Ssh
Saath συ σστ ον ΤΕΣ 7 re:
Ἐρλττο, τε τανε τ Ἡτιτ ἜΌΣΑΣΩΣ pike ΣΟ πο Σ ΊΣο τς τς 2 τς
ἌΡΡ ΣΤ 2 ae Perens 4 Migr corde
75
ΖΞ: ” “2
a fae ~~ vo
8
Ee VOU NATE
BEeLURNIC STUDIES
LAA FOU. HAE
7 ᾿
= ary 7 7 |
οὐ πὸ OMS
Che Society for the Promotion of Mellenic Studies
er he JOURNAL,
ΕΠ ΜΙ Ο Slob Kb
VOLUME XIX. (599)
1899
KRAUS REPRINT
Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1971
Reprinted by permission of THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
KRAUS REPRINT A Division of KRAUS-THOMSON ORGANIZATION LIMITED Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1971 Printed in Germany
CONTENTS.
Ae OLRM MEU eet ity Meas. “Bast sacks Lack ΤΩ vaya “πέρι cama © ore “Gx Nistor Oibedrs amd Members oii. isc Gi. ee wes Ree eee ς Eeoceedings of thie Society, TS98—9' >.2 * 0c ΚΕΝ uk) Mie 4.) «02 el Proceedings of the Cambridge Branch of the Society... ... τον -..XXXIX PPG ote RROD A Teg PY a ἡ ἀντ, νὼ... rear ¢ | List of Periodical Publications in the Library ΡΝ ae Anperson (J. G. C.) .... Exploration in Galatia cis Halym, Part ΤΙ. (Eistenty ict. ia) ΜΗ... - 52, 280 Bosanquet (R. ©.) ... Some Early Funeral l.ekythoi (Plates ΠΠ., 111.). 169 Pe ἣν 3 ... See Hocarru (D. G.). Fr Brooks (E. W.).... .... The Campaign of 716-718, from Arabic Sources. 19 Crowroor (J. W.) ... Exploration in Galatia cis Halymn, Part I. ... ... 84 Dimemon (isaRer iA.) i. A: MEW KaNGS-VASC 956. ie none cee iene, poany vac yeep 202 GARDNER (E. A.) ... A Head of Athena, formerly in the Disney Collec- tion (Plate 1.) m4 Ry : 1 Ἔ » τ ΑΝ Inscribed Scarab singh? ἐν... . 8941 GARDNER (P.) .... -... The Scenery of the Greek Stage ... .-- ... ... 252 ἘΠΕῚ ΟΝ (oane Ἐ)} -- Delphika ... 0 2... wc. asp (ssc. den nen -- 20D ἘΠ τ τ 8.) --- .... Note on Coms of Nagidus “2. 9%.. “... “.. “s. 105 Hocartnu (D. G.) and Busanqurr (R. C.) Archaeology in Greece, 1898-9. 919 Karo (G.) ...... .... Notes on Amasis and Ionic Black-figured Pottery {ΕἸ ον ὙΠ) cece eeu et eee ee” 10 Munro (J. A. ἃ) .... Some Remarks on the Persian Wars. I. The Campaign.of. Marathon, ... 005 20: ap xp 185 " a Ξῇ A Leiter from Antigonus to Scepsis, 311 Βιὸ. ... 330 Murray (A.8.)... .... A new Vase of the Dipylon Class (Plate VIII.) ... 198 Peers (C.R.) ... .... Greek Graffiti from Der el Bahari and El Kab ... 13 PERDRIZET (P.) ‘He Nevatio Alexandri (Plate ΠῚ τ 0a.) eet (ns. 215 Savienoni (L.) ... .... On Representations of Helios and Selene (Plates eS rhs, PL eas cern el αὐ δη Warrers (H.:B.) ror..) Athena: Hygieia:(Plate VIT.)... ... ... ... ὡς 165 ΠΙΈΡ STUNSN CE eg es! Fala Sagal eee Sea See eee 989
Greek Index lbh, δ τ ρου πον SOM es rea ree a Oe ATES
XI.
CONTENTS.
LIST OF PLATES.
Head of Athena formerly in the Disney Collection. Lekythos in the Athens Museu.
Lekythos in the Berlin Museum.
Galatia cis Halym.
Amphora at Wiirzburg.
Black-figured Psykter in the British Musewn. Athena Hygieia.
Dipylon Vase from Thebes.
Lekythos with Helios and Herakles (Athens). Krater with Selene (Athens).
Venatio Alexandri.
CONTENTS.
LIST OF [LLUSTRATIONS, IN, THE TEXT.
Head of Athena in the Fitzwilliam Museum Statue of Athena in the Louvre ... Idol from Sarilar ... Pot from Sarilar Potsherd from Kecobriga Relief at Yarre Relief from Amaksiz-keui Justinian’s Bridge at Sykeon (Plan and Elevation) ... Decoration of Wiirzburg Amphora Inscription of Louvre Amphora (F 23) Louvre Amphora (Εἰ 24) Woman at Tumulus Shoulder-Palmettes from Lekythos (Berlin) Figure from Eretrian Lekythos (Athens) ... Design of Kretrian Lekythos (Berlin) showing first sketch Shoulder-Palmettes from glaze-outline Lekythos of “Hygiainon’ series Charon (Lekythos at Munich) » (Lekythos at Berlin) Archer (Athenian Lekythos) R.F. Lekythos from Eretria (Brit. Mus.) ... Part of design from Bourguignon Amphora Serpent-bodied Nymphs Votive Relief (Coll. Tyszkiewicz)
Design from Prothesis Vase
vil
vill CONTENTS. Design from B.F. Amphora (Mus. Gregor.) Maenad?! (from Rosenberg, “ Die Erinyen ἢ) Design from Kotylos at Naples ...
General view of the same
Design from Lekythos at Naples...
General view of the same
Anodos of the Earth-Goddess (Berlin Krater) ... Krater in Vagnonville Collection
Lekythos at Athens with Helios and Herakles... Kylix at Berlin with Selene in biga to front Reverse of Krater at Athens with Selene in biga
Inscribed Scarab ...
A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION.
[PLATE I.]
By the kindness of Philip Nelson, Esq., M.B., I am enabled to publish another head which he has recently acquired, and which is, perhaps, even more interesting than the head of an athlete from the same collection that I published last year. The Athena, which forms the subject of the present paper, was a part of the collection of sculpture made in Italy by Hollis and Brand, mostly from 1748-1753; this particular head is said to have been brought from Rome by Mr. Lloyd, and bought of him by Mr. Thomas Hollis in 1761. Together with the rest of this collection it passed into the hands of John Disney, and is represented upon Plate I. of the Museum Disneianum, published by him in 1843; and this place of honour is certainly merited, for it stands out most conspicuously for its artistic quality among the rest of the Disney marbles. When Disney in 1850 presented the greater part of his collection to the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, this head of Athena, and also the archaic statuette of Apollo,! represented on Plate XXIV. of the Museum Disneianum, remained behind at the Hyde, Ingatestone. There it was left until disposed of by sale in 1885 ; but it aroused no attention until its acquisition by Dr. Nelson, to whom I am indebted not only for my know- ledge of the head, but also for the admirable negatives from which Plate I. has been reproduced.
Perhaps it is not quite correct to call the head unpublished, since it is figured in the Museum Disneianum ; but the plates of that publication are inadequate to give any notion of the style and character of the work. The type, however, is of such interest that it may be a matter of surprise that no archaeologist has hitherto attempted to find out more about the Disney head. This may be partly explained by the fact that a curious error has crept into Professor Michaelis’ usually most accurate catalogue of the Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Under ‘Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, No. 39,’ he mentions first among the busts and heads from the Disney collection a head
11 do not know what has become of this interesting of Disney’s marbles, It was a torso Apollo, which, after the Athena, is the most restored by Flaxman,
H.S.—VOL. XIX. B
E. A. GARDNER.
2
of Athena; this head he describes as ‘cither completely restored or more
probably quite modern, Coarse execution. But to this perfectly accurate See 3 - τῷ 21 aes Tho ve
description he adds the reference ‘Museum Disneianum, Plate I’ The head
at Cambridge, No. 39 in Michaelis’ catalogue, is here reproduced (Fig. 1) from a photograph kindly taken for me by Mr. H. A. Chapman of the Fitzwilliam Museum; and a glance suffices to show that it has
4 7 2OVIIP?IOD “22 φϑ2:792277Ζ:-- PY? “222 Poe 2b of DUPYZ, fo DO) 7 τ Af AL Pes , a 725 2 Pe -
Say
1/7 [ F / δ
\ 4 ra
Pe 7 VA
hack
A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION. 3
nothing to do with the very fine head reprodueed upon Plate T. of the Museum Disneianum and also upon our Plate 1.1 Curiously enough, T can find no trace of this Cambridge head among the sculptures recorded in’ the Museum Disneianum; and, bad as it is, it is no worse than many other things whieh are there figured and described. It may have been acquired by Disney between 1843 and 1850, or it may possibly have been specially added by him, to compensate for his retaining at the Hyde the gem of his whole collection.
For the following details, so far as they cannot be seen in the photograph or the cast, I have to thank Dr. Nelson. The head is of Parian marble, the nose is restored, according to the Museum Disneianum, in marble ‘ evidently taken from the bunch of hair behind.’ It is exceedingly badly modelled, and takes off much from the beauty of the face. The front peak of the helmet is also restored, partly, apparently, after Disney’s publication, and a piece of the back of the helmet and of the hair is a restoration. The neck is modern; according to Dr. Nelson it is Italian of the last century, and the bust evidently has nothing to do with the head, but is probably latish Roman work ; it is clear that both neck and bust are useless as evidence for the statue of which the head once formed a part. The head should probably be tilted rather more forward.
The goddess wears a helmet of the ordinary Corinthian type, such as is frequently seen on her statues, and also on those of Attic strategi, Pericles for example. There, is however, one peculiarity that is of great value to us; for the copies or replicas of this and similar types of Athena are extremely hard to distinguish from one another, especially when they are, most of them, by no means trustworthy in respect of style. This is the felt cap worn under the helmet, to prevent its chafing the head or the hair; the side of this cap is distinctly visible where it is pressed out above either temple between the front and back portions of the helmet. Such caps were not uncommon ; an obvious example is that worn by Patroclus on the famous vase by Sosias ; he has evidently removed his helmet, but the close fitting felt cap remains? In the well-known vase by Brygos with warriors arming, a similar purpose is served by pads attached to a diadem before the helmet is put on. The way in which this cap shows makes it easy to distinguish this type from other more or less similar ones, such as the Athena of Velletri or the colossal Albani head at Munich, in which the pose has some resemblance to the
1 Possibly Prof. Michaelis may have added this reference from a list of Disney’s plates, without the plates themselves before him. Then the identification of this head of Athena with Mus. Disn. Plate I. would be a very natural inference.
2 And wrongly restored ; it projects too far, as may easily be seen by following the curve of the ancient portion.
3 So rightly described in Schreiber-Anderson Atlas, p. 68. Patroclus on this vase is evi- dently represented as a fully armed hoplite ;
there is no ground for imagining the cap to be his only head-covering. The strange assertion of Baumeister (Denkmdler, γν. 8) that he is an archer is due to a misinterpretation of the loosened shoulder-piece of the breast-plate.
4 Schreiber-Anderson Aflas, Plate XXXV. The end of such a pad is visible under the back of the helmet in our head; it is in the restored part, but must have been imitated hy the restorer from indications on the piece of the original he cut away to make the nose out of it.
4 E. A. GARDNER.
Disney head. It is true that the style is so dissimilar that no confusion might seem possible ; but, as we shall see later, certain other heads which are also somewhat dissimilar in style must be identified—partly by the help of this more or less accidental indication—as belonging to the Disney type.
The hair stands out freely on both sides of the helmet beneath the felt cap; at the back it has been partly cut away (the material for the restored nose being taken from it) and then restored ; it is impossible therefore to say how it was treated at the back of the neck; and the neck and bust, not being original, can offer no indication. Presumably it was once continued to a greater length than it now has, and reached at least a little way down between the shoulders. The treatment of the hair is characteristic; while it has a bold projection, and each tress is separately modelled and seems to have an independent existence, there is nothing of that hard and wiry texture, probably indicating derivation from a bronze original, that is so conspicuous in hair like that of the Athena of Velletri. The softer and more pictorial treatment may not indeed imply that the copy is derived from a marble original ; but if it does not, then it shows that the copyist at least translated his original from bronze into marble technique. The general character and expression of the face have a simplicity and artistic restraint, combined with softness and delicacy of modelling and contour, that can only belong to the closing years of the fifth century. The brow is smoothly rounded ; the eyes not set in deeply below it, the shadow afforded them being given quite as much by the strongly projecting and firm frame of the eyelids. A marked feature of the modelling of the eye is the very distinct rendering of the caruncula lachrymalis at the inner corner. The eyelids show in the rim that borders them a technical indication known on several works that must be assigned to this period—among them the head of the Mattei Amazon (which, it will be remembered, really belongs to the Capitoline type), and the very similar head of an athlete in Dr. Nelson’s collection, which I published last year in this journal. This feature is doubtless originally derived from the bronze casing of the eyes inserted into the sockets of a bronze statue. The edges of these casings, as may be so clearly seen in the Charioteer at Delphi, were often allowed to project so as to give the effect of eye-lashes. This effect was evidently intentionally retained even in a marble work like this Disney head ; for we cannot imagine that an artist, who was capable of trans- lating so successfully the bronze technique of the hair, would have retained a purely technical feature like this unless he had appreciated its artistic effect in marble also. The mouth is slightly open, allowing the teeth to be seen. This peculiarity, together with the treatment of the eyes, which, though directed slightly downward,! are not fixed on any near object, gives an expression of kindly yet unconcentrated interest to the face, that may seem inconsistent at first glance with a fifth century date. But if we compare this
ee very different effect may be obtained by But the Cretan Athena in the Louvre shows tilting the head further back, as is often done, {πὸ true position, which is nearly as in the rightly or wrongly, with some similar heads. photograph on Plate 1,
A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION. 5
head with others of a somewhat similar expression, and of undoubtedly fourth century origin, we shall easily see the essential difference. Take the Hermes of Praxiteles, for instance, the most conspicuous example of this expression of a mood of kindly reverie; not only is the modelling far softer and less definite throughout, but the expression of the eyes is mainly dependent upon the depth of the socket, the consequent shadow around the eyes, and the delicate flow of the surrounding muscles. In this Athena, on the other hand, the expression is almost entirely dependent upon the modelling of the eye- ball and eye-lids, and so it is relegated at once to ‘an earlier period. Again, the half-open mouth, showing the teeth, suggests comparison with heads of the school of Scopas; but here again the comparison, when made, shows a difference as essential as the similarity. The well known head from the south of the Acropolis, for instance,! though its mouth is open so as to show the teeth, has lips of less clear and definite modelling ; for actual form, though not for the resultant expression, we find nearer analogy in the half-open lips of earlier fifth century work, particularly in certain Myronic heads; but the intention in these is evidently to give an appearance of physical life to the face rather than to express any mood or emotion.
It is desirable to have a clear notion of these peculiarities of ex- pression, and of the technical and material means by which they are produced, because a superficial observation of these might well mislead us as to the period to which the head must be assigned; and indeed, in the ease of certain heads that at first may appear similar they have led to a later dating than we can admit as possible for the Disney Athena. With this Disney head before us we can clearly see that the original must go back to a master of the closing years of the fifth century, trained among the con- temporaries and associates of Phidias, who yet, in the motives of his work and the expression he tried to render, anticipated many characteristics of the fourth century. There is one master beyond all others who is suggested by this description ; and that master is Aleamenes.? To him, or to his immediate surroundings, the original of the Disney head and its various replicas must, I believe, be assigned.
Having now gained a notion of the character and period to which this head of Athena must be assigned, simply by examining its style and features, we must next turn to consider its place relatively to other works of the same subject and character. This is, in the present instance, a peculiarly difficult task. So many heads of Athena are known, either on statues or separated from them, which have a certain resemblance to this Disney head, that it is not easy to classify them or to establish their relationship to it and to one another. This very multitude is in itself an indication. We are clearly dealing with a type of very wide prevalence, but with numerous variations
1 Figured in my Handbovk of Greek Sculp- ledge a fine and correct criticism in his appre- ture, Fig. 101. ciation of Alcamenes as the forerunner of
2 Whatever opinion we may hold as to many Praxiteles, in ideas and feeling rather than in details in Klein’s Praxiteles, we must acknow- formal tradition of style.
6 EK. A. GARDNEK.
both in style and in accessories. The pose of the head and the form of the helmet are similar, for example, ina work like the Athena of Velletri and also in the colossal Athena Albani at Munich; yet the resemblance does not appear to be more than superficial. When we have to deal with copies of such great variety of execution and independence, it would be very difficult, judging from style alone, to discriminate between the different varieties of this general type ; and, as a matter of fact, many comparisons and classifica- tions have been attempted which will not bear the light of a fuller imvesti- gation. Under these circumstances we might well despair of any further progress, but for an indication which I have already noted in describing the Disney head ; this is the felt cap worn under the helmet, and showing clearly on either side above the hair. This peculiarity is one which no copyist— whatever his skill or intention as regards style—could fail to reproduce, unless he was deliberately making original ; and so it affords us a safe clue for the selection of those heads that merit a more careful consideration. Among these! one type is represented by the head, found between Pompeii and Castellammare, in the collection of Prince Karl of Prussia at Glienicke near Potsdam?; the other, and the nearer to the Disney Athena, is the head of the statue of Athena from Crete now in the Louvre (Fig. 2), published by M. Jamot in Monuments Grecs 21-22. Τῦ so happens that this very statue has recently been identified by Dr. Reisch * upon external grounds as a variant of an Athena by Aleamenes. So remark- able a coincidence requires careful consideration.
Dr. Reisch, starting from the two inscriptions C_/.A. 1. 318 and 319, infers, from the details referred to, that the two statues mentioned in the inscriptions wwust be Hephaestus and Athena, that they were probably dedicated in 417— 416 B.c., or not much later, that they were of bronze, about 2} times life-size, and that they were identical with the statues described by Pausanias ὁ as existing in the Hephacsteum. These were a Hephaestus and an Athena of which, unfortunately, the only thing he tells us is that she had blue (γλαυκοὶ) eyes. As Dr. Reisch very justly remarks, the one artist working in Athens at this time most likely to have a commission for temple statues of such size and importance given to him was Aleamenes; the famous statue of Hephaestus, by Alcamenes, which is otherwise recorded, must most probably be identified with this Hephaestus, and so the attribution of the two statues to him is corroborated.
a free imitation rather than a copy of the
So far, Dr. Reisch’s suggestions certainly carry a very high degree of probability, though of course they cannot be absolutely proved. Next, observing that among the materials provided is tin for the ἄνθεμον or Hower-ornament below the shield of Athena> he compares certain statues of
The flap of this cap, in a form resembling Ὁ that seen in the Glienicke head, oceurs also in 5.1 imust confess to much doubt about this the Pallas Giustiniani
plicas ; but these are
and its mmimerous ve- ἄνθεμον argument; it may be merely an orna- ment aflixed within the shield. But, finding
that Dr. Reisch’s argmments have led to a con-
too different in type to calise any contusion
* Friederichs- Wolters, 1438; Mon. Inst. iv. clusion which is strangely in accord with new
1, Muller-Wieseler ii, 19, 1988, > Jahie hefte ἐν |’. 55: ef. Kranos Vindo-
ΤΟΤΕ
evidence, 1 think it only fair to give the steps of his reasoning.
Fic, 2,—STraTvk OF ATHENA IN THE Louvre,
8 E. A. GARDNER.
Athena, which have the shield actually supported by an acanthus ornament, as copies of this Athena by Aleamenes. These statues, unfortunately, are all headless, or at least have heads that do not belong to them. But the Athena from Crete in the Louvre, though different in the arrangement of the aegis and of the left arm, is absolutely identical in drapery, fold for fold, with the statues in question. Dr. Reisch is accordingly inclined to see in this Athena from Crete a modification of the type introduced by Alcamenes.! Perhaps, if we accept the rest of Dr. Reisch’s hypothesis, we may be inclined to a different view of the relation of the two types. To this question we must return presently.
M. Jamot, who published the Athena from Crete in the Monwments Grecs, attributes its style to the closing years of the fifth century ; and so gives inde- pendent confirmation to Dr. Reisch’s views as to the period to which the type must, at least in its origin, be assigned. He also assigns it to the immediate surroundings of Phidias. The distinguishing peculiarity of this Athena 15 that upon her left arm and the aegis, which is cast over her left shoulder, she supports a circular box or cista out of which rises a snake. This box is evidently the one which she confided to the care of the daughters of Cecrops ; it contained, as will be remembered, the infant Erichthonius, and on its being opened a snake appeared. The Attic legend assigned to Athena a peculiar interest in this child ; she even, according to some accounts, acknowledged in its birth a kind of vicarious maternity, while its father, Hephaestus, usually stands beside her when she receives it from its mother the Earth (Ge). Viewed in this light, the group of Athena supporting on her left arm the snake that is but a form of Erichthonius, has a different meaning from what appears upon the surface. The position of the statue, and the expression of the goddess, at once recall the Eirene and Plutus of Cephisodotus and the Hermes and infant Dionysus of Praxiteles. And the resemblance is not an accidental one. If M. Jamot, having only the Cretan statue before him, could make so just an inference as to its period and character, we can go further with the help of the Disney head, which is more careful in execution and, in all probability, a more faithful copy of the common original. It was no accident that led us to notice a similarity of expression, though attained by entirely different mechanical means, between this Athena and the Hermes of Praxiteles. The circumstances are in e “ἢ case similar; each holds a child, or what represents a child, yet does not directly look at it or play with
It has been suggested t» me by Mr. G. F, Hill that Athena Hephaestia is a title very difficult to parallel in Greek mythology, if the name be derived directly from Hephaestus ; such epithets are more commonly local in origin, and this one suggests Hephaestia in Lemnos, where there wasa prominent cult of the goddess, attested by coins, and where she was associated in worship with Hephaestus. He further sug- gests that the famous Athena Lemnia of Phidias, Whose association with Athenian cleruchs is a
mere conjecture, was but another form of this Athena He»hacstia. In both alike the goddess was represe 2d in her more peaceful aspect, as patroness of art and handicraft. The suggestion of a Lemnian association is peculiarly appro- priate in a work attributed to Alcamenes, who was himself a Lemnian. Thus we add yet another to the many coincidences that give cumulative weight to the suggestions considered in this paper.
A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION. 9
it, but rather seems engaged in areyerie from which we must imagine that the thought of the child is not excluded. The relationship of the Hermes of Praxiteles to the Eirene and Plutus of his father or elder brother Cephisodotus is of course obvious, even if we reject the statement that Cephisodotus also made a Hermes with the chiki Dionysus. But the difference in style between the Eirene and the Disney head is considerable—too considerable for us to admit the possibility that Cephisodotus is the author of both alike. Alcamenes is the earlier contemporary of Cephisodotus, to whom both Cephisodotus and Praxiteles owe so much; and, in assigning to him the origin of the Cretan Athena in the Louvre and also of the Disney head, which is a finer representative of the same type, we are also probably tracing back to its true author the motive which, in the Hermes of Praxiteles, has found more perfect embodiment and preservation than has befallen in the case of any other of the masterpieces of ancient Greek sculpture.
Certain difficulties, however, must be faced. If the Disney head and the Cretan Athena in the Louvre preserve for us the type of the Athena set up beside Hephaestus in Athens about 416 B.c., we have indeed a most appropriate allusion to their common worship and their common interest in the snake-child Erichthonius. But on the other hand this Athena can hardly be identical with the Athena seen by Pausanias in the Hephaesteum, or else he would surely have found something more to say about her than that she had blue eyes. So curious a feature as the snake in the box on her arm could hardly have been omitted. We must, therefore, either distinguish the Athena of Alcamenes from the statue seen by Pausanias, or else suppose with Dr. Reisch that the Cretan statue shows a modification of the original type—a modification which would be very curious if the head and the drapery were exactly reproiuced, while the whole motive of the statue was altered ; and, moreover, what becomes in that case of the very peculiar and appro- priate expression which led us, before quoting the Cretan statue, to compare the Disney Athena with the Hermes? It must be adimitted that thes: difficulties somewhat weaken the structure of the external evidence; but, even if we reject or modify some portions of Dr. Reisch’s hypothesis, we may admit that he must, in the main, have been following a correct clue, since it brought him to a conclusion similar to that which we have reached by an independent chain of evidence.
