standing, but, perhaps equally, could also support tributary status and a posture for home defense. See ATL 3.206, 242; IACP 921–922.

[ back ] 142. Beyond Tyrodiza, along the north shore of the Propontis, the reach of the Delian League waned dramatically, since a deep interior was occupied by Thracians (by the 430s under the Odrysians). They dominated littoral Greek cities (Thucydides 2.97.1, 3; Rhodes-Osborne #47.15–16) and dealt with Athens at a parity. The suffix -τειχῖται seems to denote fortified, quasi-hellenized trading stations. Serioteikhion lay along sea of Marmara, between Neapolis and Bisanthe, near Hieron Oros (for which see Strabo 7, fr. 55; Xenophon Anabasis 7.1.14; cf. Herodotus 9.119.1; ΣAeschines 2.90). ATL equates Serioteikheion with Ganos ([Dem.] 7.36–37; Aeschines 3.82; cf. Demosthenes 9.15, [Skylax] 67), but IACP (Loukopoulou-Laitar) demurs. The Serioteikhitai appear late in the reassessment of 425/4 (IG I³ 71.III.104 restored [425/4]). They should not be placed in the ranks of the early allies. See ATL 3.204; IACP 922.

[ back ] 143. At Sestos the Persians gathered to be besieged by the Athenians and Ionians in the winter of 479 before the foundation of the league (Herodotus 9.114.2–21; Thucydides 1.89.2; Diodorus Siculus 11.37.4–5; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F 4.1). See also under Khersonesitai (n. 109). See ATL 3.27, 46, 206; IACP 910.

[ back ] 144. Sigeion was colonized by Athens in 607/6. An Attic decree honors its people (IG I³ 17 [ca. 451/0]). The mainland mentioned in 15–16 (ἐν τῆι ἐπείροι) implies attacks from the non-pacified core of the Troad. A casualty list (IG I³ 1144.32, 119: ca. 465) records casualties there. Yet it cannot be excluded that the town was being liberated even as late as this date, after a pro-Persian regime including Peisistratids clung to power. See ATL 3.206–207; IACP 1014.

[ back ] 145. Artaxerxes granted Themistokles rights over Palaioskepsis (n. 130 under Palaiperkote). Skepsis itself lay deep in the Troad and was not, therefore, an original ally. See ATL 3.204–205; IACP 1014.

[ back ] 146. Otherwise unattested Sombia is placed in Propontine Phrygia (although the Thracian coast cannot be excluded). Its first known appearance was in IG I³ 283.II.23 [428/7]). Late appearance and obscurity (quasi-hellenic character?) deny it a place among the initial allies. See ATL 3.204; IACP 994–995.

[ back ] 147. The island of Tenedos lying just off the Troad was most likely an original ally (tributary: IG I³ 261.I.6 [452/1]), as placed in the path of naval forces operating in 479–478. See ATL 3.207, 242; IACP 1016.

[ back ] 148. Tereia near Bylleion (παρὰ Βρύλλειον), near Myrleia, is seen on IG I³ 71.III.111–112 (425/4); 77.IV.111–112 [422/1]). Not an ally because of its size, possible inland location, and quasi-Greek character. See ATL 3.206; IACP 995.

[ back ] 149. See under Akhilleion above (n. 80). See ATL 3.23; not in IACP.

[ back ] 150. Tyrodiza is attested in the early lists from 452/1 (IG I³ 261.4.30). ATL juxtaposes Tyrodiza ([Scylax] 67: quasi-Greek?) with neighboring Neapolis, which disappears from the lists in 445/4 (IG I³ 267.I.30) until the reassessment of 425/4 (IG I³ 71.IV.163 [425/4]). Tyrodiza is also linked with the Chersonese in a list of properties (IG I³ 417), an enumeration perhaps connected with a reorganization of the Chersonese in the 440s. Tyrodiza is best viewed as outside the original complement of allies, representing the northern fringe of the Khersonesitai during the embattled early alliance years of the region. Cf. ATL 3.205–207, 242; IACP 922–923.

[ back ] 151. Zeleia was not an original ally, lying well in the interior (Strabo 13.1.10; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ζέλεια). It is not attested earlier than 441/0 (IG I³ 271.II.38). It was possibly a Kyzikene stronghold (also Strabo 13.1.5), undergoing apotaxis ca. 441/0. The tradition concerning the Medizer Arthmios of Zeleia makes best sense if Zeleia stood outside the early alliance (Craterus FGrH 432 F 14; Plutarch Themistocles 6.4; Demosthenes 9.41–44; Aeschines 3.258–59; Deinarchus 2.24–25). See ATL 3.204; IACP 995.

[ back ] 152. Marked by a large assessment and a copious coinage (throughout the fifth century: Figueira 1998:134–138, 596), Abdera will have been an initial ship-contributing ally. Situated at the mouth of the Nestos, it had important relations with the Odrysians (note the Abderite statesman, Nymphodoros: Thucydides 1.29.1, 5). A fragment of Pindaric paean refers to recent military successes (Paean fr. 52b.105–107). Under 407/6, Diodorus notes Abderite military power (12.72.2). Its accession to the league was likely an early priority. ATL excluded all of coastal Thrace from the alliance in a perverse judgment. Cf. ATL 3.207, 217, 240; AE 52; IACP 873.

[ back ] 153. Aige was in the southeastern Pallene (Herodotus 7.123.1; [Skylax] 66), appearing regularly on the lists and a likely early tributary ally (IG I³ 259.III.17 [454/3]) as a former ally of Poteidaia (Herodotus 8.128). However, it may have been a dependency of Mende (n. 184 below). See ATL 3.223; IACP 822.

[ back ] 154. Aineia possessed a strategic location at Cape Aineona (modern Karaburun) within the Thermaic gulf (Herodotus 7.123.2; Strabo 7, fr. 21, 24; Lycophron Alexandra 1236–37; [Skymnos] 628). See under Dikaiopolis (n. 166). It had a good record of payment (e.g. IG I³ 262.IV.12 [451/50]). ATL saw it as representing the northwestern boundary of the league. It is tempting to mark it as more doubtful, because in 478 it would have been an isolated salient. It might be attractive to see Poteidaia as northern edge of the alliance on the western coast of the Khalkidike. Cf. ATL 3.223; IACP 822.

[ back ] 155. Ainos is attested as a tributary from 453/2 (IG I³ 260.VI.15), with a payment of 12T, so above our threshold for service, and had an active mint (Figueira 1998:130–134, 596). Cf. ATL 3.216–217, 240; IACP 876. See also under Abdera (n. 152).

[ back ] 156. Aioleion of the Bottiaioi appeared separately from Spartolos in 434/3 as a self-assessed city (IG I³ 278.VI.7; cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Αἰόλειον; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 144). Earlier it had been under Spartolos. Haioleion appears on a fragmentary Attic treaty of 422 with Kalindoia, Tripoai, Kemakai of the Bottiaioi (IG I³ 76.45–47, 53). See also Figueira 2019:186–187. Cf. ATL 3.217; IACP 822–823.

[ back ] 157. Akanthos was at the base of the Akte peninsula on the Strymonic Gulf (Herodotus 7.115.2; cf. 7.22.2), with territory stretching west to the Singitic Gulf (cf. Strabo 7, fr. 33; Ptolemy Geography 3.12.9; Pliny Natural History 4.38). Xerxes’ great canal ran through its territory (Strabo 7, fr. 35; [Skymnos] 646–648). Thus, securing Akanthos should have concerned the early alliance. The Peace of Nikias mandates its payment of Aristeidian phoros (Thucydides 5.18.5). For its dependencies, see below under Dion (n. 167). See ATL 3.223; IACP 823.

[ back ] 158. Akrothooi was perhaps a dependency or confederate of Thyssos, assessed in 421 (IG I³ 77.V.33–34 [422/1]). See ATL 3.218; IACP 824.

[ back ] 159. Aphytis was in the northeastern Pallene, regularly paying phoros (IG I³ 261.I.2 [452/1]), probably an early tributary. See ATL 3.223; IACP 825.

[ back ] 160. Argilos stood on the western side of the Strymonic Gulf (Herodotus. 7.115.1; Thucydides 4.103.4; IG IV².1 94.I.17), and would have been threatened by Persian occupation of Eion (cf. Thucydides 5.6.3). A doubtful, but not excludable, early tributary, although its initial phoros of 10.5T is above our threshold for service (IG I³ 259.IV.22 [454/3]). Its territory in 454/3 perhaps included other assets (in the Strymon valley?). Later assessments are lower (from IG I³ 266.II.30 [446/5]).The Peace of Nikias stipulated its payment of Aristeidian phoros (Thucydides 5.18.5), for which see Figueira 2019:182–183. See ATL 3.223; IACP 820–821.

[ back ] 161. See below on Olynthos (n. 190). See ATL 3.223; IACP 826.

[ back ] 162. Berge lay far up the Strymon valley north of Amphipolis, probably east of Lake Kerkinitis (Strabo 7, fr. 36; [Skymnos] 653 54; IG IV².1 94.I.19), an area manifestly closed to the confederates until Eion was taken in 476/5. Berge was an unlikely early ally. See ATL 3.194, 220, 240; IACP 858–859.

[ back ] 163. Bormiskos stood at the outlet of the river that empties Lake Bolbe to the Strymonic gulf (Thucydides 4.103.1; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Βορμίσκος). Its late appearance might be owed to apotaxis from Argilos (IG I³ 71.IV.113 restored; 77.V.26). Alternatively, it may have been sufficiently non-Greek to have been outside the alliance. See ATL 3.218; IACP 817.

