The three-barred sigma (looking like a backward Z) is second from the left and last on the right.
The round tailed rho is third from the right (looking like an R). Restricting possible archons to those from the start of the first Peloponnesian war, until the start of the final phase of the war, gives the five names in the second column, viz: Habron, Ariston, Epameinon, Aristion, and Antiphon κατὰ δὲ τὴν Σικελίαν Ἐγεσταίοις καὶ Λιλυβαίταις ἐνέστη πόλεμος περὶ χώρας τῆς πρὸς τῷ Μαζάρῳ ποταμῷ· γενομένς δὲ μάχης ἰσχυρᾶς συνέβη πολλοὺς παῤ ἀμϕοτέροις ἀναιρεθῆναι καὶ τῆς ϕιλοτιμίας μη λῆξαι τὰς πόλεις. Meiggs considered these factors to be consistent with dating the alliance at this time.
Since then Mattingly has argued copiously , on the basis of historical congruence and textual context, for a number of inscriptions to be put back into the 420s BCE.
For example, Mattingly argued that the Coinage Decree suited c.420 admirably, the Decree of Kleinias had an affinity with 426/5 and the Athena Nike temple was not built in the 440s etc.
The alliance inscription was then freed from Antiphōn's context.
This still fitted Meiggs (199) "buoyant mood" as it meant a shift of only four years.
Letter-form Evolution Meiggs (19) observed that inscribing the name of archons in the prescripts of decrees was customary from the Peace of Nicias in 421 BCE onwards .
Segre (19) and Raubitschek (197f) asserted that the three-barred form () was replaced by the four-barred form () on inscriptions after 445 BCE.
On this basis, the dates of a number of inscriptions with three-barred sigmas (e.g. Mattingly attacked this letter-form analysis and asserted that historians had been "imprisoned by a dogma" (199) and an "over-rigid application of epigraphy" (Mattingly, 193).