So far I have left out of account the other type which I quoted, of which the Glienicke head is the finest representation. This head has generally been assigned to a later period than is possible for the Disney head. Thus Dr. Wolters describes it as Hellenistic, basing his date mainly on the type of statue to which it appears to belong ;} but he also says that the expression of the face, which he calls ‘etwas schwarmerisch,’ is peculiarly appropriate to this period. Professor Furtwiingler® assigns the type to the fourth century, seeing in it ‘a pathetic tendency.’ The Glienicke head, as has often been pointed out, does not stand by itself. Numerous replicas of it are known,
' Friederichs- Wolters’ Bausteine, no. 1438. 2 Roscher, Art. Athena. p. 703.
10 BE. A. GARDNER.
both separate and also attached to complete statues; an example of these is No. 73 in the Berlin Museum catalogue, another is the statue represented beside the Glienicke head in the Monwmenti IV. i. This statue represents Athena standing, her right hand resting upon her spear, with a himation thrown loosely around her and drawn together by her left arm as it rests upon her hip. This statue is also figured upon coins of Athens,’ and the numerous copies of it that are known show that it must have been a famous work. If we are to recognise in this Athena a well-known cultus statue at Athens, representing her in her more peaceful aspect as Athena Hephaestia, it is a plausible suggestion that this is the statue seen by Pausanias in the Hephaesteum. In some copies a smal] Triton is seen beside the goddess, and it is a tempting suggestion that Pausanias noted this fact, and afterwards, perhaps forgetting what he had meant, enlarged his note into the somewhat irrelevant remarks about Athena and Lake Tritonis. If so, the Athena in the Hephaesteum was not, of course, of the same type as the Cretan Athena, though similar in the face and expression. Whether she was identical with the statue recorded in C./.A. i. 318 and 319, and attributed by Dr. Reisch to Alcamenes, is another question. The weight of authority hitherto has attributed the statue with the Triton to the fourth century or to Hellenistic times, and the composition of the drapery seems, in the present state of our knowledge, very unlike fifth-century sculpture. However this may be, what concerns us at present is the curious resemblance in surroundings and expres- sion between the Glienicke head and the Disney Athena. The cap below the helmet is not, indeed, precisely similar ; it is folded into a loop,’ not merely creased by the pressure as in the Cretan statue and the Disney head ; but its presence suggests comparison, and the firm line of the eyelids and the slightly open mouth are also similar, though the complete statues show that the quasi-maternal motive of the expression is absent; perhaps it is not too rash to recognise in the Glienicke head a reflexion or imitation of the influence of Alcamenes, as we can now see it more directly preserved in the Disney head and the Cretan statue. It is an open question how far it is possible or advisable to try to trace the same influence in the other heads that we have noticed as similar—the Athena of Velletri for example. Thus Milchhofer* assigns the Athena dedicated by Eubulides to a later variation of the Velletri type, and is inclined to regard that type as derived from the work of Cephisodotus. In the light of our present evidence, we should be inclined to say Alcamenes rather than Cephisodotus; but the two were almost contemporaries, and had much in common; it can hardly be a mere accident that so many authorities now combine to trace these kindred types back to the Attic art of the close of the fifth century.
Another modification of the type that is preserved in the Cretan statue,
* Cf. Miiller-Wieseler, ii. 233; cf. Clarac, Giustiniani, which, though otherwise dissimilar, 467, 879 ; 470, 894 ; 471, 900 ; 473, 899c. also has the himation thrown over the left
2? Imhoof and Gardner, Plate AA. VII. shoulder.
3 In this respect it resembles the Athena * Arch. Stud. Brunn, p. 48.
A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION. 11
and this time in a differect direction, may be seen in the statue No. 72 in the Berlin Museum! This statue represents Athena in a somewhat similar pose, but supporting upon her left arm and aegis not a snake in a box, but a child. The head of the statue is a restoration, so that no comparison is possible in this respect. The main variation, beside the above substitution, is that the position of the legs is reversed, the weight resting upon the left. The result is ἃ very near approach of the whole effect to the pose of the Eirene and Plutus. The statue is of late and inferior work; but it appears to be a kind of variation or comment upon the work of Alcamenes, modified so as also to be assimilated to the kindred treatment of the Eirene of Cephisodotus.? These variations and imitations tend to confirm the attribution of the common original of the Cretan statue and the Disney head to the Attic art of the closing years of the fifth century, and, in all probability, to Aleamenes himself or his immediate surroundings? And, with the subject and motive set before us, as preserved in the Athena from Crete, we can appreciate the meaning of the still finer head which Dr. Nelson has acquired. In it we do not see a vaguely sentimental or pathetic expression, but the kindly, quasi- maternal interest of Athena in her nursling, Erichthonius, while the mystic form of the child preserves the myth from a too literal interpretation. It rather typifies the fostering care of Athena over her chosen people ; and in the face of the goddess we may see a worthy expression of her peaceful solicitude.
Norr.—I add revised measurements both of the athlete J.H.S. 1898, Plate ΧΙ. and of the Athena 1899, Plate I, taken on the casts by Dr. Kalkmann’s system—that is to say, measured on a staff set parallel to the axis of the head. It will be seen that these measurements cannot claim to be more than approximate. I think too great an attempt at accuracy in detail is only misleading when, as Dr. Kalkmann justly observes, everyone probably measures from a slightly different point and by a slightly different system. Such accuracy in detail can only be used for comparison when a large number of works are measured by the same person. The measurements are in millimetres,
ATHENA. ATHLETE. Top of forehead to chin (height of face)... che Ae δ 160 175 55 Ε΄. to brow $f He aA ΤῊ ᾿ ae 40 45 Brow to nostril ... 43: ae = ἘΠ an 30 an 60 65 Nostril to chin ... a Soe ἫΣ Ps εἶ εἰς acs 60 65 Brow to opening of mouth... a sa ee me ie 75 85 Opening of mouth to chin... Ἐπ μος sa os ἘΣ 45 45
1 Clarac, 462C, 888E.
2 Furtwiingler (Roscher, p. 702) notes the aflinity of this Berlin statue with Cephisodotus.
3 I shall perhaps be expected to justify an attribution to Alcamenes by comparison with other extant statues that have been attributed to him. But I have purposely abstained from
doing so, because the evidence in all these cases is very problematical. Perhaps the best attested is the Procne and Itys (Antike Denkmdler ii. 22 ; οἵ, Winter, Arch. Anz. 1894, p. 46); in this figure the drapery resembles to a remarkable degree that of the Cretan statue.
12 A HEAD OF ATHENA, FORMERLY IN THE DISNEY COLLECTION.
ATHENA. ATHLETE.
Top of forehead to inner corner of eye 55 60 Inner corner of eye to nostril ... 45 50 Nostril to chin ... τῷ 2a os ᾿Ξ . =P xp 60 65 Inner corner of eye to opening of mouth ... “= Ye ἘΞ 60 70 Opening of mouth to chin 45 45 Breadth between outer corner of eyes 80 90 as inner ,, 23 38
115 135
3readth of face on cheek-bones
I am authorised by Dr. Nelson to state that casts of either head can now
be supplied on application to him at 2, Aigburth Vale, Liverpool. EK, A. GARDNER.
GREEK GRAFFITI FROM DER EL BAHARI AND EL KAB.
THE following inscriptions were copied during the winter of 1897-8: those from the temple of Der el Bahari in November and December ; those from the neighbourhood of El Kab in February, 1898.
Der EL Banari.'—The funerary temple of Queen Hatshepsut of the XVIIIth Dynasty, dedicated in honour of Amen Ra, and now known as Der el Bahari, stands on the western side of the Nile valley, under the eastern cliffs of the limestone ridge which separates the valley of the tombs of the kings from the great Theban cemetery which stretches from Goornah to Medinet Habou. The temple is laid out at three levels, having an entrance court on the lowest level, from which there is access by a central incline to a second or middle court, and this leads to a third or upper court, whose western and northern sides are built against the cliffs in which the sanctuary is excavated. All the graffiti given here (Fig. 1) come from the Eastern and Southern walls of this upper court. They are noted in the order they occur, on the Eastern wall from N. to S., on the Southern wall from E. to W.
Eastern wall. Εἰ. face. S. of the central granite doorway. On dado line.
No. 6. Deeply scratched. Lif’ Ζώιλος ἴατρος.
No. 7. Deeply scratched. Νικάσιος ᾿Ισιδώρου.
No. 8. ᾿Αμμώνιος Νειλέως κροκόδειλος. The third word is very lightly scratched, and is obviously an addition by
some humorist. No. 9. Deeply scratched. “Ερμόφιλος.
No. 10. Lightly scratched. ᾿Απολλώνιο(ς) Σωτῆρος. Lightly scratched. ᾿Απολλώνιος ‘EppoxXeios.
In the two last the patronymics are worthy of note. “Ερμοκλεῖος is presumably the Boeotian genitive of ‘EpyoxXjjs.
1 See the publications of the Egypt Exploration Fund on Deir-el-Bahari, Nos. XII., XIII. XIV., and XVI.
14 C. R. PEERS. Eastern wall. W. face. N. of central doorway.
No. 5. On dado line. Very lightly scratched with a fine point. ΠΠΠΠ{{Π{|||α τ wives {{{{Π|{| παρεγένετο ᾿Ανδρόμαχος πρὸς
Unfinished. The first word is probably ἡμέρᾳ, followed by a numeral.
S. of the central doorway.
No. 4. Immediately below dado line. Lightly scratched. 72 em. from jamb of doorway. Καρσίμαρος.
No. 8. On dado line. On course next to N. of the two following graffiti. Scratched. ἴλλεος.
No. 2. On dado line. λλειυς.
No. 1. On dado line, below preceding, very lightly scratched, and obviously by the same hand as No. 5. In two lines. ᾿Ανδρόμαχος Μακέδων ἀφίκετο πρὸς ᾿Λμενώθην χρηστὸν θεὸν ? μ[σθοῦ ἐργαζόμενος καὶ ἐμαλακίσθη καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶι ἐβοήθησε αὐθημέρη. ἔῤῥωσθε.
' For the reading of the eighth word I am indebted to Mr. G. F. Hill, to whom also I owe the note on Amenothes printed below. There is no sign of an « in the original, but μισθοῦ seems the word demanded by the sense.
Below this inscription is the name ᾿Ανδρόμαχος scratched in large letters.
Southern wall. N. face.
No. 11. 30 em. below dado line. 2°36 west of the middle doorway of three in this wall, roughly cut with a chisel-edged tool. The last word scratched only.
τὸ προσκύνημα Evypadios παρὰ τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ᾿Ασκληπιῷ καὶ ᾿Αμενώθῃ καὶ γιείᾳ: μνήσ- θητι ὑμῶν καὶ πάραδος ὑμῖν Oepc-
πείαν
Added to the original inscription, below.
Kai φριτωβ συνβοηθούντων...χερσταπανε ? πεσυβὶις
Above :— els θεὸς ὁ βοηθῶν ὑμῶν
followed by an ‘ankh’ cross with palms. Below the main inscription, to the left, is a similar cross, and another of different form.
The latter addition with the crosses seems to be a commentary by a Christian convert on the original inscription.
GREEK GRAFFITI FROM DER EL BAHARL AND KL KAB. LD
§ TON Boon
yt
AN dyemaxec MAK ED con Ra bears AXLAENY OLN ἃ
0)
PHEP PONCE
μι U@oyvepr&ZOM ENO KAIEMAK XK OMK AOE AY TL le ROME IC EAL
4
ANA EO
ΔΩ ΟΞ ΠΤ ΝΣ
MJ τὶ χψινος {ῃ!τ κζέεττενεττο δ᾽ Ἀν δύήοκαχος τ τος
vAw ον
οἱ ἢ SIVA facvAT PIC Φ NIAC \oF \CLAWP oy
OU/iPeUINIOC NE\AEWC Κροκοδένλος
Θ PASH [OC A Tod wn lof P eV Coot H Pod
‘a
ιος TIAPA TOK YEW OE τ neers fa ert naan cae | DckhHm at wc dj TIO p> pocy μιν θέερᾷ ' ores Den dpie Cy MBorGo rn των XE PCT T πές δς
® GcGeoe Poh Oamyme
ἈνΕ
@ XNVAOEBUMC Hi 8 AlYM4 @ XdIWoanric @ DAY Moen DYN. Θ᾽ ATOMUMoctitecemAlACpul
@ TVv\INoc Ci/AUN πλήν !ς
Fic. 1.—GRAFFITI FROM Der EL BAHARI.
16 σι R. PEERS.
In the main inscription ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν are for ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν, as often.
Amenothes is presumably not Amenhotep III., but the wise man Amenhotep, son of Hapu, the contemporary of the king his namesake. Wilcken has published? an ostrakon of the third century B.c., found at Der el Bahari, and containing a set of maxims (ὑποθῆκαι) attributed to ᾽Α μενώτης. As Wilcken shows, the maxims are really of Greek origin. In Ptolemaic times Amenhotep was worshipped in association with the god Imhotep, who corresponds to Asklepios, at the temples of Der-el-Medineh, Medinet-Habu, and Der-el-Bahari2 The three representations of Amenhotep as a deity all belong to about the time of Ptolemy Euergetes II. A papyrus (Bulak No. 3), in which Amenhotep is also associated with Imhotep, belongs, according to Sethe, to late Ptolemaic times. Manetho (Josephus ¢. Ap. 1. 232, 236, 248) mentions him as ᾿Αμένωφις tod Παάπιος, but not as a deity. It follows therefore that he was deified in Ptolemaic times, probably first. under Euergetes II. To this time (c. 170 B.c.) our graffito may very well belong.
The latter part of the inscription and the added words after θεραπείαν ippear to be composed of fragments of magical formulae.
No. 12. On top line of dado. Next course to W. of preceding. Scratched. AdSupos Πάηνις //////. This name occurs in three other places on this wall (Nos. 13-16).
No. 15. 77 em. above dado and 5:25 W. of ‘preceding. Lightly scratched. ᾿Απολλώνιος..-
The word following ᾿Απολλώνιος may be meant for Σαίτος.
No.17. Below dado. 1°75 E. of jamb of western doorway in this wall. Deeply scratched. Tavyvos >////(ev ΤΠ άηνις.
For Πάηνις cf. Nos. 12-16 and CLG. 5030.
EL Kas.—On the walls of the forecourt of the little Ptolemaic temple of Eileithyia, in the eastern desert beliind ΕἸ Kab, are a number of unim- portant graffiti, often consisting of a few letters only. I give here (Fig. 2) a few, which (with the exception of C.J.G. 4835b, which I did not find) are the
Jy ones worth recording. Facsimilesof Nos, 1, 3, and 5 have been pub- lished by Petrie, 4 Season in Egypt, Pl. XVII. Nos. 643, 644, 648. Gateway of forecourt, eastern pier, outer face, on third course from
ground.
No. 1. Incised: οψεκτορ απις
No. 2. Below preceding; scratched: Δράκων
1 Acqyptiaca: Festschr. fiir G. Ebers, p. ~ on this subject to Mr. F. Ll. Griffith. 142 f. I owe this and the succeeding reference 2 Aegyptiaca, p. 106 f, (K. Sethe.)
GREEK GRAFFIT] FROM ‘DER, EL BAHART AND EL ΚΑΒ. 17 No. 3. Incised: Ἰλάτων “Epuwvos ἥκω παρὰ τὴ(ν) μεγίστην θεὰν Σ μίθιν. Already published iu O4/.0, i. 4835, and Petric, Le,
The above three inscriptions vecur on the stone in the same relative position as is indicated in the illustration.
E Pew νος HK war A THMEFICTHN
OCEAN CHIGIN
NoyK10C
o HA NIKH PAT OC
© aah OW, TAP XOC A I BA VA peek VO Bite ayn DB ks
Fig, 2.—GRArFItL FROM EL KAs.
Western pier, outer face, on third course from ground ;
No. 4. Scratched: Aovxcos.
On western wall of forecourt, immer face, second bay from entrance, on third course.
No. ὅ. Incised: HX... Νικήρατος.
Five minutes to the west of the Kileithyia temple, following the line of the clitts bounding the valley, on the western side of the mouth of a small H\S.— VOL, XIX. C
18 GREEK GRAFFITI FROM DER EL BAHARI AND EL ΚΑΒ.
khor, and at the foot of an anciently quarried cliff, is a large sandstone boulder, with a flat upper surface, on which is scratched the following inserip- tion. The boulder has been cracked across since the writing of the inscription, and the pieces have fallen apart, making a break through all four lines.
No. 6. — IIp@tapxos ἥκω Διδύμη 1 σισισαπολλωνιδ ? ᾿Αλίνη The first and last letters of ]. 3 are doubtful; they may be ε and Ἃ or a. Ll. 3 and 4 are not clear, The inscription may refer to the goddess to whom the neighbouring temple was dedicated, and who is called Smithis in the Πλάτων inscription; if so, we should probably read Εἶσις ᾿Απολλωνία. But as this title is not otherwise known it is safer to assume that we have
here a string of names.
C. R. PEEgs:
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES,
ΓΝ the work known as Khitab Al ‘Uyun, or Book of Springs,’ pp. 24-38, is contained a long narrative of the disastrous siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in 717-8, which, owing to its great length, I was unable to include in my article on the ‘The Arabs in Asia Minor’ in J.H.S. xviii. p. 182 ff. This work dates from the latter half of the 11th century, and in its present state appears to have been written in Spain, but is clearly drawn from early Eastern sources. Unfortunately the author does not, like most Arabic historians, mention his sources; but from a comparison with the narrative of Al Tabari it is clear that his chief, if not his only, authorities were Al Wakidi and Al Madaini, both of whom wrote in the early part of the 9th century and are earlier in date than any extant Arabic chroniclers.
Out of these two accounts he has constructed a continuous narrative, which, though graphic enough, in many places leaves traces of the method in which it has been put together, which may be detected partly by the inconsequence of the narrative itself, partly by comparison with other writers. The contradictions, however, must not be ascribed entirely to our author, since in many instances it is clear that they already existed in his authorities, who also followed varying traditions, though, unlike him, they probably gave each tradition separately with a reference to the source from which it was derived. That any written authorities existed before their time is unlikely, and their narratives must therefore have been derived from oral tradition; hence in such matters as chronological order and locality little confidence can be placed in them? It must not, however, be supposed that the narrative is a merely legendary one; the many curious correspondences with Greek sources, such as the mention of the general Solomon, known only from Theophanes, and the name Tessarakontapechys, known only from the Acts of the 7th Synod, show that it is in the main historical, but accompanied by legendary details, which however, can in many instances be shown to be not mere inventions, but perversions or misunderstandings of historical fact. On the other hand the correspondences with the narrative of Michael the Syrian? cannot be fairly
used to corroborate our author; for they are so close that it is difficult not to think that Michael here draws in part from Arabic sources; and this 15
1 Ed. de Goeje and de Jong (Fragmentu tends to show that the chronology of the siege Historicorum —-Arabicorum Vol. 1., Leiden was unknown to the Arab writers. 1869). 3 Arabic translation in Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2 The mere fact that no exact dates are given 4402.
OZ
20 E. W. BROOKS.
supported by the divergences from Theophanes, with whom his narrative is generally parallel.
Some sources of confusion are easily discovered. One of these is the error common to all Arabic writers, and apparently to the Eastern source followed by Theophanes? that the siege took place under Solomon and the army was recalled immediately after the accession of ‘Umar; whereas in fact Solomon died about two months* after the siege began, and the siege continued 103} months after ‘Umar’s accession, ‘Umar no doubt recalled the army; and hence in the absence of dates the Arabs concluded that he did so immediately after his accession. A second and yet more fruitful source of error is a confusion between the imperial salutation of Leo at Amorion at the instigation of the Arabs in the summer of 716 and his coronation at Con- stantinople on March 25, 717.4 Owing to this contusion the campaign in Asia Minor is almost entirely passed over, and events which happened at Amorion are, as I poiut out in the notes, transferred to Constantinople. Accordingly, since the salutation of Leo at Amorion took place during the siege of that place, the siege of Constantinople was made to begin before his accession, whereas in fact it began about 3 months afterwards; and it was made to last 14, or even 2} years, whereas in fact it lasted, according tv the higher estimate, 13 months. The chronological confusion is greatly assisted by the peculiarity of the Arabic calendar; for, since the siege was made to last 2 winters, aud the army to be recalled immediately after the second winter, it would follow that Solomon's death was placed at the end of the winter. But, since he in fact died in September, and the date of his death was perfectly well known, this mistake would clearly lave been impossible if the Arabs had used a fixed iustead of a moving calendar.
From the narrative of Al Tabari I in my previous article gave extracts only; but, as in connexion with the narrative of the Khitab Al ‘Uyun his whole account is of considerable interest (though not perhaps in itself of any great historical value), I give it in full® at the end of the translation of the narrative of the Khitab, which here follows.
And it is said that, when Solomon became Caliph, he was imformed by ulany learned men that the name of the Caliph who should take Al Kustanti- niyya (Constantinople) should be the name of a prophet ; and there was none among the Omimiad kings whose name was the name of a prophet except him. And he was eagerly desirous of doing it and made preparations for this
1 The divergences can hardly be explained by
Theophanes (p. 29 note 5) is perhaps a loose supposing that Theophanes drew throughout
one.
from his western source, for the long narrative under AM 6208 down to Leo’s accession is not in Nikephoros, and can scarcely have been wholly omitted by him, if he found it in his authority.
* Michael makes certain messages ass between ‘Umar and thie army before its retreat (see p. 29 note 7), so that the expression of
* Owing to the variation between Theophanes and Nikephoros the exact date at which the siege began cannot be determined.
4 Theoph, AM 6232.
> Le. without omissions. I do not think it necessary to repeat over again the opening and concluding sections, which were given in full in the previous article.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 21
purpose, never doubting that it was he who should perform this.’ And he despatched his brother Maslama, and with him he sent levies raised from the forces of Al Sham (Syria) and Al Gazira (Mesopotamia); and he collected implements of war for summer and winter and siege-engines and naphtha? and other things. Then he appointed Maslama his brother to the command of the forees by land and sea; and there went forth with him a large number of lawyers from Al Sham and Al ‘Trak (Babylonia). And Maslama went on till he reached Dabik, and the contingents from all quarters came to him, Then he set out and marched along the road through Mar‘ash (Germanikeia) and took the city of the Slavs*; and the winter came upon them, and he turned aside to the city of ΑΒΓ! (Epiphaneia ?) and wintered there. And, when the winter had passed,® he went along on the way to Kustantiniyya, until he reached ‘Ammuriya (Amorion); and the patrician of that city® was Leo, the son of Constantine,’ the Mar‘ashi; and Maslama came to terms with him and gave him security and received the like from him; and the terms were that he should give him advice and information for attacking the people of Kustantiniyya and should be a helper to him. And the king of Kustan- tiniyya at that time was Bidus (Theodosius).®
And a wonderful story is that of the fortunes of Leo and his renown and his valour and how he obtained from the Romans such a position that he became king among them. And, as for his early state and condition, he was a Christian inhabitant of Mar‘ash,!° where to this day there is a celebrated church called after him.
And his wife saw in a dream a cock spreading his wings in her court, and all the cocks of the Romans answered him. And he said to her, ‘ Keep this vision secret and let no one hear of it.’ Then he went to Kustantiniyya, and he entered it during the time of the civil war which was going on in it,
’ 1 According to Theoph. AM 6206 the pre- parations for the expedition began before the death of Al Walid.
2 For the use of naphtha in sieges see Dio Cass. 36, 3, 1; 75, 11, 4; Proc. de Bell. Goth.
dadhbah (ed. de Goeje 1». 109) also calls the Anatolic general ‘ patrician of Amorion.’
7 This name is probably only an inference from the fact that the name of Leo’s son was Constantine, Similarly our author calls Leo Y.
4,11. In all these cases however it was used by the defenders, and I do uot know another instance of its use in attack.
3 Here the city of the Slavs appears in its right place ; hence the note in J. 77. δ΄, xviii. p. . 194 may be corrected.
4 As there are no points over the last letter, it might also be read ‘ Afik,’ and so de Goeje prints ; but Aphaka in Phoenicia is absurdly out of place. Even Epiphaneia (in Cilicia) seems to be too far back.
5 This must be the winter of 715-6. Solo- mon’s accession was in Feb. 715, while in 716 we know from Theophanes and Michael that Maslama was in Asia Minor.