[ back ] 164. Deire/Deris was perhaps the farthest east of the Thracian allies on the Aegean coastline. Not known from the lists, but through Stephanus’ citation of its name from Craterus (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Δειρή; [Skylax] 67). Its connection with the Dersaioi or Derraioi is vexed, since this Thracian tribe is noted among tribes of western Thrace (Herodotus 7.110.1; Thucydides 1.101.3; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Δερραῖοι, Δάρσιοι with Hecataeus FGrH 1 F 175). Thus, Deris could be placed between the Strymon and Nestos, east of Amphipolis. Noting possible translocation or fragmentation among the Thracians, I follow the BA (51H3) and IACP in placing this partially hellenized community far to the east on the Melian Gulf, nearly adjoining the Chersonese. If this community was allied, it was certainly not an early adherent. Cf. ATL 3.217; IACP 905–908.

[ back ] 165. On the lists, Dikaia is παρ᾽ Ἀβδήρα (IG I³ 259.IV.28–29), lying across Lake Bistonis, and was joined with Abdera in the reassessments of 425/4 and 421 (IG I³ 71.III.153–154; 77.IV.29–30 [422/1]). ATL’s decision to exclude Dikaia from the tributaries may be followed hesitantly, perhaps because of delayed recruitment by Abdera, or considering Dikaia a dependency. See ATL 3.217, 240; IACP 877.

[ back ] 166. Dikaiopolis lay in the inner Thermaic Gulf, inland and east of Aineia (Pliny Natural History 4.36; IG IV².1 94.I.11; cf. Herodotus 7.123.2). Dikaiopolitai are denominated “colonists of the Eretrians” and their city “of the Eretrians.” Perhaps they are Eretrian as the Khalkidians are Khalkidian, that is, claiming to derive from Euboia despite a mixed or hellenized population. Yet, that nomenclature suggests that Dikaiopolis had a more credible claim as a colony than other hellenized ethnē of the western Khalkidike. The link with Eretria may show that the recruitment effect from Eretria might have drawn them into the early alliance. Dikaia appears in the list of 430/29 as receiving remission from phoros, only paying the aparkhē with Haison and Methone (IG I³ 281.II.35; 282.II.55–56 [429/8]), testifying to the city’s vulnerability to Perdikkas. Dikaiopolis paid phoros of 4T in the first assessment period before dropping to a regular 1T (IG I³ 259.IV.19–20). ATL posits an earlier payment for Aineia with a later assessment of 3T. Did Aineia being its port explain this result? Let us put Dikaiopolis as an original ally, assuming it then included Aineia. See ATL 3.220, 240; IACP 826–827.

[ back ] 167. For the Akte peninsula: Herodotus 7.22.3; Thucydides 4.109.3; Pliny Natural History 4.37; [Skylax] 66; Strabo 7, fr. 33, 35; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Σάνη. Dion, Olophyxis, and Sane were in process of dissolving a syntely in 454/3, thereafter appearing separately (IG I³ 259.II.25–26). The three earlier probably formed a unit with Akanthos. A reference to Sane and Akanthos in the same clause of the Peace of Nikias points to a temporary resumption of Akanthian control over Sane (Thucydides 5.18.6; for its defection to the Spartan Brasidas in 424: Thucydides 4.109.3, 5). Cf. ATL 3.223; IACP 827.

[ back ] 168. Drys, Sale, and Zone, towns of the Samothracian Peraia, are not attested as tributary before the assessment of 422/1 (IG I³ 77.V.27–31). We have direct evidence for their removal from Samothrace through apotaxis in citations of Antiphon’s speech “On the Phoros of the Samothracians” (fr. 52, 55 = Harpocration s.v. ἀπόταξις, 56 B/T). In 478/7, they may not yet have even belonged to Samothrace initially, as lying close to Persian-controlled Doriskos. See ATL 3.217; IACP 878.

[ back ] 169. Gale and Sarte do not appear on the lists of aparkhai until 434/3 as self-assessed (IG I³ 278.VI.8, 13), presumably as apotaxis from Torone (note Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Σάρτη). See ATL 3.218; IACP 827–828.

[ back ] 170. The Thasians lost their mainland possessions ca. 464 after their revolt (Thucydides 1.101.1, 3; cf. Herodotus 7.109.2). The identity of these cities is uncertain, and some holdings were eventually returned. Galepsos almost certainly was Thasian ([Skylax] 67; Strabo 7, fr. 33). It appears regularly on the lists (IG I³ 259.IV.15 [454/3]). Antiphon’s Against Laispodios mentioned Galepsos, perhaps regarding the procedures of phoros assessment (fr. 7.22 24 B/T). Galepsos was close to the Strymon and Eion, so perhaps needing some time for liberation. See ATL 3.217, 240; IACP 861.

[ back ] 171. See below under Kithas (n. 179). See ATL 3.217; IACP 828.

[ back ] 172. See below under Kithas (n. 179). See ATL 3.217; IACP 828–829.

[ back ] 173. Haison on its homonymous “river” in coastal Macedonia (Plutarch Aemilius 16.9) was a regular tributary in all periods down to 430 (IG I³ 262.IV.27 [451/50). This extraordinary participation by this small Macedonian ally—assessment never exceeding 1,500 drachmas—hints at a fascinating, but unfortunately lost, tale. Haison (together with Methone) then received remission from phoros but for the aparkhē (IG I³ 281.II.31–34 [430/29]; 282.II.51 54 [429/8]). See ATL 3.219; not in IACP.

[ back ] 174. Herakleion on the northern slopes of Olympos was southernmost of the cities of coastal Macedonia and only assessed when Athens held military ascendancy over Macedonia; not a charter participant. Herakleion appears in assessments of the 420s (IG I³ 71.IV.108 restored; 77.V.21). See ATL 3.218, IACP 220; 802.

[ back ] 175. Three Aegean islands were classed in the Thraceward District, Ikos (IG I³ 259.VI.14 [454/3]), Peparethos (259.II.18), and Skiathos (263.III.40 [450/49]), and were initial members as indicated by early and regular phoros payment. See ATL 3.223; IACP 741–742.

[ back ] 176. The status of Kalindoia as a Bottiaian town, tributary under Spartolos, is reasonably clear (see immediately below under Kamakai). ATL sensibly placed it near Poteidaia and Olynthos (IG IV².1 94.I.13; Ptolemy Geography 3.12.33; Stephanus Byzantius Ἀλίνδοια). BA and IACP situate it in Mygdonia (50C3), which will only be convincing if that is held an offshoot founded when Perdikkas supplied Mygdonia to the Khalkidians in 432 (Thucydides 1.58.1–2). See ATL 3.217; IACP 829.

[ back ] 177. Kamakai, Prassilos, and Tripoai of the Bottiaioi appear on the list of 421/20 (IG I³ 285.III.8, 10–11 [421/0]; cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πράξιλος; cf. s.v. Γράστιλλος). The Athenian treaty of 422 with the Bottiaians includes Kalindoia, Tripoai, Kemakai, and Haioleion (IG I³ 76.45–47, 53). See ATL 3.217; IACP 629.

[ back ] 178. Khedrolos (or the Erodioi) had a similar phoros profile to Pharbelos (n. 194), tributary in the 440s (IG I³ 264.III.3 [448/7]) and then disappearing in the late third or fourth assessment period, returning among the ataktoi in 435/4 (IG I³ 277.VI.25) and then found among the self-assessed (278.VI.16 restored [434/3]; 279.II.88 [433/2]). The phoros record, with likely inland location and hellenized status, exclude it. IACP (Hansen) rejects ATL’s location in Thrace, listing as “unlocated.” See ATL 3.223; IACP 1250.

[ back ] 179. A region of small communities, the Krossaia or Krousis, perhaps along the coast adjoining Poteidaian and Olynthian territory. Herodotus named Haisa (emended; n. 173), Gigonos (n. 171), Kampsa (cf. n. 213 for Skapsa), Kissos, Smilla, and perhaps Aineia (Herodotus 7.123.2; also Thucydides 2.79.4; Strabo, 7, fr. 21; see n. 154). For Kithas, see also Strabo 7, fr. 21, 24; also Skithai: Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Σκίθαι; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 375. A syntely of these states appears in 434/3 under the idiōtai: Kithas (Kissos in Herodotus), Smilla, Gigonos, Haisa, along with one name not in Herodotus, the Tindaioi (IG I³ 278.VI.29–33), and they appear again in 425 (71.IV.83–85). The title πόλες Κροσσίδος for the assessment of 421 may cover the same (or a proximate) group (77.V.41–42 [422/1]). All these small states are excluded from initial allies because of late appearance on the lists. The first payment may signify apotaxis (from Spartolos?). A quasi-hellenized character may be attributed to them. See ATL 3.217; IACP 830, 843.

[ back ] 180. Kleonai appears first in 434/3 as paying under the idiōtai rubric, suggesting a local initiative (IG I³ 278.VI.23). Any apotaxis was probably from Thyssos. See ATL 3.218; IACP 830.

[ back ] 181. Among the mainland holdings of Thasos (see above under Galepsos [n. 170]) was perhaps Kystiros. Its payment seems restricted to 434/3 as an ἄτακτος πόλις (IG I³ 278.VI.37), outside the assessment process. I favor the view of the ATL that Kystiros may be the Pistyros/Pistiros of Herodotus (7.109.2) belonging to the Thasian Peraia (BA 51D3). IACP cites Herodian 3.1 198.20; 3.2 449.2 for the two as distinct, and treats Kystiros as unlocated (n. 1033, p. 1250). An important inscription (SEG 43.486) incorporating regulations of a king Kotys was found at Vetren in Bulgaria, seemingly establishing the site as another Pistiros (n. 656, pp. 895–896). Without definitive etymology of the name, multiple so-named sites cannot be excluded. See ATL 3.217.