56.7.0. General of the Anatolikoi, Ibn Khur-
‘son of Constantine,’ though we know that his father’s name was Vard.
8 ‘And, when the Arab army reached the city of Amorion, Leo met them and made an agree- ment with them with regard to the capture of the city’ Mich. fol. 264 v; ‘promised to help them to take the royal city’ Greg. p. 116.
® The reason for negociating with Leo was his enmity to Theodosius " ἀκούων δὲ ὁ Μασαλ- μᾶς τὴν ἔχθραν, ἣν εἶχε Θεοδ. ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν στρατηγόν, βουλόμενος τοῦτον δελεάσαι καὶ εἰρηνεῦσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν Ῥωμανίαν ὑποτάξαι᾽ (Theoph. AM 6208).
10“ ἐκ τὴς Γερμανικέων καταγόμενος᾽᾿ ‘heoph, AM 6209.
1 Perhaps in 698.
Ibn δα,
(J.H.S. xviii.
195).
22 E. W. BROOKS.
and he became celebrated as a wine-merchant; and he spoke correctly in Arabic! and in Roman. And, when God Most High wishes a thing, He makes a way of bringing it about. Then he was present in those conflicts and showed energy in them, and his admirable courage was made plain ; and they promoted him,? and he went on being advanced from post to post till he became patrician of ‘Ammuriya.’ And it is said of him that, when he came to ‘Ammuriya with the king’s commission appointing him patrician, they rejected him and said to him, ‘Such a man as you shall not rule over us, for you are a Nabataean Arab.’ And he said to them, ‘I will not rule over you except by your commands; but you have heard of my character and my valour and ability, and your affairs are in confusion, and your kingdom is sore smitten, and the civil war is raging, and this Maslama, the son of ‘Abd Al Malikh, has come close to your territory, and he will attack you. Therefore let me in and entrust your government to me; and, if I bear myself in it in accordance with your wishes, well; but if not, turn me out and do with me what you please.’ And they said, ‘He speaks the truth. And they admitted him into their city and placed their government in his hands. And meanwhile Maslama encamped at ‘Ammuriya on his way to Al Kustantiniyya.®
: . . . .° And they made him king and placed the crown on his head. And, when the followers of Bastas (Anastasins) saw that Bidus had become master of Al Kustantiniyya, they wished to gain his favour, and they took Bastas and put him in bonds and brought him to Bidus; and he banished him to the land of the Burgan (Bulgarians) ; and Bidus became king. And he was weak in judgment, and the same in administiation, and feeble in the task which he had undertaken of governing the Romans.’ And the government of the Romans was sore smitten, and their days were days of confusion and disorder.8
1 This is a striking confirmation of the con- sius, while they supported Theodosius (τὸ jecture of Prof. Bury (History of the later ᾿Αμώριον.. πρὸς τὸν στρατηγὸν ἐν ἔχθρᾳ διακει- Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 380) that Leo could μένον διὰ τὴν πρὸς ᾿Αρτέμιον συμμαχίαν). Ac- speak Arabic. If he remained in Germanikeia cording to Michael (fol. 264 v) it was owing to after the Arabic occupation, which was prob- his dealings with the Arabs. It is not likely ably in 695 (7.77.5. xviii. pp: 189, 207), to have happened on his first appointment to it is easily explained without adopting the _ the office of general. suggestion put by our author into the mouths of 5 The attack on Amorion was made by Solo- the Amorians that he was a Nabataean. mon according to Theoph. (l.c.), who does not Theoph. (AM 6209) makes him remove to bring Leo into the presence of Maslama at all. Thrace lhefore 695; hut, even so, Germanikeia as ὁ It is here clear, as de Goeje points out, a frontier-town must have been in frequent that some words introducing the revolt against intercourse with the Arabs for fifty years before | Anastasius have dropped out. that time. 7 “ἀπράγμονά τε καὶ ἰδιώτην᾽ Theoph. AM
* This was in 705 (Theoph. 1.6.) ‘épxo- 6207; cf. Nikeph. p. Sl. “ἢν δὲ teens. μένου αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν Βουλγάρων ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἀπράγμων... ἀνὴρ καὶ πρὸς πραγμάτων διοίκησιν μετὰ δώρων προβάτων φ΄. θεραπευθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἴου. καὶ ταῦτα βασιλείας σφόδρα ye ἀποπεφυκώς. στινιανὸς σπαθάριον αὐτὺν εὐθέως πεποίηκεν. Zon. (ed. Bonn), 14, 28, 1.
3 The appointment was made by Anastasius 8 τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας συγκεχυμένης (719-715). Theoph. 1.6. otens’ Theoph. AM 6209. “ἐπεὶ.
* According to Theoph. (AM 6208) the ἐκράτει τά τε τῆς βασιλείας καὶ τῆς πόλεως quarrel between Leo [ἀπ the Amorians was κατημελεῖτο καὶ διέπιπτε πράγματα, ἔτι μὴν καὶ.. owing to the fact that he supported Anasta- τὰ τακτικὰ διελύετο᾽ Nikeph, p. 52.
««ἦ τυραννὶς
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 23
And Maslama reached the Khalig and crossed it till he arrived at Al Kustantiniyya; and he passed over at a place called Abidus (Abydos),! where the Khalig is the width of an arrow shot. And this Khalig, which is called the sea of Buntus (Pontos), starts from Arminiya (Armenia), until, when it comes to Al Kustantiniyya, it separates off in two directions, towards the north and towards the east,? and there it is broad; but, when it reaches Abidus, it has narrowed down until it is the breadth of an arrow-shot between two cliffs. And, when a man has crossed the Khalig at Abidus, there lie between him and Kustantiniyya 100 miles of flat and level land. And the Khalig flows on from over against Abidus until it reaches the Sea of Al Sham, and it discharges and empties itself into the Sea of AlSham. And Al Kustanti- niyya stands upon it, stretching from east to west of it, its eastern side being upon the sea, and another side towards the north upon the sea, and its southern side towards the land of the Burgan on the land <and its western side on the land>? also; and round it upon the two sides which are wholly on the land is a trench containing water.
And Leo used to go to Maslama in his position at ‘Ammuriya# and con- verse and negotiate with him with fraud and deceit, until he said, ‘If Maslama had been a woman, and I had then chosen to seduce her, I would have done it, and he would never have refused me anything that I desired of him,’ And, when Maslama had encamped at Kustantiniyya, he blockaded the inhabitants and attacked them with siege-engines ; and he collected together the provender and the corn, and they were conveyed to him from the outlying and exposed lands of the Romans; and they came to him in waggons, until that which was brought to him became like mountains, and these stores abounded in his camp; and he excluded the inhabitants of Kustantiniyya from all gainful occupation by land and sea. And the district of Marakiya® (Thrace) was at that time waste, having been laid waste in that civil war; but at the present time it is well-peopled. And this was in their time one of the greatest weaknesses of Al Kustantiniyya. If an army went at the present day to Al Kustantiniyya, when it was in need of provisions, and there was no importation of corn, their provender-dealers would bring them more than they wanted from the places nearest to them.®
And Maslama prosecuted the siege vigorously ; and, when the siege pressed heavily upon them, they asked him to grant them a delay. And they conferred with him, and he gave them hopes of certain things, and they
1 ea@av eis τὴν ~“ABudov ἀντεπέρασε λαὸν ἱκανὸν eis Thy Θράκην ᾿ Theoph. 1.6. ; cf. Nikeph. p. 53.
2 There is some confusion here, since it is clear that this account is correct only if the description begins from the south.
3 It is clear that these words must be in- serted with de Goeje from Ibn Khurdadhbah, who in his ‘ Book of Roads’ has an account of Con-
stantinople similar to this (ed. de Goeje p. 104).
4 Or, during his (Leo’s or Maslama’s) con- tinuance at ‘Ammuriya.’ If the rendering given above is the right one, we have here une of the instances of confusion in the narrative.
5 An error for ‘ Tarakiya’ (de Goeje).
6 This is in all probability taken from either Al Wakidi or Al Madaini, and ‘at the present day’ therefore nieans soon after 800.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tab.
Al Wak. ap. Al Tab.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tah,
24 FE. W. BROOKS.
gave him hopes, and he remitted his attacks upon them: and in the mean- time they on their part gained consolation and comfort.!
And Maslama was powerless,” with no counsel) in lim for the war, nor among his companions was there any man at his disposal with any counsel in him; yet he was a valiant man. And the Romans continued in this condition, until he hoped to make himself master of them, and thought that he should overcome them, so much so that’ he wrote to Leo at ‘Ammuriya, ordering him to come to him, and telling him that he was on the point of taking Kustanti- niyya. And Leo came in haste without waiting for anything; and he wrote to Leo, saying, ‘IT will make you king over them.’* And this inereased his cupidity, and he came to him, and he entertained him and showed him honour and explained the state of his affairs. Then he sent him to the inhabitants of Kustantiniyya, and with him he sent a large nimnber of his confidential officers ; and Maslama said to them, ‘T will not depart from you until you make my mavla* Leo king and commit your kingdom to him; then I will depart from you and will leave you and your country and your religion and your churches m peace.’ And Leo went in with the testimony of the letter ; and he worked for himself and swore to them that, if they made him king, he would break faith with Maslama and renounce him and fight against him’; and he said to them, ‘ You know my valour and prowess in war and my military capacities, and you know his ways-and Ins soft character, and T ean obtain from him whatever I wish.’
Then this Leo brought a false report to Maslama, and took a false report from him to them: and with him were a large number of men, among them Solomon, the son of Mu‘adh,® the Antakhi, and ‘Abd Allah ΑἹ Battal,’ and ‘Abd Allah was at that time in command of the guard; and he was accompanied by squadrons of cavalry. And so matters went on; and Maslama said: ‘I will not leave you until you make Leo king’ And they did not trust Leo, but were afraid that he would break faith with them and hand over the remnants of their property to Maslama until they agreed to what he asked. Then Leo had a secret meeting with the bishops and patricians and swore oaths to them until the matter was settled.
1 These negotiations are probably the same as those recorded in the Arabie Gregory : see p. 28 note 5. Our author by combining several different versions has produced a somewhat inconsequent narrative,
2 This sentence seems quite out of place here and must have come in from some other ac- count: see last note,
3 Cf. Mich. fol. 264 v ‘Maslama told Leo that, when he took Constantinople, he would make him king over the Romans.’ This was while Maslama was still at Amorion. Theoph. (AM 6208) makes the writers of the letter Solomon and Bakhara: ‘ Σουλειμὰν δὲ καὶ Βάκ- xapos ἐπὶ τὺ ᾿Αμώριον φθάσαντες γράφουσι πρὸς Λέοντα... ὅτι οἴδαμεν bri ἡ βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων
σοι ἁρμόζει, ἐλθὲ οὖν πρὺς ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἃς λαλή- σωμεν τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην.᾽
* The idea is that Leo by submitting to Maslama had put himself in the position of a freedman with regard to him.
Ὁ Michael (l.c.) represents this as taking place at Amorion: ‘The people of the city (Amorion) were afraid of Leo ; and, when Leo approached the wall, he told thern that he was dealing treacherously with the Arabs.’
* This Solomon is not mentioned by any other Arab writer, but only by Theoph., who makes him conduct the negotiations with Leo at Amorion (AM 6208).
7 Cf. J.H.S. xviii. pp. 200, 202; Theoph. AM 6231,
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718. FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 2h
And then he came out to Maslama on one of his expeditions and said to him,' ‘ No contrivance remains for conciliating this people except one which if I carry ont and act upon then they will hand over the government at one stroke.’ He sail, ‘ And what is it?’ He said, ‘ They do not believe that we mean to fight them and trust to delay on your part.’ He said, ‘ And why is that ?” He said, ‘When they saw these provisions, which you have gathered together like mountains, they came to be confident of this intention ; but, if you givé orders, and they are burnt, they will give up hope of your delaying and believe that you mean to fight, and that in two or three days, until they come to the state of mind that suits you, and you will take the city with very little trouble. And he accepted this suggestion from him, and ordered these provisions to be burnt, except a small quantity of them.”
Then Leo went in to them, and the men appointed to guard him went in with him; and they assembled and made him king and placed the crown on his head,* after Maslama had bound him by the most solemn promises and compacts to hand over to him all the property of the Romans in money and vessels and silver and brocade and jewels and arms and silken stuffs, and all that the kings had stored up in past times, and to pay him tribute and hand over to him the kingdom of the Romans, and to be his slave as long as he lived, never opposing him in anything or breaking faith or truth.
And, when he became king and his end had been gained, the men stayed away from him three days; and, when the fourth day came, Solomon said to him, ‘ Will you not come out to the Amir?’ He said, ‘I will not come out of my kingdom. He said, ‘ Was this the understanding on which you left him?’ He said,‘ No.’ He said, ‘And what has brought you tothis?” He said, ‘The thought of my position and the desire of continuing in the kingdom.’ He said, ‘ And where are the promises which you gave of your own accord?’ He said, “1 am of the opinion that in breaking faith with him lies the exaltation of Christianity, and the defence of that is the best of rewards.’ And Solomon said, ‘ If the Amir Maslama does not learn this except from me, by God he will kill me, Leo.’ And Leo said to him, ‘ Your death is of less consequence to me than the loss of my kingdom. Do you think that I will leave all that the kings have collected in times past up to this day and come out to you? If I do this, I have neither intelligence nor religion.’
Then Leo said to them, ‘ I have left you no provisions or provender, but he has burnt it all at my orders; and you will perish in a short time, and there is no succour for you and no one to seek aid, and you have nothing,
1 This is de Goeje’s correction. The MS. course limit the amount of provisions in the
has ‘ Maslama went out...and said to them.’
* Even this absurd story is not altogether without basis. According to Theoph. (AM 6208) Maslama avoided ravaging the territory under Leo’s governorship in the belief that he was a friend to the Arabs, and Leo was careful to protract the negotiations until Maslama had passed beyond his territory. This would of
army. ll authorities agree that Leo in some way tricked the Arabs.
3 This really refers to his proclamation at Amorion in 716; “ἤρξαντο οἱ Σαρακηνοὶ εὐφημεῖν τὸν στρατηγὸν Δ. βασιλέα, παρακαλοῦντες καὶ τοὺς ἔσω τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖν. ἰδόντες οὖν οἱ τοῦ "Ap: ὅτι οἱ Xap. πόθῳ αὐτὸν εὐφήμουν εὐφήμησαν καὶ αὐτοί.᾿ (Theoph. 1.6.}).
Al Mad. a Al Tab.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tab.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tab.
Ibn Wadh. (J.H.S. xviii. 195).
26 E. W. BROOKS.
If Maslama is willing to evacuate the country, passing through it to his own land in any way that suits him without anyone attacking him, we agree to this. But, if he is not willing to do this, then he will meet with real war, very different from that in which he has been engaged.’
And the men returned to Masiama with the news of the great calamity ; and, when they told this speech to Maslama, it dismayed and frightened him, and his wrath was extreme, and he was overcome by sorrow and great grief. And he said to Al Battal, ‘ You are in my sight free from suspicion as regards Al Islam or any of its interests. Had this Solomon, the son of Mu‘adh, know- ledge or information of anything?’ And he said, ‘ Yes.’ And, when Solomon heard that, he removed from his ring a stone that had poison on it, and he sucked it and died on the spot.1. And Maslama gave orders, and he was crucified. Then he made them fight morning and afternoon, and inflicted such hardships upon them that they nearly perished. And the Moslems remained in this state of disorder amidst constant death and famine and bad weather until many men had perished and most of the draught-animals had perished ; and what remained of the provender remained with Maslama, who retained it in order to frighten the enemy with it.
And, when the siege pressed heavily upon the Romans, they chose one of the patricians, a man of sagacity and cunning, and said to him, ‘ Go out to Maslama and confer with him in any way you choose, and we will place our- selves in your hands, and do you satisfy Maslama in any way you please until he go back out of our country.’
And the patrician went out to Maslama and said, ‘I am an ambassador from the inhabitants of Al Kustantiniyya, and the people have placed them- selves in my hands.’
And the men of counsel came together to Maslama and said, ‘ This is a man of cunning called “the son of forty cubits” ;? and, if he should perchance make a proposal to you, do not pay any attention to him or answer him.’
1 Solomon’s death is not mentioned by Theoph., but he has nothing inconsistent with it, for the Solomon who brought the fleet to Constantinople in Sept. 717 (Theoph. AM 6209 ; Nikeph. p. 53) must be a different person from the Solomon who commanded the army before Amorion. By the eastern writer followed by Theoph. and Michael the second Solomon seems to have been confused with the Caliph, for Theoph. makes Maslama summon Solomon “τὸν πρωτοσὐμβουλον, a word which in Theoph. always stands for the Caliph, and Michael (fol. 264 v.) makes Solomon ‘the king’ come and encamp at Chalkedon. Much confusion in the narratives is probably due to the existence of these three Solomons ; see p. 80, note 6. The death of Solomon the son of Mu‘adh probably happened before the siege began, and may be attributed to his having allowed Leo to slip
through his hands at Amorion (Theoph. AM 6208).
* Tessarakontapechys. In the Acts of the 7th Synod (Mansi 13, pp. 197-200) a Jew of this name is stated to have advised Yazid IT. (729-724) to issue his decree against images and to have been put to death by Al Walid II. (743-744). From this passage it seems not im- probable that the Synod was mistaken, and that he was an adviser not of Yazid but of Leo. There is however nothing against supposing that he was by origin a Jew of Tiberias, as the Synod states, which would explain his being chosen to negotiate with the Arabs. Constan- tine Serantapechos, brother-in-law of the Em- press Eirene (Theoph. AN 6291), was probably a descendant, for the unwieldy and ill-sounding name would naturally be shortened.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 27
And Maslama said to ‘Umar, the son of Hubaira, ‘ You confer with him,’ He said, ‘I will.’ And he said, ‘The Amir says to you, “ If Leo were a man who had obtained his kingdom by a just title or were a man of noble birth, I should have no objection to meeting his ambassador and conferring with him. But the ambassador stands in the same estimation as the accreditor, and I do not care to confer with an ambassador of Leo on account of his deficient estimation and low birth.” ’
And the son of forty said,‘I am an ambassador from myself and my countrymen and my people, to guard and defend them; and I do not care which of you confers with me.’ And the conference was protracted between them, until the son of forty said, ‘I will lay a proposal before you, which is an opportunity for you, and a means of making a profit without trouble.’ He said,‘ Whatisit?’ He said, ‘It is a thing which no Roman has ever granted or thought to grant. Note every man of full age in Al Kustantiniyya, and for each man we will give you a denarius; and we will not dispute about his maturity, but the decision on the point shall rest with you.’!
And Ibn Hubaira said, ‘ This is good ; but I expect Maslama will not agree to this.’ And he said, ‘ He will not be deceived through you, if I may trust the proof which I have had of the extent of your intelligence ; and I hope he will not show favour to you, if God Most High pleases.’ And ‘Umar, the son of Hubaira, went to Maslama and found him sleeping ; and he asked permission to come in, and said, ‘I have brought you a proposal, which if you reject, you will never be contented with any offer from him; and it is a means for you to make profit without trouble. Accept it then quickly, and you do not know what the end will be. And it is so and so.’
And Maslama said, ‘ No, by God I will take it by storm, or else Leo shall come out to me on the conditions on which he left me.’ And Ibn Hubaira returned to the son of forty and told him what he had said.
And he said, ‘You came to him when he had just risen from his sleep, and a sleeper’s intelligence does not return to him for an hour ; but ask him again.’ And he said, ‘He will not do it.’ And he said, ‘When he repents, he will hope for a thing that will not be granted him, and he shall not obtain possession of this thing, and this will not be his time nor his opportunity ; and, when this happens, there shall be no re- awakening of siege or battle, and matters will be easier than they are now, and we shall be engaged in fighting for our country and our religion and our land. And the usual thing here is that every seven years there comes a rain called “the torrent,” which carries off everything that comes in its way ; and this is the year in which it comes, and you are men of knowledge.’ 2
And the son of forty returned to Leo and told him the answer that Maslama had given him. And the reason for Maslama refusing this offer
? It seems clear that this proposal must have _ negotiations of the patricians with Leo. been made at an earlier stage than that men- ® This is perhaps a reference to the storm tioned above (p. 26). Gregory (Chron. Arab. which according to Theoph. AM 6210, Nikeph. ed, Salihani p. 196) in fact places it before the p. 55 attacked the Arabs on their retreat.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tab.
Cf. Al Mad. ap Al Tab.
Cf. Al Mad. ap Al Tab.
Ibn Wadh. (7, ΗΠ. 5. xviii. 195).
Cf. Al Wak. ap. Al Tah.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tah,
Al Wak. ap. Al Tab.
Al Mad. ap Al Tab.
Al Mad. ap. Al Tab. —
28 E. W. BROOKS.
after the trick that had been played upon him was that his brother Solomon, when he sent him to Kustantiniyya, told him to remain before it until he took it or an order from him came to him. And he had continued besieging the Romans for a winter! and a summer, and he sowed in their land; and, when the second winter eame upon him, it was one of intense cold.* And before this trick Maslama had been superior in force to the Romans and had broken their spirits, and above all things they were <in despair>* when they saw the corn stored up in his camp like mountains, and the men eating of what they had carried off in plundering raids, and the seed that they had sown. And Leo, when he advised Maslama to burn the corn, had added in a sentence of his speech, “ And allow the people of Al Kustantiniyya to convey a small quantity of the corn into the city, in order that they may see your good intentions towards them.” And he allowed them to take one or two boats full in an hour. And Leo seized this opportunity, and in part of a day conveyed away a large quantity of the corn:* and the hearts of the Romans were encouraged by the corn that they had with them and the burning of most of the corn of the Moslems.
And the winter came upon them; and, when the winter came, Maslama gave orders to his followers, and they made houses of wood and dug caves. And Leo applied himself to fight Maslama, and the victory was gained by this artifice which could not have been played upon women,° and the Moslems remained with a seanty stock of provisions, while the Romans gained enough to keep them for a long time. And the Moslems met with hardships such as no one had ever met with before, till a man was afraid to go out of his camp alone ; and the Moslems ate draught-animals and skins and the trunks and roots and le::ves of trees.7 ἷ
While «his was going on, Solomon, the son of ‘Abd Al Malikh, remained in Dabik, unable to help them with any provisions by reason of the severity of the cold and the snow. And, as for Leo, he secretly sent a man to Bidus,
? The first winter (716-7) according to Theoph. (AM 6208) was spent in Asia ‘ κατελθὼν εἰς ᾿Ασίαν ἐκεῖ παρεχείμασεν.᾽ Cf. AM 6209 “Μασαλμᾶς δὲ χειμάσας ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ ἐξεδέχετο τὰς τοῦ Λέοντος ὑποσχέσεις.᾽ Theoph. nowhere states what these “ὑποσχέσεις᾽ were, and the Arabic narratives therefore form a useful sup- plement.
? Gregory (Chron. Arab. p. 197) makes the siege last 30 months, while the Spanish Chron- icle of 741 (Mommsen, Chrun. Min. vol. 2, Ρ. 355) makes it last two years. Such differ- ences may be due to varying interpretations of the term ‘ siege.”
3 «χειμῶνος δὲ γενομένου βαρυτάτου ἐν τῇ @pgny” Theoph. AM 6209 ; cf. Nikeph. p. 53.
* The text is here corrupt: I adopt de Goeje’s second suggestion and insert this verb.
® Al Madaini (ap. Al Tab., see below) places this after Leo’s accession ; and that this was the
original account appears from the fact that the narrative there gocs straight on, ‘ This was done in the night, and in the morning Leo fought. The same words occur in our author, but with a sentence taken from Al Wakidi in between, and the literal meaning of the verb, ‘to do a thing in the morning,’ is therefore lost. Gregory (Chron. Arab. pp. 196, 197) makes Leo induce Maslama to absent himself for a time and relax the siege on the understanding that he would surrender the city. He then gets himself made Emperor and carries off the corn during Maslama’s aksence.
® There is some corruption in this sentence, but the meaning is clear.
7 Mich. (fol. 265 r) ‘they ate dead bodies and dung.’ Chron. of 846 ‘they ate the flesh and the dung of their draught-animals.” Chron. of 775 ‘their cattle and horses.’
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718 FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 29
who killed him,} and he sent Bastas to the city of Salaf* (Thessalonike ?) and made him a deacon ® there; and he remained in the kingdom alone without u competitor. And he pressed the Moslems hard in war, until they were reduced to great difficulties; and, when any draught-animals died, they bought them for money through hunger and distress,‘ until it drove them to the extreme limit of distress.
And it happened that at this time Solomon, the son of ‘Abd Al Malikh died at Dabik, and ‘Umar, the son of ‘Abd Al ‘Aziz, succeeded to the govern- ment. And, as soon as ‘Umar suceceded to the government, he sent orders to Maslama by the governor of Malatya (Melitene) to return:° and he sent them clothes and provisions aud horses, with which he® went to meet them ; and he gave orders to the messenger that, if Maslama made any delay about this, he was to make proclamation for return among the men. And, when the messenger arrived, Maslama put him off and said, ‘ Wait for me a few days, and I am on the point of taking it’ And he said, ‘No, by God not an hour’? And Maslama set forth, and they were met by the horses and the clothes and the provisions. Aud Maslama returned, and the men were iu very evil plight.
At TaBARI.
And Mahomet, the sun of ‘Umar, records that Thur, the son of Yazid informed him on the authority of Solomon, the son of Moses: he said: When Maslama approached Kustantiniyya, he ordered every horseman to carry ou his horse’s hind-quarters two muds” of corn until he had brought it to Al
(J. H.S. 1
Kustantiniyya. certain place like mountains.
wintered there.
Aud he gave orders as to the corn, and it was thrown into a Then he said to the Moslems, ‘ Do not eat any of it; go into their .ountry and sow.’
And he made houses of wood and
Aud the men sowed, and that corn remained in the open
with no cover to it; and the men ate of what they carried off in plundering
1 This is perhaps a confusion with Anastasius, who was beheaded after a rebellion in 719 (Theoph, AM 6211; Nikeph. p. 55).
* We should perhaps, as de Goeje suggests, read ‘ Salunik,’ which is not a great departure from the text. Anastasius was banished to Thessalonike by Theodosius (Theoph. AM 6207 ; Nikeph. p. 52).
3 ‘rd μοναδικὸν περιεβάλετο σχῆμα᾽ Theopli. le. 3; cf, Nikeph. p. 51.
* “λίμου τε μεγάλου γεγονότος ἐν τοῖς “Apayw πάντα τὰ ιἀποθνήσκοντα ζῶα αὐτῶν κατήσθιον ἵππους τε καὶ ὄνους καὶ καμήλους. Theoph. AM 6209.
5 So Theoph. (AM 6210) ‘ Οὔμαρος δὲ κρατή- σας τῶν ᾿Αράβων ἐπέτρεψεν ἀνακάμψαι toy Ma- σαλμᾶν. This is however quite inconsistent with Theophancs’ own chronology, for he umakes the siege last from Aug. 15, 717 to Aug. 15, 718 and places the death of Solomon on Oct. 8, 117. Nikephoros also makes the siege
end on Aug. 15, 718 (p. 55), but states that it lasted 13 months (p. 53), and therefore supposed it to have begun in Jul. 717.
5 The subject of this aud the following sentence must be not the Caliph but the governor.
* According to Mich. (fol. 265 r; οἵ, Greg. p- 117) ‘Umar sent to ask for news of the army, and Maslama falsely answered that he was on the point of taking the city. ‘Umar however heard the truth from the messengers and sent an order to Maslama to return, and, if he did not obey, the messengers were to order the troops to return.
8 Al Wakidi b. 747 ἃ. 822. For the begin- ning of his narrative 500 J. H/.S. xviii. p. 195 1. 18. The uarrative here given follows upon the introductory sentence of Al Tab. in J. H.S. xviii. p- 195 1. 24-28.
39 The ‘mud’ is variously reckoned as 14 pints and 2 pints. ᾿
ΑΙ Tab. XViil.
96)
P. 23, 1. 25. Pe28,.1. 18;
Va elas
Cf. p. 27,1. 36.
τὸ
_— ~
27, 1. 14.
Dome ae
_ 26, 1. 13.
50 E. W. BROOKS.
raids, and afterwards they ate of what was δον. And Maslama remained at Al Kustantiniyya, overcoming its inhabitants, and with him as chiefs of the men of Al Sham were Khalid, the son of Ma‘dan, and ‘Abd Allah, the son of Abu Zakhariyya, the Khaza‘i, and Mugahid, the son of Gabr, until the news of Solomon’s death reached him. And some one has said: -
‘They carry their muds, and the muds of Maslama.’ ἢ
I was informed by Ahmad, the son of Zuhair, on the authority of ‘Ah, the son of Mahomet :* he said: When Solomon assumed the government, he made a raid upon the Romans; and he encamped at Dabik and sent Maslama in front, and the Romans were afraid of him. And Leo came forth from Arminiya, and he said to Maslama, ‘Send me «a man to talk with me.’ And he seat Ibn Hubaira. And Ibn Hubaira said to him, ‘What kind of man do you reckon the most foolish among you ?’4 He said,‘ A man who fills his belly with anything he can find.’ And Ibn Hubaira said to him, ‘ We are religious men, and it is part of our religion to obey our commanders.’ He said, ‘You speak the truth. We and you are fighting for religion and are angry for its sake; and to-day indeed we shall fight for victory and the kingdom. We will give you a denarius for each man. * And Ibn Hubaira returned to the Romans on the next day and said, ‘ He refuses to agree. I went to him when he had had his breakfast and filled his belly and gone to sleep and woken up, and phlegm had possession of him, and he did not understand what I said.’
And the patricians said to Leo, ‘ If you deliver us from Maslama, we will make you king’: and they made a covenant with him. And he came to Maslama and said, ‘ The people know that you will not make serious war upon them but will delay action against them, as long as the corn lasts with you ; but, if you burn the corn, they will submit.’ And he burned it; and the enemy took courage, and the Moslems were reduced to distress until they nearly perished. And they remained in this condition until Solomon died.
He said: And Solomon, the son of ‘Abd Al Malikh, when he encamped at Dabik, had made a vow to God that he would not return until the army which he had sent to the country of the Romans entered Al Kustantiniyya.
He said: And the king of the Romans died, and Leo came to him and told him, and undertook to deliver the land of the Romans into his hands.®
* Mahomet the Khuwarizmi (cire. 833) ap. have been in the original narrative. El. Nis. (Abh. fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes § This, though also quoted from Al Madaini, 3, 3, p. 122) ‘The Arabs sowed fields and is clearly a different account altogether from reaped them and ate of what they had sown.’ the preceding. There is a somewhat similar * For the conclusion of Al Wakidi’s narra- story in Mich. fol. 264 v, Greg. p. 116, where tive see J. H.S. xviii. p. 196 1. 6-15. it is stated that the Caliph Solomon encamped 3 Al Madaini }. 753 d. circ. 840. at Chalkedon with 12,000 men, and Leo,
* This conversation is unintelligible as it hearing that Theodosius had arrested some of stands, and is clearly an wnreasoning summary _ his followers, came to him, whereupon Solomon of a longer account, perhaps the same as that gave him 6,000 men and sent him to Amorion. from which the author of the Khitab got his The origin of this story is probably Leo’s visit narrative of the conversation between Ibn to the geueral Solomon before Amorion Mubaira and Tessarakontapechys. (Theoph. AM 6208).
δ Here again the abrupt transition cannot
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 31
And he sent Maslama with him until he encamped at it ;! and he collected all the corn round about it and besieged the inhabitants. And Leo came to them, and they made him king; and he wrote to Maslama, telling him what had happened and asking him to allow enough corn to be brought in to enable the people to subsist, and to make them believe that he and Maslama were at one, and that they were secure from captivity and removal from their country, and to grant them a night to carry off the corn. And Leo had prepared boats and men ; and he gave him permission, and nothing remained in those enclosures except a quantity not worth mentioning. [Ὁ was carried away during the night, and in the morning Leo fought; and he had tricked him by a trick with which a woman would not have been deceived. And _ that happened to the foree which never happened to any other army, until a man was afraid to go out of the camp alone. And they ate draught-animals and skins and the trunks and leaves of trecs and everything except dust. And Solomon remained at Dabik and took up winter-quarters ; and he was not able to help them till Solomon died. K. W. Brooks.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO J.H.S. VOL. XVIII. Pp. 182-208.
P. 183, 1. 20 ff. The defective portion of Al Tabari extends only from AH 32 to AH 40. The notices given under the years 20, 28, and 32 might therefore have been quoted from Al Tabari. The variations in his text are too slight to be worth recording ; but it should be mentioned that for the notices of 28 and 32 the authority of Al Wakidi is quoted. Instead of the notice given under 25 he has merely, ‘ And in this year was the capture of the fortresses, and their commander was Mu‘awiya the son of Abu Sufyan.’ The two following notices should he added.
AH 22 (Nov. 30, 642-Nov. 18, 643).
And Al Wakidi thinks that Mu‘awiya made a summer-raid this year and entered the - territory of the Romans with 10,000 Moslems.
23 (Nov. 19, 643-Nov. 6, 644).
And this year Mu‘awiya made a summer-raid and reached ‘Ammuriya ; and with him of the companions of the Apostle of God (God be gracious and merciful to him) were ‘Ubada the son of Al Samit, and Abu Ayyub Khalid the son of Zaid, and Abu Dhar, and Shaddad the son of Aus.
P. 188, 1. 8 from bottom. The reference (8) should be three lines higher.
P. 190,1.3. Burg Al Shahm (Tower of fatness), which is probably identical with Marg Al Shahm? (Meadow-land of fatness) is mentioned by Ibn Khurdadhbah (ed. de Goeje, p. 108) as situated in the theme of the Anatolikoi.* Jaubert in his translation of Al Idrisi (vol. ii. p. 305) identifies it with Germa.
1 This must mean ‘at Constantinople,’ guish between the soft aud hard aspirates, but, though the name has not previously been as the use of ‘ch’ for the latter is apt to be mentioned. misunderstood, I now write ‘shahm.’
2 In the previous article I wrote ‘Shacham.’ 3 Ibn Khurdadhbah wrote about 850: see de The second vowel is wrong. As to the middle Goeje’s Introduction. consonant, it is better, if possible, to distin-
32 EW. BROOKS.
P. 192, 1. 3 and note, and 1. 36. Ardaluniya and Adhruliyya are no doubt mere errors for Darauliyya (Dorylaion).
P. 193, 1. 2 from bottom. I have πὸ doubt that both here and at p. 199, Ι. 12 we should read ‘Gangra.’ The ‘ Khangara’ of Yakut is, like that of our text, due to erroneous pointing.!
Id. note ἃ. The reading ‘ Kuliya’ points to Nakoleia. [or ἢ Hirakla’ see below.
P. 194, 1. 1 and note. Bargama (Pergamos) is no doubt right. The statement tliat τί was near Melitene is merely a guess by some ignorant chronicler.
Id. p. 14, 15 and note 4. For Tulas (vvll. Tus and Tunas) and Al Marzlanain Prof. Ramsay has suggested to me Tonosa and Marsovan. As to the former, though Tonosa is in itself probable enough, the variety of reading makes it unsafe to rely upon its correctness. The name ‘ Marsovan’ seems to be in form Armenian, but it does not follow that it is of Armenian origin, and the resemblance to ‘Al Marzbanain’ is very striking. If ‘ Al Marz- banain’ represents the original name and is not an Arabic corruption, it probably com- memorates some event in the Persian war of Herakleios. From a comparison with the accounts of the campaigns in the time of Al Rashid it would appear that by ‘ Hirakla’ Herakleia-Kybistra is meant.
Id. note 6. For the City of the Slavs, see p. 21, note 3 above. Prof. Ramsay points out to me that he has withdrawn the identification of this place with Loulon. It appears from Ibn Khurdadhbah p. 110 that Podandos lay between the two.
Ρ, 196, note 2. If Al Mara is identical with Antigun, it is no doubt the Antighu which is placed by Ibn Khurd. (p. 108) in the Cappadocian theme. Yakut,* who calls it Antighus, also places it in Cappadocia. From Al Tab. iii. p. 1104 we learn that Al Mamun passed it on his way from Adana to Herakleia-K ybistra.
P. 197, 1. 24. For ‘ Dalisa, or, as in the absence of vowel-points it would be better to write it, Disa,’ Prof. Ramsay has suggested ‘ Dabisa’ (Thebasa). I cannot, however, doubt that it is the same place as that mentioned with many variations under the following year, and, as all the variations contain an ‘1,’ it is scarcely justifiable to accept the name of any place which does not contain that letter. Both Dabisa and Ouasada (which I proposed in the note) must therefore be rejected. The variation ‘Ghasla’ perhaps points to Dagalassos, but of course no confidence can be placed in this.
P. 199, 1. 20. Samala is Semalous? in the Armeniac theme (Theoph. AM 6272, where the Arabs have ‘Samala,’ ‘Samalu, and *Samalik’). 10. Khurd. (p. 109) calls it Samalu and places it in the Boukellarian theme.
P. 201, 1. 4 from bottom. ‘Matamir’ should not be taken as as a proper name, but should be rendered ‘ some subterranean granaries.’ ἢ
P. 202, 1. 6 from bottom and slip-note at end. For Zibatra, see the article of Mr. J. (ἃ. C. Anderson, in Classical Review, vol. x. p. 136 ff. The earliest instance of the name ‘Sozopetra’ is in Theoph. Cont. p. 124, a compilation of the latter half of the ninth cent. Genesius pp. 64, 66 has ‘Ozopetra,’ and Theoph. Cont. p. 268 (the portion dealing with Basil’s reign is not by the sume hand as the rest) ‘ Zapetra.’ All this is some confirmation of the view that Sozopetra is au artificial name, not the original one. Michael the Syrian calls it ‘ Zubatra.’
P. 204, 1. 19 and note.
‘ Randa,’ 5 and, as r and z in Arabic differ ὁ
1 Al Idrisi (ed. Jaubert vol. ii. p- 913) calls Gangra ‘ Gharghara,’ which is ‘Gargarun’ of Michael.
2 Vol. 4 p. 26.
ὁ τὺ Σημαλοῦος xdotpuy.’
very close to the
Zanda is found in some MSS. of Ibn Khurdadhbah (p. 102) as the name of the fourth station from Podandos on tlie road to Nakoleia. ‘Wafra, but our text is in favour of the reading ‘ Zanda.’
De Goeje reads Al Idrisi, however, calls it
ly by a point, it is probable that this is right,
* Ibu. Khurd. (p. 108) mentions a district in the Cappadocian theme called the district of the ‘ Matawir.’
® Vol. 2 p. 808.
SS
THE CAMPAIGN OF 716-718, FROM ARABIC SOURCES. 33 and that the place meant is Laranda, Al Idrisi makes it 46 miles from Podandos! and 242 from Nakoleia. Laranda is not on the direct road from Podandos to Nakoleia, but the accounts of the Byzantine roads in these \
Td. line 10 from bottom and note.
liyya.’
rilers are very inexact.?
There is no reason to change the reading ‘ Darau- The statement that it was near Mopsouestia, like most geographical explanations in the Arabic historians, is worthless.
P. 205, line 3 from bottom and p. 207 note 4. but, as is clear from [bn Khurdadhbah Armenia [V., but in Euphratesia. Yavhra with the river of that name.
id. note 3. Buka was one of the ‘Awasim or frontier-fortresses which were erected into a separate province by Al Rashid (Ibn Khurd. p. 75).
P. 208, 1. 3. Al Hadath = Adata.
7d.1. 17, Al Rahwa® is mentioned by {hn Khurdadhbah (p. 100) as the second station on the road from Tarsos to Podandos, between 12 and 24 miles from Tarsos, and between 14 and 26 from Podandos.4 De Goeje would identify it with Mopsoukrene.
The following islands in the sea’ should be added.
They said: And Mu‘awiya the son of Abu Sufyan sent out expeditions by land and sea, and he sent Gunada, the son of Abu Umayya, the Azdi, to Rudis (Rhodes).
And Gunada is one of those from whom traditions are derived : and he came in contact with Abu Bakhr and‘Umar and Mu‘adh the son of Gabal ; and he died in the year 80. And he took it by force ; and along the coast it was marshy jungle. And Mu‘awiya gave him orders, and he established some of the Moslems in it, and that was in the year 52.
They said: And Rudis is one of the most fertile of islands; and it is about 60 miles long and contains olives and vines and fruits and water and pasturage.
And I was informed by Mahomet, the son of Sa‘d, on the authority of Al Wakidi and others ; they said : the Moslems remained in Rudis seven years in a fortress which they had taken: and, when Mu‘awiya died, Yazid wrote to Gunada ordering him to destroy the fort and return. And Mu‘awiya was continually changing the men stationed there ; and Mugahid the son of Gabr stayed in it teaching the men the Kuran
And Gunada the son of Abu Umayya took Arwad in the year 54, and Mu‘awiya settled the Moslems in it. And among those who took part in its capture were Mugahid and Tubai‘, the stepson of Kha‘b the doctor®; and init Mugahid taught Tubai‘the Kuran; and it is said that he taught him the Kuran in Rudis.6 And Arwad is an island near Al Kustantiniyya.
Shimshat is not Samosata (Sumaisat), and Yakut, Arsamosata. Samosata was not in This makes it still harder to connect the bridge of Al
E. W. Broogs.
1 If we omit a station which in Ibn Khurd. doctor. Kha‘b the Jew is celebrated in the
extract from the chapter of Al Baladhuri entitled ‘The conquest of
is not given as on the direct route, the distance will be 66 miles.
2 The ‘ Zandan’ of Yakut may be the Cappa- docian Laranda (Ramsay H.G. p. 311).
3 i.e. the elevation.
4 According to Al Idrisi (vol. 2 p. 308), who ealls it Al Zahra (the splendour or blossom), it was 24 miles from Tarsos and 31 from Podandos.
5 “Ah Ahbar,’ a special term for a Jewish
VOL. XEX.
history of Mahomet.
6 The confusion between Rudis and Arwad tends to show that they were really one and the same place: see J.H.S. xviii. p. 187 note 3. It is possible that the name Arwad is due to a reminiscence of the name of the Phoenician island of Arados or Ruwad, the native name of which was Arwad (Ezek, 27, 8,11). This how- ever was taken about 650 (Theoph. AM 6141).
699
672
674. JAS.
hic.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. Part I.—PRIMITIVE REMAINS IN GALATIA: NEW MATERIALS.
δ 1.—FInps FROM SARILAR (SYKEON).
Fragments of pottery are very plentiful upon most of the ancient sites in Galatia, but those who cannot excavate can hardly expect to find anything at all complete. We were very fortunate therefore in obtaining at the village of Sarilar, the ancient Sykeon,! an almost perfect pot and a photograph of an ‘Idol.’ Both jug and idol had been found by a peasant in a small mound between the bridge and the village : together with these he discovered a circular macehead of dark green stone? and a square piece of copper. In Bey-bazar we had previously been shown a small saucer-shaped cup, which came from the same village and no doubt from the same excavation: it was hand-made and of the same clay as the pot, (for its shape cf. Dorpfeld, Zroja, 1893, Fig. 29).
Fig. 1.
The ‘Idol’ (Fig. 1) clearly belongs to a variation of the well known class which is named sometimes the Island Class: figures of the same type have been found in Egypt also and on many of the Mediterranean coasts.
1 See Part IIL., J. § 9. * [saw it only by night, and cannot speak positively about the material,
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 5D
(v. Evans Cretan Pictographs p. 124 foll.: and authorities quoted below). The Sykeon idol measures 0°32 x 0:21 x 09. m.: it is female, nude, and highly conventional ; as in most of the ‘ fiddle-shaped ’ figures, the arms are merely triangular projections and no attempt has been made to represent the legs, unless they were intended to be drawn up, like the legs of a Buddha, in the Eastern squatting fashion; the face is also treated in the way usual to this technique. The material is stone. There is only one curious point about the figure: in the middle of the back there are two small circles cut, about the same size as the breasts and the same distance apart, but lower and incised. Whether they are intended as crude representations of the small of the back, or whether they are ornaments, I cannot say: I can suggest vo technical reason for them,
Fic. 2.
The pot (Fig. 2) is one of the forms which the ‘Schnabelkanne’ takes. It measures in height 0°265 m., breadth 0°18 m. and is hand-made. The colour is a brilliant brick-red, but is not evenly spread on the whole surface, in places it is blotchy and dull, in other places it has small black speckles. The clay is rather coarse. The handle is so broken that we cannot with certainty restore it : it is interesting to note, as Mr. Edgar pointed out, that it has been thrust through the wall of the vase, not simply attached to it externally, as is the case for instance with the Theran vases, One of the stringholes upon the neck is broken, but the other is perfect: several similar stringholes occur upon Cypriot vases of this shape, and they were without doubt used for suspension from the ceiling—to this day you may often see in Asia Minor the pots still hanging from the rafters. In a long-necked jug the handle would serve the purpose quite as well and it is not necessary to suppose that this practical use suggested them in the first instance: in many Cypriot vases there are far more stringholes than could possibly have been used, and suspension from the roof is a comparative refinement of advancing civilization ; the representation of physical characteristics, the ears for example, or merely ornamental fancies may even have originated this expedient. The spout
D2
36 J. W. GROW FOOT.
or bill projects further forward than is usual, and does not end in a point, but is slightly hollowed; both these characteristics may be paralleled in most Cyprus collections. The bottom is fattened, and though small quite sufficient to support the pot.
From these considerations it is clear that neither pot nor idol belongs to the earliest of its class. Hoernes (Urgeschichte der Kunst in Europa, Bk. 111, I. § 4) has pointed out that the cruder fiddle-shaped forms from the Aegean are not necessarily the most primitive: the rounded forms of our figure certainly rank it among the later. The same writer (7b. § 6) attempts to distinguish two early groups, an easterly one including Thrace, Troy, Cyprus, Crete and the Cyclades, from the western half covering Illyria and the mainland of Greece; the former being marked by its preference for nude cultus figures. But a theory which separates the Cyclades from Greece to unite them with Asia Minor will require very strong evidence before it caa be accepted.
Apropos of these idols and the goddess (?) whom they represent, Salomon Reinach (Chroniques d’ Orient, 11. p. 570 and Rev. Arch., 1895, I. p. 367) raises one very pertinent question: if the Babylonian Anaitis was originally nude, why did the Greeks identify her with the draped Artemis of the Kphesians? In each case we must ‘look before and after.’ Upon the earlier pedigree of our idol, fresh light has been thrown by the excavations of Ernest Chantre at Boghaz Keui (Mission en Cappadoce, Paris 1898, p. 42 seq.) : these have proved the existence of a Babylonian colony at least 2000 1.06. in Northern Cappadocia, which the discoverer dates still earlier and connects with the conquests of Sargon of Agade (3800 B.c.?) Whatever may be thought of these early dates, and more evidence may be thrown upon them at any time by Egyptian finds in the Greek islands, the tablets at Pteria form an obvious link between Sykeon and Chaldaea. Secondly, in Lower Chaldaea itself Hilprecht’s excavations at Nippur on behalf of the American mission have unearthed several naked terracotta goddesses in the lower strata near the platform of Sargon I., which cannot therefore be brought lower than the first half of the fourth millennium B.c. (see H. vy. Fritze, in Jahrbuch des Kais. Deut. Inst. 1897, p. 199). And with regard to the lower pedigree of the same idol, M. Reinach’s question hardly touches ours so sharply as those more to the west. Cybele, the great Phrygian nature goddess, who is ex hypothesi developed from our nude idol, is scarcely ‘draped’ in the earliest representations of her in the Phrygian monument country ;! the unformed stump in which her body ends bears a_ closer resemblance to the stylized form of our idol than to the drapery with which more fastidious generations clothed her. But we ‘should be obliged to qualify this process by one perhaps fatal exclusion. M. Chantre
‘ I owe this observation to Mr, Anderson. Afiltheil. 1898, ‘af. 11.) and the still more Cf. the shrine of Cybele at Arslankaia near primitive Sipylos figure (Humanun, Ath. Liyen, (Reber Die Phrygischen Felsendenkmiler Mittheil. 1888, Taf. II.)