[ back ] 182. Maroneia’s phoros payments fluctuated greatly, suggesting changing relations with the Thracian interior (Herodotus 7.109.1), where its fourth-century coinage was prominent: 1T, from 454/3: IG I³ 259.IV.5; 10T, from 436/5: 276.V.29; 21T: 71.III.156 [425/4]. ATL excludes it from the early alliance, but considers it the “best candidate” east of the Strymon. I admit as tributary, but as more doubtful. Cf. ATL 3.217; AE 52; IACP 879.

[ back ] 183. See below under Olynthos (n. 190). For analysis, see Figueira 2019:177–178. See ATL 3.223; IACP 841.

[ back ] 184. The people of the Pallene joined in the revolt of Poteidaia from the Persians (Herodotus 8.126.3, 128.2). In the second assessment period, Mende on the Thermaic Gulf has its phoros almost doubled, 8T to 15T (IG I³ 265.II.31 [446/6]), an indicium of a larger state. ATL argued Mende was also paying for Skione and the Thrambaioi at this time. It may well be that this larger state in the Pallene, led by Mende, had its constituent parts evolve over time. Mende, although initially below our 10T at 8T (e.g., 259.III.15 [454/3]; 262.I.7 [451/50]), was still probably a ship-contributing state. Note its record of steady coining through most of the century (Figueira 1998:127–130, 597). Neapolis (n. 188), Skione (n. 215), and Therambos (n. 222), and even Aige (n. 153) may have been non-tributary under Mende. See ATL 3.223; IACP 832.

[ back ] 185. Methone at the mouth of the Haliakmon river (for this coast: [Skylax] 66; Strabo 7, fr. 20; Pliny Natural History 4.34; cf. IG IV².1 94.I.8) appears initially as late in 432/1 (IG I³ 280.II.67 restored) and receives remission and privilege of paying only the aparkhē in the next years with its neighbor Haison (IG I³ 281.II.31–34 [430/29]; 282.II.51–54 [429/8]). See ATL 3.219–220; IACP 804.

[ back ] 186. A segment of the Khalkidians (of unknown location) was the Miltorioi or Milkorioi (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μιλκώριοι; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 152), who were ataktoi (435/4), then self-assessed in 434/3, 433/2 (IG I³ 277.VI.31; 278.VI.9; 279.II.85). Their only association with the early alliance would have been through a link with a larger component (Olynthos?). See ATL 3.218; IACP 833.

[ back ] 187. The most important place in the Thasian Peraia (see above under Galepsos [n. 170]) was Neapolis, distinguished on the lists with the qualifier παρ᾽ Ἀντισάραν, becoming and staying independent after Thasos’ surrender. See ATL 3.217, 240; IACP 862.

[ back ] 188. Neapolis on the eastern Pallene (Herodotus 7.123.1; [Skylax] 66) is initially differentiated from homonyms as Νεοπολῖται Μενδαίων ἄποικοι ‘Neopolitans, colonists of the Mendaioi’. There is no reason not to consider the city an early tributary (note IG I³ 259.III.28 [454/3]. Its provision of ships to Xerxes may have been in service of a larger entity (Herodotus 7.123.1), for perhaps a rendezvous as an eastward facing Mendean port. See above on Mende (n. 184). See ATL 3.223; IACP 833.

[ back ] 189. See above under Dion (n. 167). Cf. ATL 3.223; IACP 834.

[ back ] 190. Olynthos became the chief place of the Khalkidians, whose name bore witness to a claim to derive from the great colonizer Khalkis of Euboia. In this area, Greek immigrants of Euboian origin settled amid Macedonians and Thracians, to whose hellenizing they contributed. Olynthos had only become Khalkidian through a Persian grant in 480–479 (Herodotus 8.127). This common character and placement slightly inland encouraged its choice as a point of concentration when the Khalkidians revolted from Athens in 432 with Poteidaia and the Bottiaians (Thucydides 1.58.1–2). In the Peace of Nikias, Olynthos and Skolos were to pay Aristeidian phoros (Thucydides 5.18.5). Olynthos appeared on the list of 454/3 (IG I³ 259.V.6–7) with the Skablaioi (n. 212) and the Asseritai (n. 161). Thus, a syntely was dissolving then among three Khalkidian communities. Assera lay at the head of the Singitic Gulf (Herodotus 7.122, where it is also Assa; Aristotle De animalibus 3.12; cf. Pliny Natural History 4.38). Skabela may lie a little farther inland (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Σκάβαλα; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 151). On the basis of a syntely with Olynthos, these cities can be stipulated as original tributary allies. The peace of Nikias also mandated that the people of Mekyberna, Sane, and Singos live in their own cities just as the Olynthians and Akanthians. This clause attempted to reverse earlier synoecisms and reunifications (as of 432). Thus, Mekyberna (n. 183) was another Khalkidian state(let), belonging to the early alliance. It stood at the head of the Toronaic Gulf and acted as the port of Olynthos (Herodotus 7.122; Strabo, 7, fr. 29; Suda s.v. Μηκύβερνα; Harpocration s.v. Μηκύβερνα). Mekyberna appears on the list of 454/3 (IG I³ 259.V.10–12) with Stolos (n. 219) and Polykhna (n. 200). Stolos/Skolos (location, BA 51B4: cf. IG IV².1 94.I.21–24) qualifies by regular payment for original membership (259.V.11 [454/3]). Its neighbor Πολίχνα παρὰ Στολον does not reappear until 425/4 and may be disregarded as an early member on its own account (IG I³ 71.III.173–174). While it is reasonably certain that the Khalkidians were contributing to the early alliance as tributaries, the assignment of individual polities to separate payment or contribution to an ethnic state, headed by Olynthos, is unclear. See Figueira 1998:184–186. See also ATL 3.223; AE 52; IACP 834.

[ back ] 191. The Othorioi were an ally where idiōtai handled assessment in 434/3 (IG I³ 278.VI.35), having been ataktoi in 435/4 (277.VI.24). Previously they paid as if regularly assessed (IG I³ 264.II.18 restored [448/7). Unfortunately, topographical documentation fails us entirely for Othoros. Placement on the border of the Khalkidike (IACP) and Macedonia (ATL) is merely speculation. They were likely a hellenized or semi-hellenized people. Exclusion from the first allies is prudent. See ATL 3.223; IACP 836.

[ back ] 192. See above under Ikos (n. 175). See ATL 3.223; IACP 768.

[ back ] 193. The Pergamoteikhitai and the Pieres παρὰ Περγάμον ‘near Pergamos’ were hellenized non-Greeks. They belonged to the Thasian Peraia (see above under Galepsos [n. 170]), and are attested in a later stage of apotaxis in 421 (IG I³ 71.IV.62–64). They inhabited the south slopes of Mt. Pangaion, or perhaps more precisely of Mt. Symbolon (Herodotus 7.112.1; Thucydides 2.99.3). See ATL 3.217; IACP 857 (non-polis).

[ back ] 194. A small Eretrian “colony” (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Φάρβηλος), for which hellenization was probably a factor, Pharbelos was placed by ATL at the edge of Olynthian territory (or that of Spartolos). Its movement from normal payment in 436/5 (IG I³ 276.V.21; cf. 259.I.15 [454/3]) first to the taktoi in 435/4 (277.VI.23) and then to the self-assessed in 434/3–433/2 (278.VI.15; 279.II.86) suggests that it lay sufficiently far from Attic-dominated regions to render Athens indifferent to its adherence. Yet the Pharbelioi attempted to stay an ally through non-coerced payment. Another less likely alternative is an inland site in the Strymon valley, as ATL notes that A. Boeckh implied (cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ὄλβηλος), or even farther east. A decision is elusive. Pharbelos was later assessed in 422/1 (77.V.19). Cf. ATL 3.223; IACP 836–837.

[ back ] 195. Phegetos paid regularly (from IG I³ 262.III.29 [451/50]) until disappearing after 433/2 (279.II.63). Attested nowhere else, its phoros context was with states of the western and central Khalkidike. Understandably, if rather recklessly, ATL assigns original membership. Athenian usage of the names Phegetioi, Phegentioi, or Phegontion betrays by its very vacillation their probable character as a quasi-hellenized group. Perhaps in Mygdonia or Bisaltia, they may have been surrendered to advancing Macedonian influence, rather than the joining the Khalkidian rebels in 432. Cf. ATL 3.223; IACP 837.

[ back ] 196. See above under Pergamoteikhitai [n. 193]. See ATL 3.217; IACP 857 (non-polis).

[ back ] 197. The order of cities in Herodotus (7.122) suggests Piloris was in the upper Sithone (also Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πίλωρος), but BA (50A4) places it at the head of the Singitic Gulf. It shares the pattern of payment of Gale and Sarte (appearing only in 434/3 among those assessed by idiōtai ‘private individuals’: IG I³ 278.VI.22). It was probably a dependency but of what city? Torone, Akanthos, Singis (ATL: adds Assera)? See ATL 3.218: IACP 837.

[ back ] 198. Pistasos appears once under the idiōtai heading in 434/3 (IG I³ 278.VI.27) and reappears (in the extant documentation) in the assessment of 421 as Istasos (77.V.16), probably an indication of a non-Greek toponym. Location is unclear for this smaller quasi-hellenized community. See ATL 3.218; IACP 837.

[ back ] 199. Owing to similar entry on the lists, ATL classifies Pleume as another Bottiaian town (BA 50D4), appearing first as self-assessed in 434/3 (IG I³ 278.VI.17). Note Kithas (n. 179). See ATL 3.217; IACP 837.

[ back ] 200. See under Olynthos above (n. 190). See ATL 3.223; IACP 837.

[ back ] 201. Posideion was on Strymonic Gulf near Stageira (Herodotus 7.115.2; Pliny Natural History 4.38), appearing in 425/4 by apotaxis either from Stageira or from Akanthos (IG I³ 71.V.32). See ATL 3.218; IACP 837.