(Miinchen. 1897) p. 32, and Korte, Ath,
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 37
(op. ctt., p. 136) while speaking of the worship of Ma at Komana, notes that women in ‘ Hittite’ art are never nude, but clothed in long robes: if we cannot call them Amazons, yet the seated goddess of the bas-reliefs, the woman upon the leopard and others at Boghaz Keui are all far from any sensual or lascivious touch. This may, however, be due to the nature of the monuments rather than to any absolute aversion from the nude among their creators: on the sculptures at Sendjirli no nude goddess uppears and Istar herself is represented clothed and throned on the Esar- haddon stele (Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli 1. 1893, Berlin, p. 25) but several nude terra-cotta ‘idols’ were found upon the citadel (17). 11. 1898, pp. 153, 175). And again the Berlin Museum possesses a cylinder from the Petermann collection (Assyrischer Saal, Case EK No. 596) which represents a naked woman between two men, one of them wearing the pointed ‘Hittite’ cap; beside them is the well-known plait ornament.! Our idol, however, is distinctly more ‘western’ in type than any of these.
In early Asiatic art, as in Greece itself, we have the two conceptions side by side: in developed art, until quite late, the severe draped forms pre- dominate. At present we are hardly in a position to say more than this: we cannot here discuss the causes which Jed to these diverse modes of representa- tion. And further, it is still open to M. Reinach to say that the road which leads to the Bosphoros from the East, might be traversed in either direction. The Idol of Sykeon, which stands midway upon this route, simply proves that communication was made by land no less than by sea: the beaked pot points to Cyprus and to Troy, rather than to the far East.
§ 2.—FRAGMENTS OF POTTERY FROM VARIOUS SITES.”
M. Chantre noticed, as we did, several mounds scattered about Galatia and covered with fragments of pottery. And the British Museum possesses various pieces from Sardes and elsewhere, some of ‘Moabite’ fabric, which Mr. Cecil Smith was kind enough to show me. Indeed a considerable collection might be made simply from the surface of the ground, without putting a single spade into the 5011. But at present excavation in the interior has been so slight, that in trying to classify some of these fragments, we must rest content with vague references to the known fabrics of Greece and Cyprus. When the pottery from Sendjirli (Sendschirli) has been published, we shall perhaps be able to speak more confidently.
menian Sarcophagi : did it reach Ionia by land or by sea? Puchstein regards it as originally
1 This is characteristic of ‘Hittite art: we
see it upon the Saktschegizii monument now
at Berlin (Humann and Puchstein—-Reisen in Kieinasien, Berlin, 1890, p. 372-380) about 700 z.c. in date. It is the same probably as the ‘wreaths of chainwork for the chapiters which were upon the tops of the pillars’ (Kings I. vii. 17) made by a Tyrian craftsman for Solomon c. 960. And it recurs later of course upon early Samian pottery and Klazo-
Assyrian and traces it back to Assurnasirpal 884-860, but the Tyrian example is earlier, if I am right in my identification of it: the origin- ality of the Assyrian has suffered more than one blow of late. (Ch Jahrbuch des Instituts, 1893, p. 1, toll.)
2 For the situation of the various localities mentioned, see the Map (VI. IY.) and Part IT,
38 J. W. CROWFOOT.
Red-faced ‘ Cypriot Τ᾿ ware is very common: one piece of it, which had been made on the wheel, we picked up at Dere-keui Kale, near Giaour Kalési; handmade fragments come from Kara Oglan, the site near Hadji Izzet Bey Tchiftlik, Balik-koyundji, Giaour Kalési itself. A variation of this came from Kara Oglan, Balik-koyundji and Muradli Htiyik near Harmandal Keui: it consists in the fact that one side of the sherd is red, the other black, that is to say one only has caught the flames while being baked, and afterwards both have been burnished. At Bazirgian Hiiyiik, we found a piece with orange instead of black on the other side, of the same texture, the difference being due, I suppose, to different coloured clays. On the other pieces one side only is as a rule polished, but this is not invariable, and would of course depend on the shape of the vessel and the part of it from which the fragment came, as much as upon its date. The polish is often partially rubbed off; the clay and the quality of the baking vary. And the red face is sometimes replaced with a brown one. To the places above mentioned we must add Sykeon (Sarilar) and Gordion (Pebi). (Ath. Mittheil. 1897).
This ware is of course earlier than any painted ware, but there are differences of date even in the few fragments which we have collected, and it may have been used for common articles long after painted ware was known and prized.
To the same unpainted class belongs a very rough fragment of grey clay, impressed diagonally with a wooden (?) instrument, from Kara Oglan, and a splendid piece of yellowish bucchero from Kiiriik Kale—a place we have identified with Eccobriga (see below Part II., VI. § 2)—which recalls some fabrics of Italy, Malta, and other Mediterranean lands. The last piece comes apparently from a bowl: it is handmade and finely polished upon both sides, the paste is extremely hard and good.
This site Eccobriga was peculiarly rich in ceramic remains: fragments of late Hellenistic and Roman fabrics lay side by side with early painted ware. Indeed I may remark that sites at all rich in pottery presenting fragments of one age only are the exception rather than the rule: most of these reached the height of their prosperity perhaps in early times, and only supported feeble settlements in the Greek and Roman periods. (Cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., p. 27-85 for evidence bearing in the same direction derived from the place-names and the most ancient road system.) Only on this hypothesis can I account for the fact that early ware still appears upon the surface.
From Eccobriga come the following fragments :—
a. A piece of ‘ purified clay and perfectly baked’ ‘covered on the outside with a coating of pale rose colour’ over which are painted ‘diagonal bands of bright minium red’: these words are quoted from the description of a Cretan fragment by Taramelli (American Journal of Archacology, 1898, p. 294, where see other references), but our piece is 8 millimetres thick (the Cretan being described as thin), and does not resemble any Theran ware I have seen, to which Taramelli compares his fragment. The inner side of our piece is unpainted.
' I do not of course wish to suggest that this was necessarily imported from Cyprus.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 39
8. A fragment of yellow clay, imperfectly purified. Upon a yellow ground the pattern represented in Fig. 3 is painted in dark reddish brown, The reverse side is plain, and there is no sign of any varnish. The pattern suggests Mykenaean parallels but the piece seems to be of local fabric.
Fic. 3.
y. Fragment from the top of a large bowl, of hard baked red clay. The outer side is painted: a horizontal band runs beneath the rim which projects slightly, and beneath this band there are remains of a reticulated rhomboid, or perhaps triangle—another known Mykenaean motive. The ground is covered with a thick lightish paint, and the decoration is painted in glazed brown, The upper side of the rim and the inside is a dull red, worked up to a sort of polish with a wooden (?) instrument. The patterns upon this piece and the preceding are rather like some pieces of ‘Moabite’ ware in the British Museum, but still more like the pieces found by Chantre at Kara Eyuk (op. cit. pp. 85, 112, etc. and Plates): the discoverer, however, says nothing of the inner side of his fragments.
6. A thick piece, perhaps from a raised plate: wheelmade, of purified red clay. Upon a pale ground are a few lines and dots in two colours, black and purple; the lines went in a circle round the centre, and dots and curved lines apparently decorated sparsely the interspaces; there is a raised inner line. This seems to be rather later than the preceding, and to belong to a ‘ Lydian ’ fabric.
Together with these pieces we found a cornelian bead, straightly bored, cut at each end into hexagonal facets, and badly worn by the weather, and also several later pieces.
From Giaour Kalési comes a geometrical handle of rather a curious form, and well levigated clay. From the neighbouring Dere keui kale, a fine thin fragment with a bright orange coloured paint upon both sides, the inner being duller: at first I thought it might belong to a late Mykenaean fabric, but Mr. Cecil Smith has convinced me that it is Naukratite, which lends it a peculiar interest on account of the Croesus-Amasis alliance.
The broken handle of a painted bowl from Balik-koyundji, and early
40 J. W. CROWFOOT.
painted fragments—decorated simply with lines—from the site near Hadji Izzet Bey Tchiftlik and from Tchorgia Hiiyiik, conclude this series, with the exception of one fragment from the castle of Karalar near Girindos. This is of poor red clay, the inner side rough, the outer quite dull and impressed with horizontal and perpendicular lines, cutting one another in one part. Both Mr. Evans and Mr. Smith agree in thinking it very carly, but are unable to identify the fabric from so small a piece.
The later pieces may be dismissed in a few lines.
Painted pieces of good clay with red lines upon a white slip might have been manufactured in so many centuries that we cannot at present discuss their date. A very common ware found at Eccobriga, Tcheshnir Keuprii Keui and other places, is made of light red clay with a thin white slip upon the outer side: it is always wheelmade, and the shapes seem to have been very varied. Imitations of Hellenic black glaze ware were picked up at Parlassan (Parnassos) and Harranlar (Harra), south-east of Amorion. A large piece of Pseudo-Aretine or Samian ware (Germanicé, ‘terra sigillata’) comes from the site identified below (Part 1]., I. § 8) with Lagania. But this is not so common as a fine red unpolished ware.
A connexion with Cyprus in the most primitive days is the one sure conclusion which we can draw from the above finds. And this is important in view of the sharp line of division, which some have lately tried to draw between north and south. The task now most incumbent upon those who wish to study the early history of Asia Minor, seems to be the discovery of the necropolis of some great centre—Pteria, Gordion or the Midas city (Chantre searched in vain for one at the first named)—but it is only within the last year that Boehlau has given us an account of the necropolis of Samos, and so for one in the interior we may have to wait long.
In this and the preceding section I have received help from several friends: besides those already mentioned, I am deeply indebted to Mr. J, L. Myres.
§ 3.—A RELIEF AT YARRE.
In the village of Yarre, just above Kavundji Keuprii on the Sangarios, we found the relief reproduced in Fig. 4: the man who discovered it showed us the place from which it came, a small fepe near the village, and as he had no inducement to lie, his statement is to be considered trustworthy.
The slab has a square face 0.75 x 0.75 m. and is 0.30 m. thick. The bottom and the sides have been squared, the back is rough, and on the top there is a low tongue-like projection. The relief represents an animal upon a slender altar between two seated figures: that on the left is much damaged, but the other is perfect. A woman dressed in a long garment is seated upon a cross-legged stool, over which apparently lies a cushion : she wears pointed shoes, and her feet rest upon a square footstool. There is an earring in her ear, and her hair, which is bound round the crown of her head with a band, descends upon her shoulder. In her right hand she
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 11
raised a flower or some other object towards her face, and she held something, perhaps a pomegranate, in the other. ‘The figure seated opposite also wears a long dress and the same shoes: the hand is similarly raised, and the foot- stool is the same: the seat however seems to have been different. The space above the altar was filled with some much destroyed symbols, which may have been letters from the ‘ Hittite’ syllabary or else some of the symbols which are common upon these carly subjeets.
- The subject recalls the scheme of some Greek “ἠοῖ, but still more that of some slabs in North Syria, published by Puchstein (Humann and Puch- stein, Reisen in Kleinasicn, Tif. XLV. and XLVIL). And in a nearer district south of the Cappadocian Caesareia at Fraktin, a coutraction of
Ferak-ed-din, (see Ramsay and Hogarth, in Maspero’s Reewetl de Tre van, 1893, p. 87, Plate VI. and a better photograph in Chantre, Pl. 23), a similar subject oceurs upon a rock relief. The analogies in style are even closer with the reliefs at HKyuk—clothes, carring, shoes and altar are almost identical (Perrot Laploration de la Galatic, Pl. LVL. and LXVL., Hist. de Art, vol. iv. Ρ. 656 seq.) In our relief there is something ludicrous in the artist’s failure to plant all his subjects firmly on one ground ; footstools, chairs and altar are all on different levels: this is parallel to the ladder scene at Kyuk (Perrot, Exploration, Pl. LXIT.). Our sculptorindeed is less skilful in this respect than most of those at Eyuk, Sendjirli, Marash. The cross-legged stool occurs frequently in North Syria (v. doc. cz/.), but there usually as a table, the chairs having four straight legs, but one out of five chairs upon the haematite
42 J. W. CROWFOOT.
-
seal from Tarsus in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford is of the same pattern ; it resembles of course the Ionic ὀκλαδίας. The central object is the crux of the whole composition. Prof. Ramsay (loc. cif.) suggests that there is in the shape of the altars at Eyuk and Fraktin a ‘resem- blance to the human figure intended to convey the idea that the altar partakes in the divine nature and is a living thing. The stage of religious thought which it implies is midway between the fetish stage, when an inanimate object is conceived as divine and powerful, and offerings are made to it and poured on it, and the fully developed personal stage, when the altar is merely a stone or sod on which offerings to the divinity are laid, but does not in any sense partake of the nature and character of the divinity, In the present case, however, and at Marash there can be no question of such a mid- way stage, which is rather difficult to conceive at all: here the sacred stone, the Baitylos, stage is passed, and the altar has become what we still understand by an altar. It is rather difficult to make out what is the object upon the altar. Mr. Anderson first suggested to me that it was a bird, and a comparison with other parallels in North Syria and Fraktin leaves me no doubt that he is right. A bird then is sitting crouched upon the altar, its back to the woman: in front of it rises a rectangular erection in two steps, similar to that at Fraktin and more distantly related to subjects on some Mykenaean seals, A fracture has given the upper part the appearance of a horn, such as undoubtedly exists upon the latter, but the evidence of other Hittite altars shows that this appearance is quite fortuitous. The high conical support— Ramsay’s half woman—is found also at Eyuk, Fraktin (twice), on two seals at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, that already mentioned from Tarsus (thrice) (see Prof. Sayce, The Archaeological Journal, London, 1887, p. 347-350) and one from Jaffa, and on a cylinder at Copenhagen.’ Although some of these artists have tried to indicate its construction, it is difficult now to interpret their efforts; perhaps it was made of wood covered with bands of metal like some Jewish altars; the form may have been derived from Egypt. The upper part varies considerably. At Eyuk, and on one of those from the Tarsus seal, we see a plain slab. On those at Fraktin and on the Jaffa seal there is a single erection at one end: a similar object on another class of altars has been explained by some as a protection against wind, just as one often sees in front of the hearth in the entrance of a Kurdish or Yuruk tent a large stone set up on its end to shelter the fire behind it. At Yarre, and I think on one side of the Tarsus seal (Sayce’s Plate, No. 4) this erection is duplicated and we have two steps, the altar being thus brought into connexion with the group of ‘ Stufen-altare’ collected by Reichel ( Vorhellenischer Gotter- culter, Wien, 1897, p. 40 foll.); but I find a material difficulty in applying his throne theory to this example, and must rest content with describing it as an altar with a raised back. From its position we might argue that the
* I am indebted to Mr. Bell, the assistant Greville Chester and have been in the Museum keeper of this Museum, for casts of these seals: since 1889. Ἢ they come from the collection of the Rev.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 43
female figure still remaining was the more important of the two, and the other either a worshipper or an inferior consort upon whom the altar’s back might be safely turned, but a Chaldean cylinder published by Reichel (op. cit. p. 45, also in Menant, La Glyptique Orientale I. p. 163), on which a single deity appears facing the higher part of the altar proves that this is not a safe conclusion, though it would suit current theories of Anatolian religion. Whether these different altars and the Phrygian type, which is again so different, have any special ceremonial significance, I must leave to those more learned in theology and ritual to decide. One point is, however, striking—the emptiness of so many of these altars, eg. Eyuk, Fraktin (one), Tarsus (one), Jaffa: in two of these, libations are poured at the foot of the altar, in the last there is nothing visible. The altar is therefore probably not an altar of sacrifice, and it may even in some cases be introduced to indicate the sanctuary rather than a definite scene of worship. This may help us to discern the precise meaning of the bird, which is not obvious at first sight : for it is not dead in appearance and so cannot have been already sacrificed, nor has it the confident pose proper to the ‘companion of a god, and there- fore assumed by those at Fraktin and Marash and upon an Attic vase fragment (Cecil Smith, J. H. S. I. p. 204, and Ramsay, loc. cit.). If this passive appear- ance is not due simply to the artist’s incapacity, we must assume one of two things :—either it is an ex voto, a representation in stone of an offering in clay or in metal: M. Chantre (op. cit. p. 156) collected a dozen such bronze eagles in Cappadocia ; or it may be an ideograph: the bird sign is very common upon ‘Hittite’ inscriptions and Jensen (Hittiter und Armenier, Strassburg, 1898, Taf. v.) gives it the value of a proper name or part of one. In this case the destroyed symbols would contain the names of a god and goddess seated before their sanctuary, or perhaps of a king and queen in the act of worship, and the locality of the altar, the ancient name of Yarre, in fact, would be indicated by the bird.!’ The chief objection to this interpretation is the commonness of the bird: Prof. Ramsay suggests a similar explanation of the ‘Midas City’ group” (Athenische Mittheilungen, 1889, p. 182). Upon later Phrygian stelat I may note that the eagle with wings displayed occurs almost as frequently as the lions grouped heraldically over a prostrate animal; both appear there- fore to be survivals of great antiquity, the Phrygians, like the Galatians, having taken over much of what they found already existing.
The carefully squared sides show that this stone was one of a series, the rough back that it did not stand ‘free.’ A group similar to this occurs upon the gateway at Sendjirli, and this stone is admirably fitted to hold such a position. Part of the second figure may have been upon a separate block, a trait also common to the Syrian workmen. The projection at the top is paralleled, so far as I can make out from Puchstein’s photograph, by the slab
1 Jensen (op. cil. p. 166) has no hesitation in funeral representations, but a combination of saying that his series of reliefs (Marash, Send- {πὲ two ideas is not improbable elsewhere. jirli, Fraktin) represents religious not funeral 3 On which see Korte, Ath. Mittheil. 1898, rites: the rock sculpture at Fraktim and the p. 139. Oxford seals could hardly be explained as
44 ᾿ ΟΥ̓ FOOT.
with the winged gryphon at Sendjirli (vp. ci/. xlv. 3). The slabs found at Eyuk by M. Perrot make another closer instance. This is therefore the most likely destination for it.
Fresh evidence has been accumulated lately as to the date of these monuments. Prof. Ramsay (/. ¢.) arrived at a date earlier than 850 for the Fraktin sculptures, basing his argument upon the probable developments of epigraphy,—the change for instance from symbols in relief to symbols incised. The splendid excavations at Sendjirli have thrown further light : Dr. Felix von Luschan and his assistants are doing for the ‘ Hittites’ what Layard did for Assyria, or Schliemann for Troy, and with the full benefit of their experience. This village lies in North Syria between Giaourdagh and Kurddagh, east of the Amanosdagh range, about fifty miles from Alexan- dretta and sixteen miles west of Saktschegozii, another ancient site where Assyrianizing reliefs, now in the Berlin Museum, have been found. Sendyjirli was first visited by Humann, Puchstein, and von Luschan in 1883, but excava- tions were not begun until 1888 ; continued in 790, 91, 94, they are not yet completed, but two reports have been already published on the scale of the Pergamenian and Olympian discoveries (Ausgrabungen in Sendschirla τ. 1898, ii. 1898. Berlin). On the citadel three palaces (‘ Hilanis’) of a curious plan were uncovered, with various sculptures and inscriptions in cuneiform, picto- graphs and old Semitic ; the gates leading to the lower town were decorated with sculptured reliefs, and the whole was fortified in the Oriental fashion bya circular double wall with a hundred small towers and three’gateways. It is clear from the photographs of gate sculptures and from the words of the finders that this country shared in the same artistic traditions as Cappadocia : from this it follows that dates holding good of one may, mutatis mutandis, be applied to the other, and we may really know at last whether the circle of Cappadocian monuments, to which our slab belongs, is contemporary or not with the Mykenacan civilisation. The inscriptions deciphered by Professors Schrader and Sachau (op. cit. i. p. 30-43, 55-84, and Sttzungsberichte der Kon. Preuss. Akad., Berlin, 1896, p. 1051-1056) show that the ruined town at Sendjirli was the seat of a principality ruled in the 8th century by two dynasts named Panamimu, and absorbed finally by the growing power of Tiglath-Pileser III., among whose tribute lists of the years 738, 734, appears the name of Panammu, Prince of Sam/’al. In the next century ec. 670 B.C. Ksarhaddon set up a stele recording his victories over Egypt and Tyre. The sculptures found in the palaces accordingly belong to the cighth and seventh centuries, but a great gap divides these from the sculptures of the gateways in which we are particularly interested (op. cit. 1. p. 8). There were sharp differences of opinion among the discoverers as to the date of the latter: Koldewey, the architect, writes guardedly that 1300 B.c. is the most likely date for the walls, if arguments may be based upon the accumulation of soil (op. cit. i. p. 173), but quotes Puchstein’s tenth century for the inner town gate and ninth for the outer citadel without committing himself for or against either. With this we must rest content until the official publication enlightens us further. M. Chantre’s excavations have not thrown any
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 45
material light upon the question. In discussing it he starts with the assump- tion that the earlier theories of Sayce, Wright, and others about an ‘ Empire, or Confederation, of the Hittites’ are all proven facts, and that the history of the Khita as wriften on Egyptian monuments gives a certain basis upon which the Cappadocian monuments may be dated, assumptions to which we cannot subscribe.
The pottery from Pteria and Kara Eyuk, published by himself, like that from Eccobriga and Giaour Kalési, is, in its degradation of Mykenaean forms, strong evidence that the golden age of these sites, when their lords had established the widest foreign relations, is not to be dated earlier than the tenth century. The Yarre slab belongs to the middle period of ‘ Hittite © art: it represents an advance upon the gate sculptures at Sendjirli, but a develop- ment of a similar style, a style which was there ousted—earlier, naturally, in ἣν more easterly region—by Assyrian influence. Many will find an insuperable difficulty in attributing these crude works to a people for centuries in close contact with Egypt and Babylon when the former was at the height of its power ; and such will perhaps agree with Puchstein,’ (Psendohethitische Kunst, 1890, p. 10) in referring them to a time when the Mykenaean glory had departed from Greece, and Egypt had become a broken reed, when the Anatolian borrowed much from the palaces upon the Tigris but still clung to the traditions of his native style. In the next section we shall see another step in the development of art in Asia Minor:
§ 4—RELIEFS NEAR ANGORA.
At Yalandjak we found built into a fountain a slab of trachyte (?), on which a lion was sculptured in low relief. The block measured 1-20 x 0°80 m., the relief in the deepest part was not more than 23 centimetres. It was broken at the bottom, so that the feet had disappeared, a corner of the stone above the tail had been also broken, and at the other end the block had been apparently mutilated, so that half the head and part of the front leg were missing.
The missing parts we are able to supply with certainty from a replica of this lion, which is built into a wall in the deserted village of Amaksiz-kew (Fig. 5). This slab represents a lion between two plain pilasters: the field containing the lion measures in length 1°37 m., the two pilasters 0°27 and
1 Puchstein (op. cit. p. 16) connects them M. Theodore Reinach’s suggestion, — the with the northern allies of the Libyans in their | Mitanni-Matianiaws (Reeue des Etudes Greeques,
invasion of Egypt in the reigns of Meneptah and Ramses III., but the majority, perhaps all, of these seem to have come from the seaboard and the islands. To Ramsay’s term ‘Syro- Cappodocian’ there is only one objection—it tells one nothing, and as a geographical ex- pression omits perhaps the most important section of all—Cilicia. No orientalist, so far as 1 know, has expressed himself in favour of
1894, p. 313) and Jensen’s Hatians have not yet passed through the final ordeal of criticism. The dates, which he oltains from his study of the inscriptions, agree entirely with those suggested above (for Boghaz keui he proposes, op. cit. p, 192, 850-800 B.c.), but I cannot estimate the value of his arguments. I have accordingly retained the conventional term ‘ Hittite” in discussing these works.
46 J. W. CROW FOOT.
0.51, the end of the smaller one (by the tail) being slightly bevelled, and the height of the whole 090. If we restore what it has lost to the Yalandjak lion, the two will be seen to be identical in size: the Yalandjak relief being I think slightly superior in workmanship—the curve of the back is a little more vigorous—but they are no doubt from the same workshop and from the same building.
And both exactly resemble yet a third lion seen by Perrot at Kalaba and now in Constantinople (see Perrot, Haploration de lu Galatie, pp. 226, 320, Pl. 82). Kalaba is two kilometres east of Angora (Perrot), Amaksiz-keui—a
village on a mound which may conceal an ancient site—is to the west, Yalandjak to the 8.S.W.; so that the original findspot of all three is probably Angora itself or some place in the immediate neighbourhood.
We see at once that these lions, vigorous though they be, are highly conventional, evidently the work of an artist who had no means of studying his subject in life. This differentiates them from the pure Assyrian lions, to which Perrot in his fine analysis compares that from Kalaba; and a close com- parison with the original from Nimroud, which he cites, shows that the treatment of the head, the ear especially, is by no means ‘tout ἃ fait sem-
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 47
blable’: the two are only distantly related. In the Histoire de l'Art (Tom. iv. p. 712 seg.), Perrot republishes it as Hittite, but with some hesitation.
Reber (Die Phrygischen Denkmdler, p. 20) without any such qualms connects Kalaba with the stream of influence which flowed between Boghaz Keui and Giaour Kalé¢si, but his theory of separate lines of culture running in parallels and never meeting seems to me as untenable as Hirschfeld’s earlier and almost identical road systém. Nor in the case of the Kalaba lion can I see any close resemblance to the Pterian works.
Besides the Assyrians and the Cappodocians, there are two peoples who might have influenced early work at Angora—Phrygians and Persians. The assumption that the latter have left no trace of their rule upon Asia Minor is simply based upon the silence of witnesses, who have never been searchingly questioned (v. Chantre, Hn Cappodoce, p. 113). The attitude of these lions and the facts that three still remain identical in all respects and that they were separated from one another-by pilasters, remind us of the great Persian frieze of lions in the Louvre. But here too there are striking differences ; in the Anatolian reliefs we miss, perhaps by reason of the weathering, the salience of muscle and of shoulder-blade and especially the elaboration of the mane, which are so characteristic of the Persian works: the head and neck too are quite different.
The Phrygian reliefs of Arslantash, on the other hand, seem rather more closely related to our subjects! They have been recently studied again by Korte (Kleinasiatische Studien IIT. in Ath. Mittheil. 1898); he points to the strong resemblance existing between them and some early Greek coins and thereupon excludes all possibility of Assyrian influence; but what historian of Greek sculpture itself has gone so far as this? Moreover, it is only quite late in time that the Greek sculptor himself was able to produce a good lion. The finds at Koyundjik have proved that Gyges of Lydia was tributary to Assurbanipal, and the double standard of early Lydian coin issues, (see Head, Coinage of Lydia and Persia, p. 11), one for land commerce with Babylon, the other for dealings with the JIonians, proves the maintenance of close relations between East and West. What is proved of Lydia, follows in this question ὦ fortiori of Phrygia.
.The Eastern Phrygians who inhabited what was later called Galatia were therefore in contact with the civilized powers upon both sides: how much they owed to Greek and how much to Assyrian, we cannot say. We have not sufficient knowledge to delimit these early ‘ spheres of influence,’ but we have no right to assume that they were incapable of making an original contribution to art themselves, or at least of modifying their neighbours’ work in an original way. It is in fact this which I think we see in the Angora lions: they are a new local variety of a wide class, to which both Persian and ‘Midaean’ lions belong.
1 The omission of the sexual organsin animals _ treatment, in contrast with Persian and Assyrian which are otherwise male, forinstance,iscommon works, is characteristic of Ptema. For maned to both, but I admit, with Perrot, that there _lionesses however see Korte (p. 136). are great differences, and also that sobriety of
48 J. W. CROWFOOT.
One of the many legends which have been preserved about Midas (? 700 B.C.) records that he was the founder of Aukyra (Pausan. I. iv. § 5): one is tempted to bring these lions into connexion with this tale. There is nothing improbable in such a connexion, but it must remain a mere suggestion for the present.
The purpose which these reliefs served is less doubtful. I imagine them standing in a line separated each from cach by pilasters and decorating the lower course of the walls of a palace or gateway, like the slabs discovered by the Germans at Sendjirli. This arrangement of lions in a frieze is important in its bearing wpon the ‘orientalizing’ Greek vases with bands of figures (ef. Perrot, Galatie, p. 226); it has been gencrally supposed that these sre influenced by Eastern embroidery. This is quite possible, but it is also possible that the sculptor’s architectural arrangement took precedence in time over both embroidery and vase-painting.
The foundation of such a palace would be the origin of the story about Midas, for there is evidence to show that Ankyra had a still earlier history. Chantre (p. 80) publishes a primitive bronze axe head said to be from Angora and there is in the town itself just under the castle rock another lion of extremely crude workmanship!: it is represented as sitting, crouched up, and recalls the earlier works of Eyuk and Pteria. Or, if a Persian origin be preferred for our lion series, these more archaic works might be brought into direct connexion with Midas himself. Phrygian inscriptions have been found across the Halys, but at present the evidence does not allow us to decide the question positively.
§ 5— GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
The remains of early date just discussed, however insignificant many of them may seem in themselves, do serve in some measure to fill in more definitely one section of the great civilization which spread over the Eastern Mediterranean lands before the classical epoch. From Bigaditch in Mysia and Emed in Phrygia, Messrs. Anthony and Munro have brought back specimens of primitive ware (now in the Ashmolean). Dr. Kérte has described finds of ‘Trojan’ pottery at Boz-eyuk and Beybazar (Verhandlungen der Berliner anthropologischen Gresellschaft, 1896, p. 123) and a similar find at Gordion (Pebi). There is, too, the well-known mould from Selendj (Evans, Cretan Pictographs, p. 133, and 5. Reinach, Esquisses Archéologiques, p. 45). Adding these finds, all west of the Halys, to the previous discoveries of Ramsay and others we have abundant evidence of the wide distribution and homogeneity of the early Cypriot and Aegean culture.
As to the racial connexion of these people or peoples we have no fresh evidence. Korte (Athenische Mittheilungen, 1897. p. 25) does not hesitate to
' [It is similar to the lions discovered by and Derende (Ritter, Erdkunde xix.). J.G.C.A.] von Vincke near Arslan-tash, between Albistan
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 49
call them Phrygian, but neither the fact that Gordion was at one time a Phrygian capital, nor the fact that similar remains are found in the districts round Philippopolis, Iassy, Salonika, etc., from which some have supposed the Phrygians to have migrated, lends more than probability to this view. The Caucasus and Armenia, with their rich neolithic remains, cannot be yet excluded as the possible cradle of these tribes (see Chantre, Recherches Anthropologiques dans le Caucase, Paris 1885). The extent of the Turkish and even of the Greck influx into Asia Minor has been hitherto exaggerated, the Gaulish invasion has been still more overestimated (Ramsay, Classical Review, Oct. 1898), and it is possible that the Phrygians also formed merely a conquering aristocracy. ‘To this day,’ writes Dr. von Luschan, ‘the mass of Mohammedan and Greek inhabitants of Western Asia, (Vorderasien) are without distinction of language or religion, physically one and closely related with the modern Armenians. It is reasonable therefore to characterize the whole original population of Western Asia as Proto-Armenian or Armenoid . . . The linguistic investigations of Jensen seem to lead in the same direction.’ (Ueber den Antiken Bogen, p. 194 in Festschrift fiir Otto Benndorf, Wien, 1898 ; also see Petersen and v. Luschan, Reisen in Lykien, Wien, 1889, p. 198; Archiv fiir Anthropologie, Braunschweig, 1891, p. 31-53 ; and Correspondenz-Blatt der deutschen Gesellschaft fiir Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1892, p. 94 foll.). Prof. Virchow says the same: in 1884, he suggested the Armenians tentatively as the kinsmen of those whose hypsibrachycephalous skulls he examined from 6th century tombs at Assos
Veber alte Schddel von Assos und Cypern, Berlin, 1884 p.35): in 1896, ἃ propos of a similar skull from the excavations at Boz-eyuk quoted above, he writes that these discoveries can scarcely be explained in any other way. Some indirect, and therefore important, witnesses corroborate the results thus reached by the highest scientific authorities : we hear of Meles, an early Lydian king and therefore according to Genesis (X. 22) a Semite, consulting the Karian oracle of Telmessos (Herod. i. 84.) no less than Gordios the founder of the Phrygian monarchy (Arrian, de Exped. Alex. ii. 3) who was therefore according to Herodotos of European origin. The permanence of religious centres and the similarity of religious customs, so often insisted upon by Prof. Ramsay, are further testimonies to the homogeneous character of the whole peninsula. All these facts should make us hesitate before assigning ‘unclaimed estates’ to any single section, Phrygian or Lydian, until its pretensions can be supported by the only valid evidence—an adequate collection of bones or portraits displaying a different type’ found in connexion with a certain fabric of pottery or a certain style of sculpture. Then only shall we have some criterion of the intensive force exercised by foreign elements upon the native population.
1 Our photograph of the Yarre headis hardly — one may add, to some extent of archaic Greek distinct enough to be of much service here, but — art, early Boeotian pottery for instance, and the so far as it goes, it points in the same direction Attic Diskophoros. And if we are not deceived —the thick nose is characteristic both of by the coiffure, the skull is certainly high. ancient Sam’al and modern Armenia, and also, ᾿
B.S—VOL. XIX, Ε
50 J. W. CROWFOOT.
We are upon safer ground when we turn from the race to the road question. As will be seen from Part IL. nearly all our primitive sites lie upon roads which were famous in Roman and Byzantine times: later generations were content with improving and repairing lines of com- munication which had existed for many centuries, with converting, to use the modern equivalents, an araba yol into a chaussée. The caravan roads were few in number—they are not numerous now—but there is no reason to believe with Radet that they did not exist before the Lydian kingdom arose, because indeed the Ionic poet mentioned only marine commerce! The story of Gordios (Arrian, Joc, cit. ii. 3) is conclusive evidence of the use of wheels in his day.
The only early road which still possesses some individuality for us is the Royal Road, and this is largely one of Ramsay’s many gifts to Asiatic topo- graphy. The broad lines on which he has sketched its course will remain the framework upon which all must work in the future, but the discoveries made by Korte and by ourselves suggest the modification of a few details. The Royal Road after leaving Pessinus, Ramsay says (fist. Geog. of Asia Minor, p. 31), traversed the hills to Gordion’ [then identified with Yiirme] ‘and then, passing the Sangarios a second time, ascended the Hammam Su to its source beside the Syro-Cappadocian monuments of Giaour Kalési. . . But east of Giaour Kalési it is very difficult to determine the exact path. . . It probably passed actually through Ankyra, which appears to have been an important city before the Gauls entered the country.’ Since this was written, Korte has shown that Gordion was probably at Pebi on the Sangarios and we have found traces of an ancient site at Balik-koyundji (Papira) on the most direct and easy road to Ankyra, of whose ancient importance furthermore there can be now no doubt. It seems unlikely then, that the Royal Road swerved southwards to Giaour Kalési.
On the other hand the position of Yarre is instructive: its site near Kavundji Keuprii is another instance of the survival of early routes of intercourse, and it may well mark an ancient junction of two roads. This would be the point where a road across the mountains from Pessinus to Ankyra vid Gordion would actually diverge from the road leading to Giaour Kalési. Excavations might possibly show that this was an import- ant site. East of Ankyra I will only say that, in spite of the presence of the ancient site of Eccobriga, the fact that the Halys is here easily fordable for half the year makes it difficult to reconcile this—the straightest route—with the road described by Herodotus in his account of the expedition of Croesus.
Of the new materials, which we have thus been able to collect during a summer’s wandering in Galatia, the most important, those from Sarilar and Yarre, came from recent excavations made by peasants. A discovery of this kind loses half its value from the vague or misleading stories told by its finder: more frequently still we were told that many pots had been found in the neighbourhood, but had been given to the children and had thus perished irretrievably. So many proviems touching the early history of Ionic art, and
I=
AQ
JH.S. xix (1899) PL.IV. ἊΣ Τ᾿ 3.
GALATIA
cis Hay.
Compiled from the most recent maps and from material supplied by" Messrs. 7.0 Ὁ. Anderson ἃ} W. Crowfoot
h 410
Seale 1. 1000000 (1578 milos to 1 inch).
English Miles 5—~~—ge—may, Kilomdtres tg
10 fo
< ae Lis } "THal DAG , ee wll ἘΞ THERMA(@Hammam Merk J
s Ἢ Lee | 1 Fe) Soadi}e ort Eel oh *Geateldjekak χε!
(oa) «λόγον σεν ew
abu. “Se “Fran TI
HISSA: pats APSTINIANOPOLIS
Eski Tehalish. BALBADON #
fA = my τς -, 1StMO5 8 ine Varun Shakerli sBoyuk kishla Pr ACO ei La NOR TRINA ᾿ Kutchuk Bi
Rene Yuruk bashi
Teheltik
Piri
08 = R . ᾿ : o> baaw/ εἰς
- τ Ἶ Demirdji 2 ὡ τ cot meh ζδδα biceni Ak GIS) 2 ene Ὁ ἢ eae a λυ δανο ον
bey Tr Ashagha Se adji Fakir eeu 4 tale yt 7 *Kurdushan 9 ‘ ~ ' f
‘Age Atchik AS
pee Yonak
ο : SES i ᾿ eee Lm Hm ἴα Hur PR λον BAYADEKOLU So γ΄ τες τ᾿ Ῥ ἵ Kushdjalle Ἴ ι- \ _, | \ ast . » φς Ψῃ ‘Que ot Φ tz\ Ὁ ie seve eezcren δ κα + Ὁ Bunasbiashi Tehorgia hil ; on τὰ ι Du δ΄ *GHaranise o Lek keui alee revi kale FARA ; : es wjstano Se ναίω = Kuyulu Zebir FAS > ᾿ς Tcheshmeli Zebir \ be Ye { - s0z/b 5 z τ pe oes ef eae τ» γῇ 3» Y=
. KONGOUSTOS Toprak kalg Hadyi Bey Yai Ancient Roads Byzantine Military Road ---—-— Ε 5᾽
ΟῚ
‘GNoxbiino 644, ΚΤ = as
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 51
touching equally the legendary background of Classical Hellas--the stories of the Lydian and Phrygian kings, to say nothing of the Amazons,—might be solved by a few scientific excavations, that we may hope that the excellent examples of the German Orient-Komitee and M. Chantre will awaken jealousy in others.
J. ΝΥ. CRowFroor.
POSTSCRIPT.
I regret that I did not see two important papers by Prof. Milani, until after I had corrected the proofs of the above: they would have helped me to set many points in a clearer perspective. In these (Studie materiali di Archeslojia e Numiimatier I. Firenze, 1899, p. 1-52), Prof. Milani discusses with a yvreat wealth of illustration the early “ Hittite” religion or theology and its connexion with the West, and he claims for Asia Minor the origin of many forms upon the Cretan bronzes published by Halbherr and Orsi, which their first editors had carried back to the further East. I need not point out how completely this agrees with several suggestions made above. The plait ornament, to which I have already referred, recurs upon these bronzes, and I believe that the question there raised may be answered almost certainly; it reached Ionia by land and not by sea, for (1) the cylinder from Aidin with similar decoration brings it very much closer than those I quoted (see Milani, page 43, or Perrot, Hist de l’Art. iv., p. 771); (2) from Cypriot pottery of the seventh and sixth centuries of indubitable Phoenician origin it is quite absent (for the date of this pottery, see Myres, J.H.S., 1897, p. 153, foll.). And to this I would add another pattern borrowed by the Ionians from the interior: Boehlau (Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen, Leipzig, 1898, p. 58, 61 foll.), states that there is no analogy in archaic art for the curious network pattern, which covers the body of so many Samian vases, and which has been already compared with wall decorations ; may we not find a close parallel to it upon the fagade ornament of the Phrygian monuments, better elucidated, I think, by Korte (Athenische Mittheilungen, 1898, p. 87, foll.) than by any previous writer? Both patterns are so elementary and artless, that perhaps even so ardent a Phil-Hellene as Professor Kérte will allow them to be original possessions of the Anatolians, though such a concession will strengthen my arguments for the native origin
of the lions. J. Ww. C:
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM.
Parr 11.--- ΤΟΡΟΘΒΑΡΗΥ, EpIGRAPHY, GALATIAN CIVILISATION.
[PLaTE IV.]
DurinG the last eighteen years our knowledge of Asia Minor has advanced by leaps and bounds, but all parts of the country have not shared alike in the general progress. Galatia in particular—we are now speaking of the country on this side of the Halys—has received comparatively little attention from archaeological travellers. .Humann and Domaszewski's journey in 1882 and some journeys made by Prof. Ramsay in the following year and by Dr. Korte in 1894 (in the vicinity of the Sangarios) constitute the whole contribution that has been made to the exploration of this region since the publication of M. Perrot’s Hxploration de la Galatie (1862). A good deal has been done in the meantime by geographers to improve the modern map of the northern frontiers, notably by W. von Diest, whose work is always as nearly a picture of the country as can be attained without a regular survey. That he may be able to continue it is the fervent wish of all who are interested in Asia Minor.!. But there are few points fixed with any certainty on the ancient map, and there are large districts which are either hardly known (like the country near the great Salt Lake) or have never been visited at all. We need therefore offer no apology for having chosen Galatia as our sphere of work during the summer months of 1898. A preliminary summary of our results, together with an account of an excursion into North-West Phrygia, which yielded two important discoveries, viz. an inscription with the name of the bishopric EULANDRA (the later Augustopolis) and the cave STEUNOS at Aizanoi, will be found in the Annual of the British School at Athens (1898). Our routes are there indicated in detail and in the following discussion, which deals with topography, epigraphy, and the conclusions to be gathered about the civilisation of the land in Graeco-Roman times, we shall discard altogether the actual lines of march and treat the subject under more convenient headings.”
1 These maps are based on Kiepert’s large- Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1895 scale map of Western Asia Minor and incorporate and 1897). Inscriptions copicd by myself are the results of journeys by M. Anton and other marked (A.), those copied by Mr. Crowfoot (C.). travellers. They are published in Petermann’s 4A.SS.= Acta Sanctorum. 1 am indebted to Mittheilungen, Erganzungsheft, no. 125. [Na- Prof. Ramsay for valuable criticisms and sug- turally, they are much less correct in districts gestions, and to the editors of the Journal for which the travellers have not actually visited.] carefully revising the proof-sheets and making
* The abbreviation CZ. refers to Ramsay's suggestions.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 53
The simplest method of discussing the greater part of the country we traversed is to take Ancyra (Angora, Turkish Engiiri) as a central point, and consider the lines of the various roads which converge thither from west, south, and east: for all the important cities or towns lay on one or other of these roads. There remain a few districts which must be dealt with
separately.
I. The Pilgrims’ Route between Ancyra and Tuliopolis.»
§ 1. Tue Pitcrims’ RoutE.—We begin with the cities on the road between Angora and [uliopolis, a section of the great route from Constanti- nople by Nikomedeia (Ismid) and Ancyra to Tarsus, which becomes famous from the fourth century gnwards as the Pilgrims’ Route to Jerusalem. ‘This road,’ as Prof. Ramsay says (ist. Geog. p. 242), ‘of course became far more important after Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern Empire, and it is still a great trade-route. But even before 330 its existence can be traced. As soon as Nikomedeia was made by Diocletian into one of the four capitals of the Roman world..., the road must immediately rise into great importance...But its chief interest lies in its being the natural land- route for pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land...It is in some respects the most interesting of all the later roads of Asia Minor; it was carefully kept up, and the stations and halting-places continued to be the same as they were in the time of Constantine. In the sixth century after Christ the publica regi cursus via? is referred to (Acta S. Theodori Sykeotae).” The discovery of two milestones of Diocletian (nos. 8 and 10) lends to these state- ments a confirmation which they hardly required. But the road was perhaps already constructed in Hadrian’s time, if the milestone (no. 5) now lying by the mosque at Emir Yaman, a village about 12 miles west of Angora, really belongs to this road and has not been transported from the line of the Roman road Dorylaion—Angora (see the map). Heavy pillars of this type, which are quite useless as building material, are not usually carried far; instances are known of szliaria being carried considerable distances to serve as headstones,? but this one serves no purpose whatsoever. We cannot assert quite positively that it has not been carried from the other road, but probability is decidedly against it.
_ The line of this road is clearly marked out by nature, and coincides in the main‘ with the old Turkish post-road from Constantimople to Angora,
1 For the section between Angora and Par- (2.G.8. Suppl. Papers, vol. iii.) p. 45 n.,
nassos, see vii. below.
24 δημοσία στράτα τοῦ βασιλικοῦ δρόμου in the Greek original (p. 363), which is published in Μνημεῖα ᾿Αγιολογικὰ, ἐκδιδόμενα ὑπὸ Θεο- φίλου ᾿Ιωάννου (BENETIA:, 1884), pp. 361-495. We refer to it as the ‘Life of St. Theodore (of Sykeon).’
3 Hogarth, Modern and Ancient Road:, de,
mentions that a stone now at Geuksun (Ko- kussos) has been conveyed fifteen miles, and ‘apparently one has been carried from the fifty- eighth station to Albistan, about twenty-five miles.’
4 The shifting of town-centres in modern times has, of course, caused some deviation from the ancient line, as will appear below.
54 J. G. C. .NDERSON.
which was one of the great trade-routes οἱ 1. “mpire until the opening of the Ismid-Angora railway, and still retains a considerable importance. Going westwards from Angora, it passes along the north side of the Engiri Su valley, over the Ayash Bel, and along a succession of valleys to the Sangarios. It is described by all the Itineraries, and their accounts may best be exhibited in a table, to which we add a list of approximate distances according to the identifications which we propose.
| APPROXIMATE | Peut. TABLE. ANTONINE ITIN. Jervus. ΤΙΝ. | Fed stg sh | | | IDENTIFICATIONS, | ον ἀνε ἜΘ τ ξες-.--- luliopoli luliopolim | civitas Iuliopolis | Iuliopolis | Valcaton XII (Balgatia} ca. IX) fines cilicie X mut. Hycronpotamum XIII | Siberis XV Lagania XXVIII | Laganeos XXIIII mansio Agannia Xl | Lagania XII | | mutatio Ipetobrogen ΥΙ | Petobriga X or XI Mizago XXXVIII | Minizo AXIII ' mans. Mnizos X | Mnizos VII GER | Manegordo XXVIII mut. Prasmon XII | Prasmon XV
v.l. XVIIL | mut. Cenaxempalidem XIII! Cenax. pal. X | ! vA | | {Ancyra] XXVIII | Ancyra XXIIII civ. Anchira Galatia. . | Angora XIV |
The discrepancies between the accounts of the three Itineraries as shown in this table (and still more in the table given under vii. § 1 below) prove how little trust can be placed in the numbers. It would indeed have been a miracle if long lists of numerals had come down to us uncorrupted, and we can never rely on them without corroborative evidence. We shall find that the Peutinger Table is the most corrupt of all.
§ 2. ManEGorpDos and CrenTIUS.—If we compare the Antonine and Jerusalem Itineraries and bear in mind the actual time-distances, we see at once that MANEGORDOS cannot be on the direct road; for wherever Mnizos may be placed, it cannot be anything like fifty-two miles from Ancyra. Manegordos therefore must lie off the road and can be looked for only in the large and fertile Murtad Ova (‘ Apostate Plain’). A precisely similar case may be found in the account given by the same Itinerary of the road Ancyra—Tavium, where Bolegasgus, a town situated in Tchibuk Ova (north-east of Ancyra), is indicated on the direct road eastwards (see below, under vi.).
1 Fractions of a Roman mile are counted asa 8 regular survey; but the calculations are for whole mile, ¢g. 134 MP. as 14. We donot all practical purposes exact enough, ¢laim to estimate distances with the accuracy of
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 56
Now the Anton. Itin. places at the same distance from Ancyra and in the same plain another town CRENTIUS ! (we may safely write KRENTIOS) on the road leading to Krateia-Flaviopolis (Gerede). Are these two, then, to be identified ? That is the view indicated in Hist. Geog. (p. 242 compared with p- 20), An examination of the district, however, disclosed two important sites, one at Karalar on the road to Krateia-Gerede and the other at Yassi- dren (‘ Flat Ruins’), over an hour to the east. We should therefore naturally wish to place Crentius at Karalar,? and Manegordos at Yassi-dren. But, unfortunately, this can hardly be admitted. The remains at the latter village are very numerous (mostly squared trachyte ? blocks) but, so far as their date can be determined, they point to a late period ; see, for example, the descrip- tion of Byzantine capitals here and at the neighbouring village Soguldjak by Mr. Crowfoot in the Annual of the British School for 1897-8. Several remains belonging to the Christian period (including a font and decorated stones) have been carried across the plain to Mekhdi (a village 1 hour 10 mins. to the east). On the other hand, the site beside Karalar is very ancient. The mosque, the ruined ¢iirbe, and the fountains of the village are built throughout of large squared trachyte (?) blocks similar to those at Yassi- dren and there are also some moulded stones. These blocks have perhaps been largely carried down from a fine old Phrygian fortress called Assar Kaya on a hill, a quarter of an hour distant, rising up from the deep ravine through which passes the road to Krateia-Flaviopolis to a height of 250 feet above the village. The place is carefully described by W. von Diest, who visited it in 1896.2 ‘ At the foot, in the bed of the stream which is generally dry at this season [21 May], rises a copious hot spring of 39°C. [102°5 Fahr.], in which was bathing a youth from Karalar, who said that the ddidja was especially good for rheumatism... Near the summit of the rock * ata height of 32 metres above the stream-bed we found a door-shaped arched entrance into the rock (7 feet high and 5 broad), whence a flight of steps leads steeply down ... into darkness... After descending fifty-three steps, I reached a beautifully-arched wide grotto about 15 feet high and 20 broad, filled to the depth of four feet with very cold, clear water; but I searched in vain for any efflux or influx or other communication with the outside. It does not contain cistern-water, there is no trace of conduit or basin. The aneroid read here 1} metres deeper than the level of the hot spring outside the rock: probably the grotto stands in some connexion with it, and the cooling of the water may be explained by the fact that the old conduit is obstructed and the water takes along time to filter through.’ This staircase reminds us of those at Yapuldak® in the Phrygian monument
1.1. Grentius; so Garus Vicus for Carus while Kiepert writes Kirindos.
Vicus, and Gratia for Cratia. In local Turkish 2 So von Diest proposes, Petermann’s Mittheil, pronunciation it is very difficult to distinguish Xrgdnzungsheft, no. 125, p. 59.
initial & and g; ancient k has become g in 3 Op. cit. pp. 58-9.