[ back ] 202. Poteidaia, at the neck of the Pallene (Herodotus 1.123.1; Thucydides 1.56.2; [Skylax] 66; Pliny Natural History 4.36), rose against Persia in winter 480/79 (8.126.2–129.3) and 300 Poteidaians served at Plataia (Herodotus 9.28.3; Meiggs-Lewis #27; Pausanias 5.23.2). Despite falling initially below our cut-off of 10T at 6T (from IG I³ 259.III.7 [454/3]), Poteidaia is likely to have been a ship contributor, perhaps assisted by neighbors, because Athens would hardly have relegated to phoros a state already so active in the Persian War. In 433/2, Poteidaia had an assessment of 15T (IG I³ 279.II.70), although a punitive intent has been attributed to the Athenians. There may be support for a general 15T assessment in the 430s in the hypothesis of the ATL (accepted by IG I³) that in 435/4 the adjacent payments of Poteidaia (6T) and Skione (15T) have been transposed (277.VI.5–6). Additionally, Poteidaia coined down to its capture by the Athens in 430/29 (Thucydides 2.70.4; note Figueira 1998:489–491, 586). See ATL 26, 64–65, 89, 223, 239; IACP 838.

[ back ] 203. See under Kamakai above (n. 177). See ATL 3.217; IACP 839.

[ back ] 204. See on Drys above (n. 168). See ATL 3.217; IACP 880.

[ back ] 205. Samothrace does not qualify as ship contributing by the size of its economy (IG I³ 259.III.13: 6T), although it could have coined as late as mid-century (Figueira 1998:584). Yet, the maintenance of its Peraia must incline us toward classing it as a ship contributor (n.b. a Samothracian ship with the Persians at Salamis: Herodotus 8.90.2), notably in the 470s and 460s when Doriskos lay in Persian hands. See ATL 3.223; IACP 770.

[ back ] 206. A (re)unification that is not otherwise directly attested was absorption of Sane by Akanthos (for its defection to the Spartan Brasidas in 424: Thucydides 4.109.3, 5). A community at Sane under Attic auspices was restored in 421 (5.18.6 with Figueira 2019:177–178) See also above under Dion (n. 167). ATL 3.223; IACP 839–840.

[ back ] 207. See above under Gale (n. 169). ATL 3.218; IACP 840.

[ back ] 208. The placement of Serme in the Thermaic gulf depends on an equation of this city with Therme (cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Θέρμη), a specification not universally accepted. Serme is regularly found in the early assessment periods, Therme is known from Thucydides as a disputed town between Macedonia and Athenian hegemony, as in 431, when Attic forces operated there (Thucydides 1.61.2; 2.29.6). We should mark Serme as non-ally, an even more dubious one than Aineia and Skapsa. See ATL 3.220, 241; IACP 840.

[ back ] 209. Sermylia at the base of the Sithone (Herodotus 7.122; [Skylax] 66; cf. Thucydides 1.65.2). It appears on the early lists (IG I³ 259.V.9 [454/3]) and may be an early ally by itself or associated with Olynthos. See ATL 3.223; IACP 841.

[ back ] 210. Singos was regularly tributary on the early lists (IG I³ 259.V.13 [454/3]), and so a good possibility for 478/7 membership (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Σίγγις). For more on Singos, see Olynthos (n. 190). For its treatment in the Peace of Nikias: Figueira 2019:177–178, 185. See ATL 3.223; IACP 841.

[ back ] 211. Sinos has a relatively tardy entry, appearing among those whom idiōtai assessed, some entries above the communities of Krousis (IG I³ 278.VI.24 [434/3]; 279.II.98 res. [433/2]). It might be the Sindos mentioned by Herodotus (7.123.3; SIG³ #332; cf. Stephanus Byzantius Σίνθος). It could thus be another community of the Krousis, perhaps the most southern and eastern one. Near Olynthos, it might also have had Khalkidian affiliations. See ATL 3.217–218; IACP 841.

[ back ] 212. See above under Olynthos (n. 190). See ATL 3.223; IACP 842.

[ back ] 213. Skapsa made steady payment (from IG I³ 261.II.6 [451/0]), urging its classing as original ally. Yet, uncertainty over location counter-indicates. Is it Kampsa of the Krousis (above under Kithas, n. 179)? Also against allied status is our doubt over the seeming aloofness from the early league of surrounding states, among them Aineia (n. 154). See ATL 3.223; IACP 842.

[ back ] 214. See above under Ikos (n. 175). See ATL 3.223–224; IACP 773.

[ back ] 215. Skione was possibly an initial tributary (cf. IG I³ 259.II.9 [454/3]) or perhaps a dependency of Mende, See above on Mende (n. 184). See ATL 3.223; IACP 842.

[ back ] 216. See above under Kithas (n. 179). See ATL 3.217, IACP 843.

[ back ] 217. Spartolos was the chief place of the Bottiaioi (western section of the base of the Khalkidike: cf. Herodotus 7.127.1, 185.2; 8.127). The Bottiaioi joined the Khalkidians in their revolt (Thucydides 1.58.1; 2.79.2), but under the Peace of Nikias were to pay the Aristeidian phoros (Thucydides 5.18.5, with Figueira 1998:186–187). Spartolos was probably a charter member of the Delian League as a tributary (IG I³ 259.III.24). For its adherents/confederates, see Aiolaion (n. 156), Kalindoia (n. 176), Kamakai (n. 177), Pleume (n. 199), Polikhne (n. 200), Prassilos (n. 203), and Tripoiai (n. 228). See ATL 3.217, 223; IACP 843.

[ back ] 218. Stageira lies on south coast of the Strymonic Gulf (Herodotus 7.115.2; Strabo 7, fr. 33, 35; IG IV².1 94.I.21). ATL correctly places it among the 478/7 allies. It was to pay Aristeidian phoros in the Peace of Nikias (Thucydides 5.18.5). Note Figueira 2019:183–184. See ATL 3.223; IACP 844.

[ back ] 219. See above under Olynthos (n. 190). See ATL 3.223; IACP 845.

[ back ] 220. Strepsa lay well inland of Aineia (n. 154) and Dikaiopolis (n. 166) on the river Antemous (BA 50D4), seemingly just beyond the scope of the early alliance. It was possibly a quasi-hellenized community. Its regular early payment (IG I³ 259.IV.14 [454/3]) perhaps should not, however, mean early membership. See ATL 3.220, 241; IACP 846.

[ back ] 221. Wealthy Thasos is a likely member, which contributed ships and men until its revolt and subjugation by Kimon (Thucydides 1.100.2; 101.1, 3; Diodorus Siculus 11.70.1; Plutarch Cimon 14.2, cf. Themistocles 25.2; Nepos Cimon 2.5; Polyaenus Strategemata 2.33; 8.67). The Thasians fielded as many as forty ships then. Thasos was a copious minter of coins for most of the fifth century, with a gap after its surrender (Figueira 1998:590–591). See ATL 3.223, 239–240; AE 52; IACP 779.

[ back ] 222. Therambos lay in the lower Pallene Peninsula (Herodotus 7.123.1; [Skylax] 66; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Θράμβος; s.v. Στράμβαι?) and formed a unit with Skione, its counterpart on the southwestern coast (cf. Thucydides 4.130.1, 2), in the first assessment period (IG I³ 259.II.9–10; 260.IV.17–18). Both were tributary and perhaps subjects of Mende. See above on Mende (n. 184). See ATL 3.223; IACP 846.

[ back ] 223. Thestoros may have been in Macedonia or the Khalkidike (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Θέστωρος; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 142); the ATL notes that the fragment of Theopompus treats the beginning of the Olynthian war. This was not an original ally, appearing in the assessment in 421 (IG I³ 77.V.36). See ATL 3.218; IACP 846.

[ back ] 224. Placed down the Athos peninsula from Akanthos, to which it is comparable as a tributary but a bit smaller (IG I³ 259.II.14 [454/3]). Thucydides described it as having a mixed, bilingual population (4.109.4), but it does appear among other early allies. See also Akrothooi (n. 158). See ATL 3.223; IACP 846.

[ back ] 225. See above under Kithas (n. 179). See ATL 3.217; IACP 846–847.

[ back ] 226. Torone was the largest city of the lower Sithone (Thucydides 4.110–16; 5.2 3) and fits our criteria for a ship contributor with an initial assessment of 12T (IG I³ 259.II.15 [454/3]) and a strong record of minting (Figueira 1998:589–590), at least until Attic recapture in 422. It supplied troops and men to Xerxes (Herodotus 7.122). It likely had a sub-hegemony in the early alliance: Gale (n. 169); Piloris (n. 197); Sarte (n. 207). See ATL 3.223; IACP 847.

[ back ] 227. Tragilos or Trailos (BA 51B3), a late entry appearing in the assessments of the 420s (IG I³ 71.IV.112 res.; 77.V.25) was northwest of Amphipolis in Bisaltia (IG IV².1 94.I.20). See ATL 3.218; IACP 821.

[ back ] 228. See above under Kamakai (n. 177). See ATL 3.217; IACP 848.

[ back ] 229. Also Khalkidian was Zereia, although its name is uncertain (Diodorus Siculus 16.52.9; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ζειρηνία; Theopompus FGrH 105 F 214; Ephorus FGrH 70 F 88); assessed in 421, it seems, for the first time (IG I³ 77.V.18). See ATL 3.218; IACP 848.

[ back ] 230. See on Drys above (n. 168). See ATL 3.195, 217; IACP 881.

[ back ] 231. Alinda stood far inland and became a notable Hellenistic city (Alexandria ad Latmum), after having been favored by the Hecatomnids (Arrian Anabasis 1.23.8). Its contributions were limited to the first assessment period (IG I³ 260.I.3 [453/2]; 262.V.21 [451/0]), but it was much too far upcountry to be an early ally. See ATL 3.211; IACP 1111.

[ back ] 232. Three segments of the Khersonesioi (n. 274) were distinguished in 428/7 (IG I³ 283.II.31–35): Amioi (Anon. Stad.; [Aeschines] Ep. 9.1; 12.11); a name starting Λερ̣…, Loryma or Larymna (Thucydides 8.43.1; Pliny Natural History 5.104; Mela Geography 1.84; Constantine Porphyrogenitus De thematibus 1.14; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Λώρυμα; Strabo 14.2.4; Diodorus Siculus 14.83.4); and a lost name. See ATL 3.211; IACP 1111.

[ back ] 233. ATL denies membership to all Dorian islanders excepting Rhodes under criterion B (3.210). Amorgos becomes tributary late in 434/3 among the self-assessed, a status maintained for three years (IG I³ 278.VI.10; 279.II.80; 280.II.73), and in 430/29 and 429/8, assessed by the taktai (281.II.58; 282.II.41). It is hardly believable that a polis so centrally placed in the Aegean stood apart from the allies. Amorgos probably belonged to Samos as implied by the Samian colony led there by Semonides (Suda s.v. Σιμωνίδης; FGrH 594) and by Hellenistic Amorgean inscriptions from Minoa (IG XII.7 226, 231, 237, 230, 269). After the Samian revolt, the Amorgioi seemingly asserted a separate identity. See ATL 3.210; IACP 734–735.

[ back ] 234. See below under Syangela (n. 316). Cf. ATL 3.213–214; IACP 1111.

[ back ] 235. The neighbors of Latmos in inland northern Caria were not early league members. The Mydones were in the highlands northeast of Latmos and northwest of Alinda (BA 61F2) and equated with Amyzon (Strabo 14.4.22; Pliny Natural History 5.109). Tributaries from 454/3 (IG I³ 259.VI.6). Their last payment is in 440/39 (272.I.84). Their neighbor Ναχσία παρὰ Μ[υδ](όνα) is attested in 445/4 (IG I³ 267.III.29). The name Naxia may allude to an eponym of the Cycladic island (Diodorus Siculus 5.51.3; cf. Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Νάξος). The Naxiatai were also regular tributaries to 440/39 (272.I.84). Thydonos is placed by a reference in Pliny (Natural History 5.109) but had only one early payment (IG I³ 262.V.29 [451/0]). The Thasthares are similar, and their last payment was also in 440/39 (272.I.83). Early tributaries (IG I³ 262.II.8 [451/0]), the Parpariotai are still others who drop from assessment in 440/39 (272.II.82). Narisbara is another such poorly attested state, paying phoros in the first four periods (IG I³ 259.VI.5 [454/3]), ending in 440/39 (IG I³ 272.I.81). The Bolbaies (n. 242) have two attested payments in 453/2 (IG I³ 260.I.12), 446/5 (266.V.13); possibly absorbed into Latmos/Herakleia (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Βόλβαι). The decision to stop levying phoros in this area was applied consistently. For Amyzon or the Mydones: ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1112.

[ back ] 236. Arkesseia and Brykous are glossed as Κάρπαθο ‘of Karpathos’ and appear on the lists of the second period (IG I³ 263.II.26–27), as the first period is less clear owing to lacunae. Arkesseia, the Karpathoi, and the Eteokarpathoi all remarkably appear as tributaries together in 432/1 and 428/7 (IG I³ 280.I.45–46, I.59, II.75; 283.III.1–3, 5); Brykous also paying in 429/8 (282.IV.9–10). I concur with ATL that the Karpathoi were not original members, although a tributary relationship with a Rhodian polis would not be impossible. See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 745.

[ back ] 237. Arlissos, unlocated and very probably Karian in ethnicity, was dropped after a single third assessment payment (IG I³ 267.III.31 [445/4]). This is perhaps apotaxis, that was followed by a deliberate exclusion, or Arlissos could even be the name of a Carian dynast (cf. SGDI 3.2 #5727d.6; 5753a.25 26). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1112.

[ back ] 238. ATL denies membership to all the Dorian islanders excepting the Rhodians under criterion B. Astypalaia, however, offers a record of payment regular and unexceptional (IG I³ 259.III.14 [454/3]; 71.I.143 [425/4]), and was probably recruited by the Samians or Rhodians. Cf. ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 737.

[ back ] 239. Besides applying the ATL (exclusion east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, Aspendos, on the River Eurymedon in Pamphylia is attested late (IG I³ 71.II.156–157 [425/4]). See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1215.

[ back ] 240. The Auliatai or Ouliatai Kares were hellenized Carians with a native toponym (itself hellenized). Placed on the west side of the Carian Khersonesos peninsula, they lay among other allies and paid 500 drachmas often (e.g., IG I³ 259.VI.13 [454/3]). They may be considered most doubtful, owing to our overarching doubt about initial Carian participation. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1112.

[ back ] 241. See below under Iasos (n. 256). See ATL 3.212–213; IACP 1113.

[ back ] 242. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1113.

[ back ] 243. See below under Ialysos (n. 255). See ATL 3.214; IACP 1198.

[ back ] 244. See above under Arkessia (n. 236). See ATL 3.210; IACP 746.

[ back ] 245. See below under Ialysos (n. 255). See ATL 3.214; IACP 1198.

[ back ] 246. See below under Euromes (n. 249); Kyromes (n. 286). See ATL 3.210; IACP 1119.

[ back ] 247. Erines, later a Rhodian deme in the Peraia, are placed by ATL on the northern shore of the Carian Chersonese on the Keramic Gulf, excluded by ATL for dropping out after the third period (IG I³ 260.I.14 [453/2]; 268.IV.34 [444/3]). Note their small size. One of the Rhodian cities or the Khersonesioi may have held them as tributary. See ATL 3.211; IACP 1114.

[ back ] 248. The Eteokarpathioi ‘Genuine Karpathians’, also attested in a late fifth-century local inscription, were honored by Athens (IG I³ 1454), do not appear until 434/3, where listed as self-assessed (IG I³ 278.VI.14). They probably appeared through apotaxis. Note Ma 2009:136–142. See ATL 3.210; IACP 746.

[ back ] 249. The district of Euromos (BA 61F3), northwest of Mylasa, held several allied states (cf. Polybius 30.4.11, 15). Some were called Huromes (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἔυρομος; s.v. Ἔυρωπός), paying in the second through fourth periods (last in 440/39: IG I³ 272.II.71), returning in 425/4 (71.II.100). The Khalketores (n. 272) were their neighbors (Strabo 14.1.8, 2.22; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Χαλκητόριον), who dropped out 440/39 (272.II.75), reassessed in 425/4 (71.II.101). Just to their east (BA 61F3), the Hylimes (Olymos) are restricted in payment to the second period (last payment in 447/6: IG I³ 265.I.86; cf. 263.II.39 [450/49]). See n. 253 below. The Kyromes may be another related Carian sub-ethnos (n. 286); only assessment is 425/4, where they appear (IG I³ 71.II.143–144) with the Ymesses (n. 254) and the Edries (n. 246). To be identified with the former are the Hymisses who pay phoros in the first and second periods (last payment in 447/6: 265.II.50). The latter are a Carian ethnos more often called the Idries (Strabo 14.5.23; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἰδριίς; s.v. Χρυσαορίς; cf. Herodotus 5.118.1). There is no reason for treating any of these communities as original members of the league. These were inland hellenizing communities, which, while they eventually preferred alignment with the Greek Aegean, could only have joined the ranks of the tributaries after some time had passed. For Euromos: ATL 3.211. 241; IACP 1114.

[ back ] 250. Direct evidence suggests that Halikarnassos was not an original member (cf. AE 54–55). The biographical tradition on Herodotus preserved in the Suda reports his sojourn on Samos during the tyranny of Lygdamis, the grandson of Artemesia (s.v. Ἡρόδοτος). Herodotus then participated in the coup d’état expelling Lygdamis (cf. Diyllos FGrH 73 F 3). Halikarnassos lay under a puppet (at least, formerly pro-Persian) regime for much of the period between Mykale and Eurymedon. Cf. ATL 3.209, 213; IACP 1115.

[ back ] 251. The small community of Hiera (BA 65B5) near Sidyma in western Lycia only appears in the assessment of 425/4 (IG I³ 71.II.153–154). See ATL 3.210 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 252. Near Bargylia (n. 241), the Hyblisses (Hybliseis) are attested in the first period (IG I³ 262.V.26 [451/0]) and reassessed in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.II.108). See ATL 3.211, 241; IACP 1116 (which equates with Kyblisseis).

[ back ] 253. See above under Euromos (n. 249). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1130.

[ back ] 254. See above under Euromos (n. 249), below under Kyromes (n. 286). See ATL 3.212, 241; IACP 1117.

[ back ] 255. Aeschylus, Persians 891 implies Persian loss of Rhodes (see also AE 55–56). In the early 470s, Themistokles acted on the fates of Rhodians accused of Medism, including Timokreon of Ialysos (Plutarch Themistocles 21.4; Timocreon fr. 1–3, 727–729 PMG). Later unified Rhodes by its location would play a huge role fighting during the Ionian and Corinthian wars. Although not so strong as Chios, Samos, or Thasos, the Rhodians were probably ship-contributors: Ialysos just meets our 10T threshold on the early lists; Kameiros just misses at 9T (n. 261); and Lindos (n. 291) offers 8T, 2,700 drachmas (first period) and 10T in the second. Just like the poleis of Lesbos, the Rhodian communities may have had a military alliance against outsiders, regardless of internal rivalries. Various partitions are relevant: the Oiiatai (n. 298) of the Lindians paid 3,300 drachmas in the first period (IG I³ 259.III.26; 261.III.28), seemingly later reabsorbed; the Pedies ἐγ Λίνδο ‘in Lindos’ (n. 305) have a more sustained, if variable, payment record (2,000 drachmas in the second period: e.g. 264.II.11–12 [448/7]; 284.11 427/6 or 426/5]). On the Northeast coast, the Brikindarioi (n. 243) emerge in 429/8 (IG I³ 282.IV.13) in apotaxis from Ialysos (my preference) or Lindos. The Diakrioi ἐχσ Ῥόδο ‘from Rhodes’ (n. 245) appear in 430/29 (IG I³ 281.I.11), inhabitants of the interior, sundered from Kameiros or Ialysos. The states of Karpathos may also have been connected with Rhodes. For Ialysos: ATL 3.213; IACP 1199.