Krateia-Gerede, Kadoi (accus. Kddous)-Gediz, 4 Qn the west side.
δα. ; so Girindos (in Murtad Ova) seems to he 5 J.H.S. x. (1889), p. 181. local pronunciation, as Mordtmann has it,
56 J. G. Cc. ANDERSON.
country and at Amasia, where a flight of steps leads down to a supply of water in the heart of the limestone mountain which formed the acropolis." The staircase at Pishmish Kalé, on the other hand, leads down into the plain below and formed a secret entrance to the fortress, easily guarded against attack.”
Above the entrance on both sides there are steps leading up to the level summit and beside them stone-beds several feet wide cut in the rock, such as may be seen on the acropolis of the Midas-city or the fortress at Yapuldak. On the east side these cuttings to receive the stones are larger and more conspicuous. Fragments of pottery and tiles are strewn about; and the statement made to von Diest was repeated to us, that excavations had been made at the foot of the rock (on the east side) and inscribed and sculp- tured stones had been carried away at the instance of the Government officials to Angora.*| We picked up here a very early fragment of pottery, made of red clay and impressed on the outside with horizontal and perpen- dicular lines (see Pt. I. § 2).
Just below the village, near the road to Girindos, von Diest noted two tumuli, and a larger group on the edge of the hills to the west which he rightly regards as the necropolis of the old town.’ We found no inscriptions and von Diest saw only a small altar inscribed Avi . . . (followed by an illegible attribute). Surely this is the site of MANEGORDOS, which bears a name compounded of two of the very oldest names in Phrygian history. Probably this older city was destroyed, like Gordion, by the Gauls and dwindled to a mere village, while KRENTIOS, the more important site in later times, lay a short distance off the direct line of the road® at Yassi-dren. The distance of both sites from Angora xxiv M.P. corresponds with the actual facts.’ It would seem that the modern village Girindos or Kirindos (see note above), retains the old name Krentios, as Prof. Ramsay has suggested (Hist. Geog. p. 20); and the fact that it lies eight or nine miles to the south-west of Karalar might be thought an objection to our identifications. But similar cases may be found, the explanation doubtless being that the village which retains the ancient name is the oldest, or one of the oldest, in the neighbour- hood. Girindos is not itself an old site. The long fragmentary inscription of the year 145 A.D. copied here by Mordtmann (C./.Z. iii. 282) was unfor- tunately destroyed in recent years when the new mosque was being built.
1 Cf. Hamilton i. p. 368-9; Perrot, Explora- tion, p. 373.
2 Perrot, Histoire de V Art, ν. p. 162.
3 Von Diest wrongly takes them for steps, 6-8 Fuss breite Treppenstufen, kc.
* There are certainly traces of excavation, and the present Vali Pasha is greatly interested in antiquities.
5 Cf., ¢.g., the necropolis of Gordion beside Pebi (Korte, Ath. Mitth. 1897, p. 22).
* It is not necessary to quote examples of
this well-known fact (see J.H.S. 1898, p. 104 and n. 2): we shall come across instances in the sequel.
7. Karalar is, according to von Diest, 374 km. or 23 Eng. miles from Angora, and Yassi-éren is the same. We have to remember that the Itineraries reckon the distances from city to city ; and the sum of these separate distances is therefore often greater than the whole length of the road as reckoned on the 2ilestones,
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 57
The following inscriptions are all that we found in this plain :—
1. In the village of Shimshit (‘ Box-tree’); imperfectly copied by von Diest, p. 60. The inscription is repeated on the opposite side of the stone (with oceasional ligatures). (A.)
PATIQNDA &MHTPO Φωτίων Pr. « Mytpo-
DANOYCTIPAPMA φάνους πραγμα-
ΤΕΥΤΗΓΝΕΙΙΚΚΗΓῪ τευτὴς Νεέκῃ γυ-
ΝΑΙΚΙΙΔΙΑΑΓΑΘΩ ναικὲ ἐδίᾳ ἀγαθω-
ΤτΑΤΗΚΟΡΗΜΝΗΜῈ τάτῃ κόρῃ μνήμης XAPIN χάριν.
Photion is a slave and actor (πραγματευτὴς, see Pliny Fpist. iii. 19) on the estate of [7 2] Flavius Metrophanes, who belonged to Ancyra. II. Ady. Σεμπρώνιος Μητροφάνης mentioned in an inser. of Ancyra as having attained senatorial rank (συνκλητικός) towards 200 A.D. is perhaps son or grandson of the latter (Perrot, no. 131).
2. Ibid (brought from Emir Ghazi): large altar-shaped stone. (A.)
Bre B Κ(ύρι)ε, β(οήθει) τῷ σ(ῷ) δ(ούχῳ)...
(name In monogram),
3. Emir Ghazi; upside down, in the mosque: the lettering is small and good, but very faint. (A. and C.)
| TTET POE SZ, P EAA ////////,E MAS TEP] PAIOZOMYGOE MAIN NMS i) NE ΤΈΛΟΣ EY TY RIMS
[IRI NOY EN AAEM ONTAASVATALEKAATY EN IAB POZENHAIZTAIZ XEPZINAOHNAIOA , MZMANE TO. WYEO NI OZOKAITAMBPAIAL ATEXNAZ NIMEGNY TIE PNEIONHY 2,02 REIPAMENOE MINNOME NOY TNE MSS ( ΜΑΣ AETTIZAMATITOIAE HMMA Pd ON TTINVEGYA AVON EXEM(iox tot “τη TOX AEP EGIMM/MUATI AT PIS PALATOIZAE LINDY ᾿ς ΚΑΙΓΕΝΟΣ ἀμ: 1; YARMETON AFTOE TA COND Ml “EP NAAE: “////77 γ277.77 7777 SIMD NITAU TOR (AA
EI LN NS Se
58 J. 6. C. ANDERSON. δέ μας πέρι βαιὸς ὁ μῦθος
γα hohe ἃ . ἐ]ῆς τέλος εὐτυχίας. τὴν Διφίλου συλλέ[κτρ]ον [ἐϊχαφρὰ γαῖ᾽ ἐκάλυψεν ἀνδρὸς ἐν ἡδίσταις χερσὶν ᾿Αθηναίδα. Elo[re]ve τῶ[ν Ν]εόνικος ὁ καὶ γαμβρῶι διὰ τέχνας ἴσον ὑπὲρ νειῶν κῦ[ δ]ος ἀειράμενος" ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν .. [δέμας δ᾽ ἐπὶ σάματι τῶιδε Ἰωραων πινυ[τ]οῦ [δ]ῶ[ρ]ον ἔχει [π͵]όσιος.
πατρὶς μία τοῖσδε Σινώπη.
. [α]αστὸν ἀπὸ σταγόνων
(A.)
᾿Αναγινώσκοντες εὔξασθε ὑπὲρ
καὶ γένος
4, Serai keui, by the mosque.
ΑΝ γί GOCKONTEC
MO ZANMZO MAXHON YhI< ἥν
The formula is common: ef. AH. Afitth. xix. p. 33 πο. 14, with Rainsay’s note in Jahreshefte εἰ. dsterr. Inst., Betblatt, 1898, p. 95; J.H.S. 1898, p. 322 (no. 37), p. 325 (no. 44), ete.
δ΄ 3. CeNnaxis pALUS.—The direct road from Angora to Iuliopolis passes westwards along the undulating north side of the Enguri Su valley into the Murtad plain. The first station on the route is CENAXIS PALUS. It is to be identified with a small site immediately north of the little lake (dry in summer) called Kebir Gidl (Kebtr, ‘large’ an Arabic word often used in Turkish local names) lying about a mile north-west of Emir Yaman, which is reckoned four hours from Angora.1. The distance, which is missing in the Jerusalem Itinerary, may be restored as XIV MP. The ancient road, like the modern chaussée, passed between the lake and the site, which is now quite denuded, though we were told that a ‘written marble’ had lately been dug up and
distance by road is greater, as a rule, than the same distance measured on the map, especially
1 Cf. aiso Ainsworth, Travels, p. 136. It is necessary to point out that the distances as
shown on the maps are here too great, though it is beyond our power to correct them. Thus the distance between Angora and Ayash is, according to all accounts (including Sir C. Wilson’s accurate reports), nine hours, which certainly cannot represent more than twenty- eight miles. Everybody knows that the actual
when a mountain like Ayash Bel has to be crossed ; yet on the map we measure in a straight line thirty-four miles (55 kilometres) ! Von Diest (or Dr. Hassenstein) seems to have been aware of this, for he says of the distance between Ayash and Miilk (in Murtad Ova) Entfernung wahrscheinlich zu gross.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 59
carried away. At Emir Yaman we copied the following milestone of Hadrian, which has already been referred to.
x4
5. Ona heavy pillar, lying beside the mosque. (A.)
IMPCAESARIDI Imp. Caesari di- VITRAIANIPARFICI vi Traiani Parthici FILDIVINERVAENPO fil(io), divi Nervae nepo- TITRAIANOHADRINO ti Traiano Hadri(a)no (sic) ANE PO ti]: MA TRPOT Aug., po[nt.] m[ax.], tr. poft. VI COSt PER ALARCI VI, cos. LI, per A, Larei- VM MAC DONE MLEG AVG um Mae(e)donem leg. Ang. (sic) PR PR oe Μη Mi(lia] .. . LM
A. Larcius Macedo, legate during 122-3 a.p. of the province Galatia [including at this time Galatia, Pisidia (with a small corner of Phrygia), Lycaonia and Paphlagonia, Hist. Geog. p. 253-4], is already known from CID. iii. 310, 313 (Galatian milestones); vi. 404 (Rome), which may however refer to his father. Liebenam points out that he was perhaps the son of the Largius Macedo mentioned by Pliny, Hp. 111. 14, as having been killed by his slaves (Die Legaten in d. Rom. provinzen, p. 126). Other milliarta erected by him are given below (nos. 73. 88).
To Cenaxis palus probably belongs an inscription now at Tchakirlar.
6. Altar-shaped stone. (A.)
Γάϊ])ος Κλ(αύδιος)
CABEINOCCABE LaBeivos Σαβε- (iv@) Aovxi- ov πατρὶ ὌΝ / κὲ ἑαυτῷ δὰ K-TOIC EIA i. κὲ τοῖς εἰδί- ἈΝ i! oles τέκνοις μνή- μης χά- ριν.
OM Ll
ι
: L. 8. Perhaps the stone-cutter engraved ONI for INQ. There seemed to be no breaks,
60 J. G C. ANDERSON.
§ 4. Prasmon. Yenaxis palus the road runs over the lower end
of Murtad Ova, keeping to the north of Istanos (ie. εἰς orévos,! ‘im the narrows’) which lies in a gorge, on the sides of which are some rock-cut chambers and above them the ruins of what was probably a φρούριον (castellum) of the Gauls, and reaches the foot of the high ridge Ayash Bel beside Irkek-su tchiftlik, where there is another site with a seit ancient cemetery, the gravestones of which are mostly ordinary stones laid flat into
the ground and inscribed with crosses or quaint devices like these,
The only inscription to be seen is the following fragment engraved on a stele of rough stone; the centre of the field is occupied by a cross of the same size as the slab, while the letters are disposed on either side of the upper limb,
n(n AHTY¥ OY LLL AM1I////K NA////f/////1 Ho//////// THAT
But on the lower slope of the hillock, on which this cemetery hes, we found the following milestone, which is actually in or quite near its original position. Unfortunately the number is again indecipherable (or possibly it was cut on the lower part of the pillar, which is broken away).
8. (A)
Bo Fo? L(onae) F(urtunae). ΓΜ CALS. <Jinp. Caes(ar) Lit YUMMY J». tea SS
| MP- CA ES Imp. Caes(ari) C.
VAL: DIOCL ETIA No Val(erio) Diocletiano
INV-AVG- ETIMP.: CA ες inv(icto) Aug(usto) et Imp. Caes(art) M AYR VAL MAXI MIANO M Aur(elio) Val(erio) Maximiano
P-F-INV- AVG: ET plio) f(elict) inv(icto) Aug(usto) et FLA- VAL CONSTANT UMM Fla(vio) Val(erio) Constanti[o ET G-VAL- MAXI MIANO et G(alerio) Val(erio) Maximiano NOBILLISSIMIS nobil <l>issimts CAESARIBVS Caesaribus ΥΩ 1 Istanos is likewise the modern name of 155), which does not account for the last syllable. Isinda. The natives distinctly pronounced it 2 Ainsworth, Travels and Researches, p. 138 ;
Istanos, not Istanés. Ramsay gives the de- Wilson, Handbook of As, Min, p. 5. We did rivation eis τὰ στένη (Amer. Jour. Arch. 1888, |). sot see it. ί {
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 61
This is doubtless the site of the mutatio PRASMON, in which case the xili M.P. of the Jerusalem Itinerary must be corrected to x. The ancient road, therefore, crossed the Ayash-Bel to the south of the modern road, which ascends by way of the village Kaye keui and winds down the other side in a most extraordinary fashion. The line of the old road is quite as easy as the other and the altitude reached is about the same in both cases (1160 feet above the ¢tchiftli).! Before reaching the summit I saw what looked very like traces of cutting and levelling. The road rejoins the chaussée before reaching the village Bash Ayash and runs over a long narrow valley, watered by the Ayash stream and the Il-khan? tchai, but nevertheless barren and treeless, except in the immediate vicinity of Ayash, which lies down in a ravine.
§ 5. Mnizos.—Ayaslit is at the present day the governmental centre of this district (a katmmakamlik) and Kiepert many years ago proposed to make it the actual site of MNIZOs, a bishopric by 451 A.p.* Perrot agrees, remarking that though no inscriptions have as yet been found there and though the cemeteries do not contain even wne seule stéle qui ait jamats dit en porter, yet one may see scattered in the walls of the houses a sufficiently large number of blocks which should be ancient, and, according to Tournefort, old marbles were to be seen there in his time. The actual site, he thinks, was in the quarter called Kara-kaya, where there are hot springs surrounded by a building which probably goes back to the early sultans.t ‘ Hnjin cette gorge, le seul endrowt.. par οἷν puisse passer la route @Ancyre, avait di de bonne hewre étre occupée et défendue. Dons tout ce pays, dailleurs, Veaw est si rare, il y a st pew dendrotts οἷν Vhomme puisse se ménager wn séjour supportable, que les villes depuis bien des siécles n'ont guéere di se déplacer.® He does not attempt, however, to show how this situation harmonises with the Itineraries,® and his other arguments do not carry conviction with them. Ayash of course co7'res- ponds to Mnizos, but (though we should gladly have had it otherwise and been saved the toil and worry of a search up and down these hill-sides) we could not find sufficient evidence of an old settlement here. Of all the numerous squared blocks in the houses very few, as it seems to us, are ancient stones ;
11,575 ft. above Ayash according to my reading ; while the chaussée rises to 1,500 ft. according to Sir C. Wilson (op. cit. p. 15). I travelled by the line of the old road, while Mr. C. followed the modern.
* Il-khan = ‘ Tribe-chief.’ M. Perrot says that the plain πα d'eau que pendant Vhiver. This can hardly be so; we were not actually down in the valley drained by the Ilkhan tchai, but below the village of Ilkhan there was a good flow of water on July 7th.
3 The true form may be Μνεῖζος, which would perhaps best explain the variants Μνῆζος, Mvi¢os, Met(os, Μίζος, Χο. Cf. Meipos (J.11.S. 1897, p. 423), where the lists have Mipos,
Mipos, &c.
* There is another hot spring in Ayash itself, which is said to be better than that at Kara- Kaya.
° Exploration de la Galatie, p. 222.
® A record of our time-distances (three miles ora little more, as a rule, to be reckoned to the hour) is given in the preliminary account in the Annual of the British School (1898). The following may be useful to the reader (cf. Sir C. Wilson’s Handbook, Route 7) :—From Angora to Istanos six hours, thence to Ayash three [two from the foot of Ayash Bel, on east], thence to Bey-Bazar seven, to Tchair-khan six, to Nalli-khan five.
62 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
and the few that are ancient have probably been carried. The existence of the hot springs is no argument ; for in any case they were in the territory of Mnizos, and the analogy of the hot springs near Hieropolis in the Phrygian Pentapolis and near Myrika (see below) in the Haimane would rather make it probable that they were not actually within the city, but at some distance trom it. Lastly, it is not the case that this is the only spot in the neighbour- hood where life could be tolerable; and it is comparatively rare that modern towns are exactly on the ancient sites.
The only inscription we could find here is the following fragment built into a fountain.
Stay. es [ὁ δεῖνα . . τ] HEAYT ἢ ἑαυτ- ΟΥ̓ΓῪΝ ou γυν- HKIECT nKi ἔστ- HCEN ἡσεν ..
Mnizos is probably to be placed at Tchagha or Tchai keui,! a village about three hours north-west of Ayash, where there is a large ruined site extending for over a mile down from the village towards the south and covered with numerous trachyte (?) and other rough blocks. In the midst of the ruins stands the Tekke (‘Oren tekke, as it is called) of a Dede Sheikh Uriitch Baba, the ‘ Fasting Father,’ —an old religious fact clothed in a new form,— and beside it there is a fountain with old stones (including a ‘ door- stone’ and an ornamental slab). In the village itself there are good squared marble and other blocks in the tcheshme, and several ‘ door-stones’ beside another fountain, in the Mesdjid (small mosque), and in the mosque, as well as two late capitals and several other blocks. The highest part of the village runs up a low tepe, called Assar [Fort or Castle], where the remains of walls may still be seen. Inscriptions are sadly to seek : the only one we saw, engraved round a cross, was illegible, or at least could not be read in its dark position. Indeed, in all this neighbourhood marbles are so scarce that at one village we were actually asked, ‘ But what is marble like?’ Our identifica- tion places the town about an hour and a half off the direct road—which is no argument against it (cf. n. on Crentius above)—and necessitates an altera- tion of the xu MP of the Jerus. Itin. to something like xv.
At Bairam keui, about an hour and a half north-west of Ayash, there are a few old stones (mostly large rough blocks) and a milestone of Diocle- tian and Maximian engraved on a very massive pillar (broken at the foot),
* The name sounded like Tchai or Tchal ; but when we asked the villagers to pronoun 5 slowly, it seemed to be Tchagha.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 63
but so placed that only a small part of it can be seen (without having it turned). It may be easily restored from No. 8.
10. (A.). INV MAX//// INVAVGETFL CONSTANTIO GALVAL
MAXIMIAN gst
About a mile higher up the hill-side (on the north-north-west), beside Tizke keui, there are the ruins of a small fort, with a few courses of the wall and a semicircular bastion still standing. It is doubtless another castellum of the Gauls. The villagers have dug up here a very capacious late Roman jar; and we copied two late Christian inscriptions cut on rough blocks.
11. Cross in relief above. (A.).
MITHMH Μνήμη YETENIAC (Ev)yevias.
12. Stone with pointed pediment: in the centre a cross in relief. (A.).
MMI//// MIKI MA oo Μν[]μα Νικιφόρου. ΡΥ
§ 6. Prroprica.—The next place to be fixed is ΡΕΤΌΒΗΙΟΔ, the Jpeto- broge of the Jerus. Itinerary. We may feel perfect confidence in identifying it with a ruined fortress (Kalé or Assav) occupying a fine position on the left bank of the Kirmir Tchai, about a mile and a half from the point where it is joined by the Ilkhan stream. From the foot of the cafion, in which the river flows, there rises a conical hill joined only by a low saddle to the high left bank ; round this hill the river makes a bend exactly in the shape of an Q and its summit is crowned by a castle, which commands a fine view of the valley below. The fortifications were naturally strongest on the side away from the river, where the towers guarding the entrance still stand as they were re-built in late Roman times. The southern one is shaped like an open hexagon, faced on the outer side with old stones,—marbles, door-stones, and other rectangular blocks—and backed by opus incertum (small stones laid in beds of mortar). The other is of triangular shape and in its higher courses contains numerous old blocks; but the lower half of one face is of beautiful Greek work, built of rectangular blocks, squared along the edges and left ‘free’ in the middle, and laid in regular courses without cement (the three or
64 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
four lowest courses projecting slightly in step-fashion and being admirably titted into the rock). On the sides overhanging the river the remains are purely Byzantine. It was disappointing to find no inscription exposed to view.
The character of the site accords excellently with the name. Brigu is a common element in Celtic place-names, denoting ‘ hill’ or ‘fortress’ (sce the numerous examples in Holder, Altcelt. Nprachschatz, s.v.). It belongs to a widely extended group of words, occurring as Bria or Berga (in Thrace, Phrygia, Lydia, ete.),' πύργος, burg, burgh, and so forth. In Galatia we find it again in Eccobriga (infra). It is probable that Peton in the Latin trans- lation of the Life of S. Theodore (AA. SS. April 22, p. 55) is a short form of Petobriga.?
Petobriga, like Mnizos, lies some distance off the road. The Jerus. Itinerary, reckoning from city to city, gives the distance asx MP. The Kale, however, is only a little over two hours from Mnizos (Tchagha or Tchai keui), which would give about vii MP. On the other hand, Lagania is vi. from Petobriga while our identification would make it x. It is probable therefore that the two numbers have been interchanged in the Itinerary.
§ 7. A GAULISH castellum (Dikmen Kalé).—On the top of the ridge of Oim-agatch Dagh, opposite Petobriga, at an altitude of 1700 ft. above the channel of the Kirmir Tchai, stands one of the best preserved castella which we saw in Galatia. It is triangular in plan, the entrance (4 or 5 ft. wide) being at the southern apex of the triangle: on the western wall are three semicircular bastions, one in the middle, one guarding the gateway (which is further protected by a short return in both side walls), and the other at the north-west end. The walls still stand to a height of more than 8 feet all round ; they are about 7 feet thick and are built of uncut stones carefully laid, the core being more roughly filled in. The fort is quite small, perhaps 30 yards across. There is no pottery whatever to be seen.
δ 8. LAGANIA-ANASTASIOPOLIS.—The modern road crosses the Kirmir Tchai by a long wooden bridge beside a Devrent (guard-house) and makes a détour north-westwards by Bey-bazir. Did the ancient road do likewise ? The answer depends on the identification of LAGANIA-ANASTASIOPOLIS (/ist. (reog. 244, 242). Bey-bazar, prettily situated on three hills at the mouth of a ravine filled with gardens and vineyards and famous for its fruit, is the modern centre of government (a kaimmakamlik) and certainly corresponds to
Lagania. But is it the actual site? That is the general view;* but the
1 Bola yap τὴν πόλιν φασὶ Θρᾷκες Steph. Byz. 5.0. Μεσημβρία. See CB. ii. pp. 382, 577. Bria in Phrygia (CB. 1.6., J.H.S. 1897, p. 415) "ον" Burgas, Brea (i.e. Breia) C.7.A. i. 31, Brioula in Lydia, Bergoula (now Burgas), Mesembria, and several others in Thrace, Πέργαμος, &c.
3 Πεῶν in the Greek text (Μνημ. ᾿Αγιολ. p. 468), while the index gives Πεσῶν and places it
after Πέτρος ; we prefer therefore to aceept the Latin text here. So Ramsay in B.C.H. 1898 p- 233.