[ back ] 256. The Iasian Gulf does not so deeply penetrate Anatolia as the Keramic Gulf. Yet classifying the allies there presents similar challenges. The shores of the Iasian Gulf (far from maritime routes) were never entirely allied. Were Iasos and Bargylia (n. 241) original allies (Polybius 16.12.1; Strabo 14.2.20 22; Pliny Natural History 5.107; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. ἐν ὁμώνυμῳ νήσῳ κειμένῃ; Anon. Stad. 286, 288)? Iasos for ATL was still contributing ships in the first period. The safer solution is that Iasos was not an initial ally, not unreasonable for a state marginal to the arkhē (cf. Thucydides 8.28.2–4, 29.1, 36.1, 54.3; Diodorus Siculus 13.104.7). Thus, membership for Bargylia, which is a little nearer trade routes, must remain most questionable (despite its phoros payments: IG I³ 260.X10 [453/2] through 272.II.81 [440/39]). Small tributaries further inland should then be excluded from the alliance. Kindye (n. 277) was tributary (IG I³ 260.X.8 [453/2], 71.I.155–156 [425/4]. It lay east and upcountry from Bargylia (Strabo 14.2.20), was Carian; note its leading man, Pixodaros son of Mausolos, a military leader in the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus 5.118.2 3). Killara (n. 276) is southeast of Kindye and well inland and elevated, and it left payment in 451/0 (IG I³ 262.V.28) until 425/4, when by a native dynast, now with a partial name (IG I³ 71.II.96–97: [Κι]λλ[αρε͂ς] [ℎο͂]ν Σα[— — ἄρχει]). Ydissos (n. 328) was still farther inland to the southeast (Pliny Natural History 5.109; Ptolemy Geography (5.2.15); its phoros stops in 447/6 (IG I³ 265.II.51). ATL places Kasolaba (n. 266) nearby (cf. Hesychius s.v. Κασωλάβα), also appearing last in 447/6 until 425/4 (IG I³ 265.I.44; 71.I.172 res.). For Iasos: cf. ATL 3.29, 213, 239; IACP 1117.

[ back ] 257. Idyma stood at the deepest recess of the inner Kedriatic Gulf within the Keramic Gulf (cf. Constantine Porphyrogenitus De thematibus 1.14), and was culled from the tributaries in 442/1 (last possible appearance: IG I³ 270.V.13 res.). In the first assessment period, the dynast of the Idymes, Paktys, contributed for the community (260.I.16 [453/2]; 262.IV.20 [451/0]). They reappear in the assessment of 425/4 (IG I³ 71.I.140). As a hellenizing Carian community, it should be excluded. See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1119

[ back ] 258. One may assume that Ityra is Idyros in Pamphylia (BA 61E4: IG I³ 71.II.147; cf. [Skylax] 100; Pliny Natural History 5.131; Aristotle. fr. 250 Rose; Theophrastus De ventis 53; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ίδυρος). Besides applying the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, it is attested late. See ATL 3.210; IACP 1215–1216.

[ back ] 259. Kalydna was a small archipelago (northwest of Kos, west of the Halikarnassian peninsula), in which Kalymna was the chief place (Strabo 10.5.19; Pliny Natural History 5.133; cf. Homer Iliad 2.676–677). Vicinity of other allies and regular payment (IG I³ 261.I.10 [452/1]) suggest early adherence. See ATL 3.213; IACP 744.

[ back ] 260. The Klaundes were the people of Kalynda (65A4) in eastern Caria (Herodotus 8.87–88, cf. 7.98.; Pliny Natural History 5.103–104; Ptolemy Geography 5.3.2), whose first recorded payment is 444/3 (IG I³ 268.V.8). The ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule applies, to which we add their interior placement. See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1119.

[ back ] 261. See above under Ialysos (n. 255).

[ back ] 262. Karabasyanda was a regular, early tributary (IG I³ 259.IV.23 [454/3]), described as παρὰ Καῦνον ‘near Kaunos’ (BA 65A4) from 441/0 (271.I.68–69). In its case and that of Pasanda, Kaunos may not have been militarily usable without these two having been secured. Both communities were possibly separated from Kaunos through apotaxis before the first assessment period. Cf. ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1119.

[ back ] 263. The Karpathioi appear in 445/4 (IG I³ 267.III.23), perhaps too late to be considered for 478/7. Cf. ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 746 See nn. 236, 244, 248.

[ back ] 264. Karyanda (BA 61E3) stood on the north side of the Halikarnassean peninsula, perhaps with its polis center on a then offshore island (Strabo 14.2.20; [Skylax] 99; Pliny Natural History 5.107; 134; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Καρύανδα). The maritime explorer and author, Skylax of Karyanda—regardless whether Skylax the Myndian is the same man—speaks to the wider connections of his homeland. (Herodotus 4.44.1–3; Suda s.v. Σκύλαξ, w 10 Adler). Yet the proximity of Halikarnassos renders its initial status doubtful, despite regular payment (IG I³ 261.I.31 [452/1]). See ATL 3.213; IACP 1120.

[ back ] 265. Either emerging through apotaxis or a late accession, Κ]αρυ[ε͂ς παρὰ] [Ἴ]δυμ[α] ‘Karyues near Idyma’ (not in BA) was assessed in 425/4 (IG I³ 71.II.94–95) and did not belong to the initial roster of allies. See ATL 3.211 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 266. See above under Iasos (n. 256). See ATL 3.212; IACP 1120.

[ back ] 267. Kaunos was a major site in eastern Caria with considerable importance as a port and naval base, in part because its lake (now the Köidjiges Liman) was probably connected to the sea at this time (Strabo 14.2.2; Quintus Smyrnaeus 8.78–80). As a way station for naval forces traveling in and out of the Aegean, it was used by Perikles (439: Thucydides 1.116.3); Spartan warships (411: Thucydides 8.39.4, 41.1, 4, 42.2, 4); Tissaphernes (411: Thucydides 8.57.1, 88); Alkibiades (411: Thucydides 8.108.1); Konon & Pharnabazos (398: Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 9.2–3; 15.1; 19.1; 20.1, 5, 6). It is indeed possible that Kaunos was liberated by the Greeks during 479–478 to join the league like the Rhodians. However, the affiliation of Kaunos could have been extended into the 470s (cf. IG I³ 260.VII.8 [453/2]). Yet I hesitantly exempt it from the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule. Cf. ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1120.

[ back ] 268. Kasos appears first in 434/3 as a self-assessed city (IG I³ 278.VI.11), but was possibly a dependency of larger neighbor Karpathos. See ATL 3.210; IACP 747.

[ back ] 269. The Kedriai pay phoros consistently (IG I³ 259.V.17 [454/3]), but are mentioned by Xenophon as μιξοβάρβαροι ‘barbarians with a Greek admixture’ who as loyal Attic allies suffered sack and enslavement at the hands of Lysander in 405 ( Historia Graeca 2.1.15). They must be held most doubtful by location on the Kedreatic (an eastward extension of the Keramic Gulf) and their hellenized character. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1121.

[ back ] 270. Besides applying the (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, Kelenderis in Cilicia is ruled out for late assessment (IG I³ 71.II.146 [425/4]). See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1219.

[ back ] 271. That the dynasty of Artemisia retained power on the north shore of the Keramic Gulf (n. 250 for Halikarnassos) casts considerable doubt over involvement of any state there. Yet ATL lists Keramos as a 478/7 ally without a rationale (regular payment?: from IG I³ 259.V.18 [454/3]). Keramos lay well within the gulf (BA 61F3), a bridgehead surrounded by non-league territory (Strabo 14.2.15; Ptolemy Geography 5.2.8; Pausanias 6.13.3). Keramos had not fought in the Ionian Revolt, having little fifth-century strategic significance (cf. Alkibiades’ forcible fundraising there after Kyzikos: Xenophon Historia Graeca 1.4.8). Keramos was hellenized from a population with a strong Carian element, especially if Pargasa (n. 301) is Strabo’s Bargasa, to the west of Keramos (14.2.15). His description of them as πολίχνια ὑπὲρ θαλάττης ‘small cities above the sea’ does not enhance a claim to early membership. Pargasa is dropped from the lists permanently in 444/3 (IG I³ 268.III.22). Cf. for Keramos ATL 3.213; IACP 1121–1122.

[ back ] 272. See above under Euromes (n. 249). See ATL 3.211, 241; IACP 1113.

[ back ] 273. Khalke, just to west of Rhodes and near to Kameiros, had regular phoros payments (IG I³ 263.I.10 [450/49]; 71.II.104 [425/4]), but is perhaps best understood as a Rhodian dependency as it was later. It certainly represented a grave threat to the Rhodians as a base in enemy hands during the Peloponnesian War (cf. Thucydides 8.41.4, 44.3, 55.1, 60.3). See ATL 3.213; IACP 738.

[ back ] 274. The Khersonesioi probably occupied the eastern branch of their peninsula ending at Loryma (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Χερσόνησος; Pausanias 1.1.3; 5.24.7; Strabo 14.2.15; cf. Herodotus 1.174.2–6), everything east of Knidian territory according to ATL (citing ΣApollonius Rhodius Argonautica 1.925; ΣTzetzes; Lycophron Alexandra 1047–1048; Diodorus Siculus 5.60–62, cf. 14.79.6, 14.83.4). Yet other allies may have had some territory. Nevertheless, some political entity—whether or not the entire later syntely—is likely to have been an early ally (IG I³ 261.IV.9 [452/1]). See under Syme below (n. 317). See ATL 3.213; IACP 1114.

[ back ] 275. The Khioi Kares (i.e., Chian Carians) lived on the Triopian peninsula surrounded by Knidian territory (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Χίος; [Skylax] 99). ATL excludes them from the early alliance hesitantly as they disappear after the second assessment period (IG I³ 259.V.21 [454/3] down to 265.I.23 [447/6]). See ATL 3.211, 213; IACP 1114.

[ back ] 276. See above under Iasos (n. 256). See ATL 3.211, 240; IACP 1122.

[ back ] 277. See above under Iasos (n. 256). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1122–1123.

[ back ] 278. The peninsula projecting westward into the Aegean has its two arms, the Triopian peninsula and the Rhodian Chersonese. This strategic locale bars one of the routes into the heart of the Delian League. With one settlement at the tip of Triopion, Knidos was doubtless an initial ally. Aeschylus (Persians 491) implies Xerxes losing it, unsurprising in light of Knidian sixth-century opposition (Herodotus 1.174.3–6). Kimon concentrated his fleet there at the outset of the Eurymedon campaign (Plutarch Cimon 12.2). It was naturally of strategic importance during the Ionian War (Thucydides 8.35.1–4; 8.41.3, 42.4, 43.1–2, 44.2; 8.52; cf. 8.109.1) and Corinthian War (Xenophon Historia Graeca 4.3.10–12; 3.8.22–24). See ATL 3.209, 213, 242; IACP 1123–1124.

[ back ] 279. The Kodapes offer modest phoros in the first three assessment periods (last payment, 445/4: IG I³ 267.III.32), and were reassessed in 425/4 (71.II.103). ATL compares the toponym Kota in Halikarnassian inscriptions (SIG³ 46.16, 27, 73, 84). This Carian people were not original members. See ATL 3.212, 240. 242; IACP 1125.

[ back ] 280. At the entrance of the Keramic Gulf was Kos, an original ally because of its ability to block hostile approach to Ionia and Cyclades (cf. the Ionian War: Thucydides 8.41.2–3, 44.3, 55.1, 108.2; Xenophon Historia Graeca 1.5.1). See ATL 3.213, 242; IACP 752–755.

[ back ] 281. See below under Syangela (n. 316). See ATL 3.210 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 282. Krye, on the border of Lycia and Caria (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Κρύα; Pliny Natural History 5.103; Mela Geography 1.83; [Skylax] 99; cf. Polyaenus Strategemata 7.64; Plutarch Moralia 246D), was a regular contributor (from IG I³ 260.VII.10 [453/2]). Besides applying the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, its degree of hellenization must as well factor in. See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1126.

[ back ] 283. The Kydaies pay in the first and second periods, disappearing in 447/6 (IG I³ 265.II.12 res.), seemingly reassessed as Hydaies in 425/4 (71.II.155). Cf. ATL 3.211, 240; IACP 1117.

[ back ] 284. A group of states to be excluded is placed inland of Idyma (n. 257) presenting a similar payment profile. The Kyllandioi or Kyllantioi (BA 61G3) disappear after 447/6 and reenter in 425/4 (IG I³ 265.I.21; 71.I.142; cf. SIG³ 586.8–11). The last date before 425/4 for Kyrbissos (n. 285) is 445/4 (IG I³ 267.V.28; 71.II.106). The Olaies or Oulaies (n. 299) leave assessment as early as 453/2 and are never assessed again to the best of our knowledge (IG I³ 260.I.18; cf. Herodotus 5.37.1 for a Mylasian called Oliatos). For Kyllandos, see ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1126.

[ back ] 285. See above under Kyllandioi (n. 284). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1126.

[ back ] 286. The Kyromes were a Carian sub-ethnos, perhaps to be associated or even equated with the Euromes (n. 249); only assessment is 425/4, with the Ymesses and the Edries (n. 246: IG I³ 71.II.143–144). The former were Hymisses (n. 254) in the first and second (last paying in 447/6: 265.II.50). The latter were more often Idries (Strabo 14.5.23; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἰδριίς; s.v. Χρυσαορίς; cf. Herodotus 5.118.1). Not original members, but hellenizing communities (far inland in Caria: BA 61F3). See ATL 3.268.

[ back ] 287. See above under Amioi (n. 232). See ATL 3.211 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 288. Persian dominance persisted in the Maiandros valley (Isinda n. 50; Maiandrioi n. 58). East of Miletos and south of Myous, there lay the Latmic Gulf, at the northeastern recess of which was situated Latmos, later Herakleia under Latmos (Strabo 14.1.8; [Skylax] 99; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ἡράκλεια). Accepted by ATL as early member, its classification is more doubtful as isolated allied territory. Latmos contributes in the first four periods (IG I³ 260.X.3 [453/2]), and then again in period five. Latmos might have been a satellite of ship-contributing Miletos at the beginning of the alliance. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1126.

[ back ] 289. Tiny Lepsimandos (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Ληψίμανδος; Pliny Natural History 5.134) paid regularly (from IG I³ 260.I.13 [453/2]), but is likely an initial tributary of a larger neighbor (Kalydna/Kalymna?: n. 260). See ATL 3.212–213; IACP 1127.

[ back ] 290. See above under Ialysos (n. 255). See ATL 3.211, 213, 242; IACP 1202.

[ back ] 291. After applying the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, note that behind the name Lykioi, appearing in 446/5 must stand a group of Attic allies there, hardly all the Lycians. Λύκιοι∶ καὶ συν[τελ…] ought to meant “Lycians and co-contributors” (IG I³ 266.III.34). This coalition was extensive; its payment of 10T was then matched or exceeded by less than ten allied states. One hypothesis is that some Lycian communities were allied to Athens throughout this period, but that only in 446/5 did they pay phoros instead of serving themselves in self-defense or in conjunction when Attic forces were present. See ATL 3.210–211, 240.

[ back ] 292. Poorly attested Madnasa was likely Medmassa (Medmasos), later united by Alexander into Halikarnassos (Pliny Natural History 5.107). ATL asserts charter membership with its regular payment (from IG I³ 259.I.26 [454/3]), but it is very close to doubtful adherent Halikarnassos (n. 250). Note Thonemann 2009:171. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1127.

[ back ] 293. Rejected under the ATL Carian rule, the Milyai were a non-Lycian people of eastern Lycia, also called the Solymoi (Herodotus 1.173.2; 3.90.1; 7.77). Their participation in the alliance was late (IG I³ 71.II.137 [425/4]). See ATL 3.210.

[ back ] 294. The status of Mylasa is related to other states in the hinterland of the Iasic Gulf. Mylasa was the leading center of the lower Marysas river valley (Strabo 14.2.23). Ionian Revolt era leaders were the pro-Persian Oliatos and his anti-Persian brother Herakleides (Herodotus 5.37.1; 5.121). Herakleides won a victory over the Persians in the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus 5.121), and later fought (with Dionysios of Phokaia?) with the Massaliots against the Carthaginians (Sosylus FGrH 176 F 1.3). Even if members of this dynasty rallied to Athens, they could not have been tributary in 478/7. After early paying phoros (IG I³ 263.I.12 [450/49]), Mylasa’s last known payment was 440/39 (IG I³ 272.II.76 res.). ATL 3.212–213, 220; IACP 1128.

[ back ] 295. The control of Artemesia’s dynasty at Halikarnassos renders doubtful early allegiance by states on the Myndian promontory. Myndos is also notably described as παρὰ Τέρμερα ‘near Termera’ on the lists (cf. Polybius 16.12.1; Pliny Natural History 5.107; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Μύνδος; [Skylax] 99; Mela Geography 1.85; Anon. Stad. 276–278, 286). The Myndians were naval subjects of Persia; witness Skylax, the Myndian officer whom the Persian Megabates tried to chastise at Naxos (Herodotus 5.33.2–4). Myndos had a regular record of early payment of phoros (from IG I³ 260.VI.16); its status as a waystation speaks to early entry. The grounds for caution are proximity to Halikarnassos. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1129.

[ back ] 296. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1129–1130.

[ back ] 297. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1130.

[ back ] 298. See above under Ialysos (n. 255). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1204–1205.

[ back ] 299. See above under Kyllandioi (n. 284). See ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1130.

[ back ] 300. See below under Syangela (n. 316). See ATL 3.211, 240; IACP 1130–1131.

[ back ] 301. See above under Keramos (n. 271). See ATL 3.211, 240; IACP 1113.

[ back ] 302. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). ATL 3.212, 240; IACP 1131.

[ back ] 303. Pasanda lay on the coast opposite Kaunos (Anon. Stad. 264–265; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πάσσα; cf. Diodorus Siculus 14.79.4–5 where it could be Sasanda), once called ἀπὸ Καύνου ‘from Kaunos’ (IG I³ 281.II.28 [432/1]). It paid phoros regularly (from IG I³ 262.III.23 [451/0]). See also above under Karabasyanda (n. 262). See ATL 3.210, 240; IACP 1131.

[ back ] 304. ATL boldly dissociated this Pedasa from the town very near Halikarnassos (Herodotus 1.175, cf. 8.104; Pliny Natural History 5.107; Strabo 13.1.59; SIG³ 46.142), equating it with Pidasa (BA 61F3), an inland Milesian colony, known from Hellenistic inscriptions (IMilet #77.149–150; cf. Herodotus 6.20, while Herodotus 5.121 is counter-indicative or implies still another site). This is improbable. Pedasa’s disappearance in the second assessment period likely indicates (re)incorporation into Halikarnassos (from IG I³ 260.X.7 [453/2] to 265.I.14 [447/6], of which it had been an earlier dependency (reappearance in 425/4 would also fit this: IG I³ 71.II.149). In either spot, it was a non-ally. Cf. ATL 3.211; IACP 1131.

[ back ] 305. See above under Ialysos (n. 255). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1205.

[ back ] 306. The Peleiatai are a Carian community, regularly paying (from IG I³ 260.X.2 [453/3]). ATL places them on Kos, noting Pele, the site of a festival (Theocritus Idyll 7.1, 65, 135–137 with scholia). Why a Koan rural district would be a separate tributary is inexplicable. I accept very reluctantly, but as an apotaxis from Kos. The alternative is a territory near Myndos. See ATL 3.213; IACP 1131.

[ back ] 307. Besides applying the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, Perge is inland in Pamphylia and lately assessed (IG I³ 71.II.113). See ATL 3.210; IACP 1216.

[ back ] 308. During the Eurymedon campaign, the Chians brokered accession of Phaselis in eastern Lykia (Plutarch Cimon 12.3 4). Cf. IG I³ 10 for a decree stipulating the terms for adjudication of disputes. See ATL 3.195, 210; IACP 1140.

[ back ] 309. Pladasa lay inland on the north side of the Keramic Gulf (NE of Keramos). Its last payment in 440/39 (IG I³ 272.I.89), reassessed later (71.I.150 [425/4]). See ATL 3.212, 241; IACP 1131.

[ back ] 310. The Polikhnaioi Kares (perhaps from the interior of the north shore of the Keramic Gulf) pay once before disappearing from the lists in 451/0 (IG I³ 262.II.33). They were quasi-hellenized Carians. See ATL 3.211, 241.

[ back ] 311. Northwest of Kaunos lay Pyrnos (Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πύρνος; Pliny Natural History 5.104), attested in the first four assessment periods (from IG I³ 261.IV.10). ATL equates with Prinassos, placing near the base of the Carian Chersonese (Polybius 16.11; Polyaenus Strategemata 14.18.1; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Πρινασσός). BA (61G4) locates farther east. Incongruously, ATL hesitantly accepts Pyrnos as original ally, making it the extreme edge of the alliance. Accepting Kaunos, I reluctantly concur in a most doubtful case. Cf. ATL 3.213–214; IACP 1132.

[ back ] 312. Sambaktys was probably a Carian dynast who paid phoros twice in the first period (IG I³ 259.II.27 [454/3]; 261.V.12 [452/1]), and was based in an inland fortified center. See ATL 3.211, 241.

[ back ] 313. Saros first appears in 428/7 (IG I³ 283.III.21) but was possibly a dependency of larger neighbor Karpathos. See ATL 3.210; IACP 771.

[ back ] 314. Besides applying the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule, inland Sillyon (BA 65E4) in Pamphylia is attested late (IG I³ 71.II.114 [425/4]). See ATL 3.210, 241 (not in IACP).

[ back ] 315. Like their neighbors on the same list of aparkhai, the Siloi were another Carian sub-ethnos of unknown location that is attested as tributary in the first assessment period and not thereafter (IG I³ 262.V.30). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1132–1133.

[ back ] 316. Syangela, almost certainly linked with Theangela (Strabo 13.1.59; Callisthenes FGrH 124 F 25; Pliny Natural History 5.107), although both names were used contemporaneously for nearby sites, lay in the middle of the Carian peninsula, oriented toward the northern Iasian Gulf. ATL classed it (and Amynanda) as initial allies (although annotating with a question mark), but that decision should be resisted. The payment of Syangela was often associated with a native Carian dynast, Pigres. On IG I³ 259.V.16 [454/3], he pays in his own right as Πίγρ[ες | Συανγελ]εύς, while the people of Syangela are Συαν[αγγλῆς | h]όν Πίκρες ἄρχει ‘whom Pigres rules’ on 263.I.14–15 [450/49]. In 432/1, Pigres again pays as Πίκρες Συαν[γελεύς (280.I.66–67), and in 427/6, the earlier formula Συαγγλῆς | ὃν ἄρχει Πίτρες reappears (284.7–8). On eight other occasions the Syangeles appear in their own right. This variation indicates thorough Attic nonchalance over the political status of these two tributaries. Athens may well have chosen to cooperate with this well entrenched native dynasty, improbably present at the inception. Furthermore, I doubt whether the Athenians would have permitted a Carian chieftain to acquire an allied city he did not bring into the alliance. Amynanda (n. 234) was a Carian town west of Pargas on the north shore of the Keramic Gulf, which was the southern, Keramic Gulf port of Syangela. In 446/5 it co-pays with Syangela (IG I³ 266.III.20–21). Its spotty record of payment was otherwise owed to its assessment with Syangela without notation on the lists of aparkhai. In the assessment of 425/4, the political complexion of this region had changed somewhat in that a syntely had been created: Amynanda (restored), Syangela (restored), the Carians ruled by Tymnes? (restored from [Κᾶ]ρ[ες ℎο͂ν | Τ]ύμν[ες ἄρχει), Taramptos, the Kroses, and the Oranietai (IG I³ 71.I.111–119). This may be the entire state once ruled by the dynasty of Pigres, part of which was previously unassessed. All lie within the Myndian peninsula, although their orientation may have been toward the Iasian Gulf, like Syangela. Tymnes and his Carians had paid in their own regard in the third and fourth assessment periods (from IG I³ 267.III.25 [445/4]). Pigres may be excluded, however, from the initial roster of allies under criteria A, B, and E. Taramptos (n. 318) is an island in the Iasic Gulf (later called Tarandos: SIG³ 1044). ATL sees it as an apotaxis from Bargylia (n. 240), but it might be connected with Karyanda (n. 263). It should be excluded from the original allies. Krousa appears only here as a tributary and may be another island in the Iasic (or less possibly the Keramic) Gulf (Pliny Natural History 5.134). In contrast, the people of Ouranion (n. 300: with a predominant Carian element) paid phoros in the first assessment period and then dropped from the lists (IG I³ 260.1.17 [453/2]). It was a community later incorporated by Maussolos into Halikarnassos (Pliny Natural History 5.107; cf. Diodorus Siculus 5.53.2). See also Halikarnassos (n. 250). Cf. ATL 3.210, 213–214; IACP 1133.

[ back ] 317. Syme belonged to the syntely of Kheronesioi before an apotaxis, entering in ca. 429/8 under the idiōtai rubric (e.g. IG I³ 278.VI.28; cf. assessment by the Boulē in 282.II.45). Cf. ATL 3.210; IACP 775.

[ back ] 318. See above under Syangela (n. 316). See ATL 3.210–211; IACP 1133–1134.

[ back ] 319. The Tarbanes, attested nowhere else, pay phoros in the first and probably the fourth period (e.g., IG I³ 260.I.19 [453/2]; 272.II.87 [440/39]), assessed again in 425/4 (71.II.140). ATL compares Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Δρέπανα; s.v. Καρβανίς) with placement in Lycia. See ATL 3.211, 241; IACP 1134.

[ back ] 320. The Telandrioi hailed from the island Telandria (BA 55A4) on the border of Lycia and Caria (Pliny Natural History 5.101, 131; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Τηλανδρία). Despite regular payment (IG I³ 262.V.31 [452/1]), one invokes the ATL (east of the) Carian Chersonese rule. See ATL 3.210–211, 241; IACP 1134.

[ back ] 321. Like the Lykioi, Telmessos made isolated payment on extant lists (barring other restorations) in 446/5 (IG I³ 266.III.33), but does reappear 425/4 (71.I.130). Note late payment and the east of Caria rule. This is not Telmessos, the neighbor of Halikarnassos. See ATL 3.210–211, 240.

[ back ] 322. Telos, an island northwest of Rhodes, makes a late appearance in 427/6 or 426/5 (IG I³ 284.12; cf. 71.II.145 [425/4]). That is suggestive of apotaxis from a Rhodian city: Kameiros is closest, but the foundation tradition of Gela in Sicily links Telines, a Telian noble ancestor of the tyrant Gelon, with the Lindians (Herodotus 7.153.1). See ATL 3.211; IACP 776.

[ back ] 323. Termera, west of Halikarnassos (Strabo 14.2.18, 20; Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Τέμερα; Photius s.v. Τέμερα), is more doubtful for the influence of the persistent pro-Persian regime at Halikarnassos, to which it was joined by Maussolos (Pliny Natural History 4.107), and perhaps for Medism. The Termeran leader Histiaios was arrested to further the outbreak of the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus 5.37.1). It is now insoluble whether Termera was far enough from Halikarnassos to join the alliance, although its record of payment was long (from IG I³ 259.IV.25 [454/3]; also 290.I.22 [415/4]). ATL sees it a ship-contributor which is improbable. See also under Mylasa (n. 294). See ATL 3.213, 242; IACP 1134.

[ back ] 324. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). See ATL 3.212; IACP 1135.

[ back ] 325. See above under Amyzon (n. 235). See ATL 3.211; IACP 1135.

[ back ] 326. See above under Syangela (n. 316). Carian dynast. See ATL 3.211–212.

[ back ] 327. Tymnessos is restored by ATL for IG I³ 71.I.141 on the basis of its attested coinage (from the Roman Empire) and a gloss in Stephanus (s.v. Τυμνασσός). This lies too deeply in the realm of speculation, and an unlikely initial member in any case. Cf. ATL 3.210.

[ back ] 328. See above under Iasos (n. 255). See ATL 3.212; IACP 1117.