3 In Hist. Geog. p. 242, the opinion is ex- pressed that the site should be sought half-way between the river Siberis and Bey-Bazar, 4]- though better maps may prove Lagania to be at the latter place. The maps have greatly im- proved since the Hist. Geog. was written,
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 65
only remains to be seen here are the rock-hewn chambers (Troglodyte dwellings, as M. Perrot thinks) which line both banks of the gorge behind the town, the ensemble being called Hissar (Castle) by the natives. In the town itself there is an old khan; but we could hardly find an ancient stone in the whole place. It seems probable that the Pilgrims’ Route did not turn up to Bey-bazir at all, but kept to the natural line along the valley of the Kirmir Tchai, which here is level and fertile; and we would propose to place Lagania at Mal Tepe (‘Treasure-hillock’), on the banks of the Bey-bazir stream a few minutes above its junction with the Kirmir [chai (ten minutes south-south-east of Fazil tchiftlik), beside a ruined village which was formerly the summer residence (yat/a) of the Bey-bazir people. This would give a distance of X or XI MP. from Petobriga,! The name of the mound and the tradition of the natives show that there was an ancient site here; and there are numerous fragments of pottery scattered about on the surface, from amongst which we picked up a large piece of Samian ware (fe77a sigillata). Here again there are numerous chambers cut in the rocks which form the left bank of the stream; but there is nothing else to be seen now. Doubtless Lagania was never rich in inscribed or sculptured stones, and a town like Bey-bazair would soon use up all the surface remains. It is the great sorrow of the archaeologist that ancient towns do thus disappear from sight; unfortunately, this is no isolated case, and each year that passes sees the work of obliteration carried further and further.
§ 9. SyYKEON AND JUSTINIAN’S BRIDGE.—The road now strikes north- west, follows the line of the modern chaussée for some distance, and then turns southwards to the river Siberis (Ala Dagh Su).? At the crossing of the river, as we know from Prokopios, was situated the village SYKEON, famous as the birthplace of St. Theodore, bishop of Anastasiopolis, to whose ‘ Life’ we have frequently referred ; and beside it Justinian built a massive bridge (de Acd//.
v. 4). We were fortunate enough to discover both the village and the bridge. The site of Sykeon, now called Hski Sheher (‘old town’), lies close
to the river on the east side, less than half an hour north of its junction with the Sangarios and ten minutes north of Yardibi tchiftlik. The surface remains have been mostly carried to Sarilar, a village about twenty minutes to the south, and there is not much to be seen on the site except the foundations of a large rectangular building with an entrance opposite the bridge. This may have been a caravanserai or khan, perhaps the very inn (πανδοχεῖον) where Maria, the mother of St. Theodore, lived and pursued her calling in the time of Justinian of pious memory.* On the other side
1 Tt is 2 hours 50 min. from the Devrent (the path, however, makes circuits to avoid passing through fields): but we did not traverse the road between the Devrent and the Kalé, and I cannot be quite certain as to the exact distance.
2 The hills between Fazil tchiftlik and the
H.S,— VOL. XIX,
Sangarios prevent a direct line being taken : after joining the chaussée the ancient road fol- lowed the modern route from Yardibi tchiftlik (besides the junction of the Siberis with the Sangarios) to Dey-bazar (five hours).
3 Mynueia‘Ayioa. 0. 111. : αὗται οὖν αἱ γυναῖκες κατοικοῦσαι ἐν αὐτῷ (Sc. τῷ πανδοχείῳ) ἐξετέλουν
Ε
66 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
of the river, close to the cemetery of Sarilar, there is a low mound concealing the ruins of a primitive site whence a peasant recently dug up an idol of the so-called ‘Island Class’ and a very early red-clay pot with beaked spout (together with a green macehead, and a piece of copper), which are discussed in Part I.§ 1. It is probable that this site continued to be inhabited (as part of Sykeon) in later times.
According to this identification the distance of Sykeon from Mal Tepe (Lagania) is under four hours or about xii MP., which is the distance given in the Life of S. Theodore (ἀφέστηκε ἀπὸ σημείων δώδεκα τῆς ᾿Αναστασιου- πόλεως, ch. iii. p. 303). The Jerus. Itinerary must be corrected accordingly for (as Prof. Ramsay has observed) the former is most trustworthy in all that concerns the neighbourhood of Sykeon; and it is well worthy of perusal both for its wealth of geographical information and for the picture—not a bright one !—which it gives of social life in Galatia in the sixth century of our era.
The sites of Sykeon and Justinian’s bridge have generally been sought further up the Siberis at Tchair-khan,! where the modern chaussée crosses the river by a wooden bridge carried on piers of old masonry. A description of the bridge beside Hski Sheher will dispel all doubt about the correctness of our identification. Prokopios’ account is as follows: ἔστι δὲ ποταμὸς ἐν Γαλάταις, ὅνπερ καλοῦσιν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι Σίβεριν, τῶν μὲν καλουμένων Συκέων ἄγχιστα, πόλεως δὲ ᾿Ιουλιοπόλεως ἀπὸ σημείων μάλιστα δέκα, ἐς τὰ πρὸς ἀνίσχοντα ἥλιον. ὃς δὴ πολλάκις ἐξαπιναίως ἀρθεὶς ἐπὶ μέγα τῶν ἐκείνῃ ὁδῷ ἰόντων πολλοὺς ἔφθειρεν. οἷσπερ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀπαγγελλομένοις συνταραχθεὶς διακωλυτὴς τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ λοιπὸν γέγονε, τὸν μὲν ποταμὸν γεφυ- ρώσας ἔργῳ ἰσχυρῷ καὶ οἵῳ πλημμύροντι ποταμῷ μάχεσθαι: ἕτερον δὲ τοῖχον ἐν προβόλου σχήματι τῆς γεφύρας ἐς τὰ πρὸς ἕω πεποιημένος, ὃν δὴ πρόμαχον καλοῦσιν οἱ ταῦτα σοφοί. καὶ νεὼν δὲ αὐτοῖς ὠκοδομήσατο ἐς τὰ πρὸς δύοντα ἥλιον τοῖς παριοῦσι σωτήριον χειμῶνος ὥρᾳ ἐσόμενον (de Aedif. ν. 4).
Prokopios writes like one who, if he had not actually seen the place, had yet received the fullest official information about it; but he makes a mistake in saying that Sykeon is 10 miles away from Tuhopolis: our own estimate agrees with the Life of S. Theodove in making the distance xv MP. (see infra).
Any one who stands on the bridge can see that the river, though easily fordable in summer, comes down with great floods in the winter, as Prokopios says. ‘To meet these swollen torrents a forewall was built as a break water,— a device which the description implies to have been not uncommon among the engineers of the day. The precise mode in which it was carried out, is made clear by the structures still remaining.
To span a broad shallow bed with a bridge capable of resisting sudden floods is not a difficult engineering task, and it was quite adequately solved
καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν τῶν ἑταιρίδων. “Ev δὲ τοῖς καιροῖς repeated in Sir C. Wilson’s Handbook, p. 14.
ἐκείνοις βασιλεύοντος Tod τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης The author, however, had not explored the
᾿Ιουστινιανοῦ, καὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν διαταγμάτων country we are discussing.
κατερχομένων, ἔτυχεν K.T.A. 2 The description and the plan have been ' This is the view taken in J/ist. Geog. and worked out by Mr. Crowfoot.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 67
by the simple expedients adopted by Justinian’s builders. In the bed of the river are seven great stone piers, varying slightly in size and in distance from one another ; on these a level wooden bridge was laid, similar to that which is used at the present day. At both ends special precautions were taken: at the west end a short forewall can be traced (see the ground-plan) and the bank constructions are skewed round at different angles to offer still more resistance. But the greatest pressure was, as Prokopios says, upon the east end, owing to a bend in the river just above this point. Here a much more extensive breakwater can be followed. The villagers showed us a line which had existed until lately; both ends of it were still plain: the stones here, they said, were fastened together with iron—the reason no doubt for their removal—and we could see the dowel holes in the few still left. The wall ends in a mass of cement about 30 metres from the bank, and answers admirably the purpose of a πρόμαχος.
\ SECTION ELEVATION GROUND PLAN
a oo
ΓΞ MCC 40) αὐτο. (aie
| o 7 Ὁ 20 METRE”
.».»-'
JUSTINIAN’B BRIDGE AT SYKEON,
The masonry of the piers is simple: there are two rough courses of foundation 1:20 m. in height; above this rise four courses 2°50 τὴ. high, and the whole is crowned by a heavy moulding 0°25 m. The core of the piers is made of blockage (blocage), tiles, rubble, stones of all shapes and kinds being cemented together. We could see no trace of the use of iron except in the breakwater. One or two inscriptions stolen from a cemetery are built into the work. This was characteristic of the age of Justinian, and indeed of most others: we may compare the aqueduct at Ephesus which has been assigned, perhaps wrongly in view of the silence of Prokopios, to the same Emperor. This bridge was built before that on the Sangarios, which was incomplete when Prokopios wrote.
The following inscriptions belong to Sykeon.
13. Built into the bridge. (A,).
AOMNAAEY Δόμνα Aev- KICGANAPI κέῳ ἀνδρὶ FAY KY TATW γλυκυτάτῳ ΜΝ -Ἰ ΛΕΙΓΧΆΡΙΝ μνήμης χάριν Ζιιε ΠΑΝ ΤΊΙΕΤΗ ζήσαντι ἔτη TPIAKONTA τριάκοντα.
F 2
68 J. 6. C. ANDERSON.
The spelling Λεύκεος generally indicates a date prior to the middle of the first century after Christ (except in Athens) ;! it occurs, however, sporadi- cally in quite late times, and in an inscription of this kind little importance can be attached to the spelling.
14, Ibid. Fragment of moulded stone: very large, well-formed letters.
(A.). ΔΡΩΜΝημὴης Ὸ ΧΑ & pu 15. Ibid. (A).
MOYPOCEYA ΔΙ “Ῥ]οῦφος Εὐδαι- MOCYNHCYBI/ μοσύνη συβί[ῳ CAYKYTATH γλυκυτάτῃ MNHMHCXKA μνήμης χά- PIN Και δυώπ ριν καὶ δυσὶ τ- μων Α éxmoeg τ:
ἡ ΜΑΙΑΥΤΟ ζςο ἃ ΔΕ CAA W
ΝΕ
16. Sarilar, beside the cemetery; on a split column, with slight lines for the guidance of the stone-cutter. (A.).
MATHAL/// κυμ]ητήϊριον ////ADEPON//// δι]αφέρον AEONTIOY ALS //// Λεοντίου δια[ Ko- NOYKAITHCC //// νου Kal τῆς σ[υν- BIOYAYTO//// βίου αὐτο[ῦ AC <AHTIIOAOT,//// ᾿Ασκληπιοδότ[ης.
17. Ibid., in the village. (A.).
᾿Ινθάδε Ka-
/ / τάκιτε Θεο- δωρος ὁ μα- καριώτ(ατος) ὁ ὑ- wos ᾿Ανασ[τ- ασίου κόμητος.
' Dittenherger, Hermes vi. 310: Reinach, Traité d’Epigr. p. 520 (οἵ, Annual of British School, 1896 f(r γ. 108).
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 69
We would fain have seen in this legend the epitaph of St. Theodore, for μακαριώτατος OY μακαριότης is a bishop's title (cf. Steph. Zhesaurus s.v.) ; but, unfortunately, his tather was named Kosmas (ἐπίσημον ἄνδρα, tov ἐν ἱπποδρομίοις εὐδοκιμήσαντα ἐν τῇ τῶν καμηλοπηδῶν τάξει p. 364).
18, 7 ]ά., on a thin ornamented column, (Δ... Kis Θε[ὸς OBOHEWIN ὁ βοηθῶν
Θδοδεραν Θεοδότῳ TWETTIC KC} τῷ ἐπισκόΪπῳ.
[By a mistake, the letters of 1. 4 have been spaced out too much.]
19, 701]. In the fireplace of an Ομ. The blank spaces were never smoothed nor engraved. (C, and A.).
PIEBC HOITWKY Κύ]ριε, βοήθι τῷ KY WEAECI WKETW (ὦ ᾿Εδεσίῳ κὲ τῷ
| ANE Sa i) tA Yano Y ἀνεψιῷ αὐτοῦ
ΘΕΟΤΕ ΚΝΟΥ Θεοτέκνου
KEMANTOC ΤΟΥΟΙΚΟΥ κὲ παντὸς τοῦ οἴκου
AY TOY αὐτοῦ.
KYPIEBO ΗΘΙ ee πε rac us τῷ Kpyodio τῷ (2) ᾿Ιωάννου. TWEPFOAIWTWIWANNOY
20. Ibid., in the village. (A.).
ΕΥΦΡ, ////ICKAI Εὐφρά[σΊις καὶ PA‘BY////ATIA Βαβύ[λ]α 1 Πά- ΤΡΟΝ ////\AE τρ(ωγυ[ι 1 (or Πατρόκλῳ ?) ἀ]δε[λ- DWAR ////1'H//// φῴῷ μ[νήμ]ης ΧΑΡΙ χάριν.
§ 10. IvttopoLis.—The determination of the last section of this road depends on the situation of ruLIo0POLIS (called ᾿ΗἩλιούπολες in some of the episcopal lists), which took the place of the older Γορδίου Κώμη (Strabo p. 574). The site of the city was rightly identified in 1865 by a French traveller Lejean with the ruins half an hour north of Emrem Sultan (Yiniis), a village about eight miles south of Nalli khan and half a mile
1 Also in the Life of S. Theodore. On Ju- identification being unknown to. the author at " liopolis, Hist. Geog. pp. 241, 244, whereitis the time. I am indebted to Prof. Ramsay for placed a little west of Nalli khan, Lejean’s {ΠΗ reference to the Bull. de la Soc. de Géogr.
70 J. G. GC. ANDERSON.
(1 km.) north of the Sangarios. The city lay on the lower slopes of the hills which undulate down to a tributary of the Sangarios, in ancient times called the skopas. Lejean says of 10:1 ‘c’était une ville grecque dont une partie de l’enceinte était encore visible, grace aux mouvements du terrain. A lintérieur quelques substructions informes, un rectangle (peut-étre un temple) de 25 pas de long. Une colonne qu’a mise au jour une fouille faite récemment par je ne sais quel fonctionnaire ture, et ob je pus lire
ONEIC
TIOAYAMN
MNHMH
XAPIN.
Only a few traces of the temple, which lies 75 feet above the river, now remain (including some huge moulded blocks, square in section); beyond them there is an old Turkish cemetery with a few stones, but little else is now visible : so completely, indeed, has the ancient city disappeared that we had difficulty in finding a villager who knew the site. The Skopas still liable, like the Siberis, to sudden floods has washed away all traces of the embankment which Justinian built to protect the walls of the city (Prokopios, de Aeditf. v. 4).
The most interesting fact about the village Emrem Sultan? is the holy tekke (or tiirbe) of Emrem (?Emir) Yinis, wn sultan koniarite qui y a été ensevelt avec sa fille et ses dewa fils (Lejean, p. 63). Such is the sanctity of the place that our zaptich felt constrained to offer up his devotions at the tomb. An old religious fact, as Prof. Ramsay has pointed out, rarely dies in Asia Minor. 3
Beside the tekke is an altar-shaped stone with the following inscription, already copied imperfectly by Lejean.
5. GN), KEIQNTICOCAEKAT OANONTIAAINOC TYMBOQTIAPECTHNTON TEONHKOTENNETIQ
5 ΟΠΟΜΜΠ ΔΙ φΦιλμ
MONOCTIATPOC//////// ETANAETPE////////OC// ErAEITEIBION//////// THCMHTPOCAYTOYO//
10 MACHM/ //MQTIAAIN vae. APICTONEIKHHTICQAEK// NENMATHN
? Bull. dela Soc. de Géogr. de Paris, Series V. 5. Cf. i. § 5 (above); also J. H.S. 1897, p. 400
T. xvii. (1869), p. 62. 1898, p. 109, &c. ? This is the ordinary name.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 71
Κειων tis ὅς(τ)ε κατΙθανόντι Adivos τύμβῳ παρέστην τὸν] τεθνηκότ᾽ ἐννέπω" ὄϊν)ομ[α....... ἐκ] Φιλ[ἡ]μονος πατρός"
ἐτῶν δὲ τρε[ιῶν awplos| ἐγλείπει βίον.
τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ὀΐνο]μα σημ[αί)νω πάλιν ᾿Αριστονείκη(ν) ἥ τις ὦδειϊνεν μάτην.
Lejean’s readings :—l. 2. Δ. ΝΟΟ; ]. 8. KAIECTHN; 1. 4 O€O.. ΕΠΟ; 1. 5. ONOMA; |. 7. EIPE; 1. 8. TEIKAIO; 1.10. HM... YQ.
Most of the remains have been carried to Nalli khan, which is now the chief town in the district.
We were told of a castle near the village on the south, but did not examine it. Lejean, however, visited it. ‘Le ruisseau,’ he says, ‘débouche par un étroit boghaz dans le Sangarius, qui coulait alors (Nov.) ἃ pleins bords. Au confluent, je reconnus, sur la chaine aigué de rochers qui vient toucher la rive droite du ruisseau, deux ruines de castella, qui me parurent des fortifications du Bas-Empire, destinées ἃ fermer le Sangarius aux Perses d’abord, puis aux Turcs. Il ne m’a pas semblé que les rochers de gauche eussent aussi leur castel/wm correspondant avec les deux premiers’ (p. 64).
The line followed by the road from Sykeon is now easily determined. It passes by Sarilar and along the valley of the Sangarios to a échiftlik beside Baluk keuprii, where it turns north-west and runs straight over the plateau, through a break in the ridge called Kozen Bair, to Iuliopolis. We estimated the distance at about fourteen English miles, which agrees excellently with the xv MP of the Life of S. Theod., p. 373.1
The Peut. Table, though wildly wrong in its numbers, preserves a name VALCATON, which is not mentioned by the others. Valcaton is clearly identi- cal with Badyaria, a village six miles from Sykeon, mentioned in the Life of S. Theod. (p. 364), 8 having doubtiess the sound of v as in modern Greek.? On the road about five miles from Sykeon in a small eyuk (mound) strewn with fragments of pottery, which is very probably the site of this village.
The Pilgrims’ Route after leaving Iuliopolis probably kept along the valley of the Skopas to Nalli khan, following the modern path: no road can cross the hills behind (west of) the city. But the subsequent course of the road lies outside the limits of our exploration.
Il. The district of Mukhalitch.
§ 1. AKREINA—The mountainous country immediately south οἵ Sykeon and Iuliopolis between the Sangarios and the Tembrogios or Tembris (Porsuk tchai) is called Mukhalitchdjik and is now attached to the
1 ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιοπολιτῶν πόλει, οὔσῃ ἀπὸ σημείων ‘village’ in the Life of 5. Theodore is the δεκαπέντε, where we should understand modern term χωρίον (though in mod. Gk. the IONOAITON, 1.6. Ἰουλιοπολιτῶν. ι has become a semi-vowel and the accent there-
2 So we may note that the word used for fore falls on the last syllable).
72 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
kaimmakamlil: Mukhalitch (or Kuyudjak), named after St. Michael, who was worshipped all over this part of Galatia! North of Mukhalitch there stretches from west to east a long, high ridge of hills (Kartal Dagh and Mukhalitch Dagh) which forms a watershed between the basins of the Sangarios and the Tembrogios. On the northern side of this ridge we found two ancient sites.
One of these is at Iki kilisse, a village at the head of a stream which joins the Sangarios beside Baluk keuprii (whence it is two hours distant). The name which signifies ‘the Two Churches’ is said to have been derived from two chambers cut side by side in the rocks near the village : and it does seem to be a popular name, for the official denomination is Thalissa (which was read to us from a seal). So the popular name of Apameia in Phrygia is Dinér, but the official name is Geyikler ‘the Stags’ (we remember Cyrus’ park there). In other cases the official term preserves the older and more correct form of the name, which has been modified in popular usage, like Isparta (εἰς Bapsda) for the ordinary Sparta or Mudurnu (Modrene) for the popular Mudurlu. The village is easily recognised to be an ancient site: there is a good number of remains in it (some also at. Gozlu over the stream), and traces of the old settlement are still visible a short distance above the village. Fortunately we found an inscription to tell the name: it is a strange freak of fortune that she so often reveals the smal! things and keeps the greater things dark !
22. Iki kilisse (lowest mchalla); in the mosque enclosure. The letters are faint. (A.).
ἌΓΑΘΗ TYXH © ᾿Α]γαθῇ Τύχῃ. //J/ATTOTIPOFONWN ἀπὸ προγόνων
HINOZANTHN Of ; . νοβαντηνοὶ INPHCKE VON TECESZE θ]ρησκεύοντες ἐξ €- tlovs Διὶ ᾿Ακρεινη-
δι
= ~< NA <
x2 ss 25 (Δ =o ΞΙ (ἢ kz [ων
Ἷ νῷ εὐχήν, ἐπιμε- NOY PAE NOON T WA YNC λουμένων... ..
IVE K AATHOYKAIM ᾿ΑἸσκληπιοῦ καὶ ᾿Α- IM MIANOYAOY KIicY μμιανοῦ Aovxiou,
ΙΞ TOYC Α4Ρ 10. ἔτους agp’.
AXKREINA is otherwise known only from the following passage of the Life of S. Theodore: ἐξελθὼν οὖν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αγκυρανῶν μητροπόλεως ἦλθεν εἰς τὸ
1 For example, at Lagania-Anastasiopolis(Life Germa (Γέρμια, p. 424, 450, &e.), &c. The of S. Th., passim), at Sykeon, at Akreina worship of St. Michael is widely spread in Asia (p. 434, see infra), at Skoudrisa village near Minor; see CB. pp. 31, 214 ff, 541, 558, Sykeon and the Sangarios (p. 487), at Colonia 741-2.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 73
κλίμα τῆς ᾿Ηλιουπολιτῶν πόλεως, ἔγγιστα τοῦ Πίδρου ἐν τῷ εὐκτηρίῳ τοῦ ᾿Αρχαγγέλου, τῷ ὄντι εἰς “Axpnvav, καὶ κατέκρυπτεν ἑαυτόν (p. 434). Was PIDRON (or -OS) the ancient name of Tchardak (below) 1
23. Ilid., (middle mahalla). Votive altar, with ox-head, bunch of grapes (?) and hexagonal pattern on the sides. Letters very faint and worn.
(A. and C).
YYZ ANZA! LMOC AGEICAP € NAHNOoYEY
Ξάν[θ]α! xe]? Κό]σμος Aci Yap- υενδηνοῦ €v-
χήν.
We must understand Σαρυενδηνῷ : the confusion between gen. and dat. is frequent in Phrygian inscriptions.
24. Ild—Very diminutive votive altar without reliefs. (A.).
Al Ip PwN Au βρων- (510) TwWNTI τῶντι
ΑΝΤΙ ΦΑ ᾿Αντιφᾶ- CEYXHN ς εὐχήν.
25. Ibid—In a fountain in lower mahalla. (A.).
ies Recs pvn-| ////NAXAPIIL vac. sic μ]η(ς) χάριν. [///AWKAAEENAIMECIN "Edmxa δὲ ἐν Λιμέσιν ////OTONETIIKHTIOICOA τ]όπον ἐπὶ κήποις ὁλ- OKAHPONINAEXWCIN 5. ὀκληρὸν iva ἔχωσιν E=ICOYEILTOMHMEIC//// sic ἐξ ἴσου (2) εἰς τὸ μ(ν)ημεῖο- NINACTIONAHNET1//// ν ἵνα σπονδὴν ἐπἰι- XYNWCINTATEKI/4// χύνωσιν τὰ τέκνα.
Ι.. 5. =IC is blurred, but seemed fairly certain.
26. Jbid.—Altar-stone beside the mosque; on the other side is a cross within an archway with birds over it. (A.).
74 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
SHIM ONL Δ ΝΑΙ SIL IIIS LL (VEL TOTTI ““““ΑἸΤῊΙΔΙΑΓΥ ALKIAM//ARTLEHM/
The fragment of 1]. 9-11 is built into a house-wall.
27. Jbid—Fragment of a Christian inscr.; above, there is a cross within a pillared archway. (A.).
IIIICTAVTA ὁ Bio ?|s ταῦτα
§ 2. TCHARDAK (PIDRON?).—An hour to the south-west, beside Tchardak, is the site of another ancient village. Several massive, moulded tombstones still mark the site of the cemetery; but only one inscription is exposed to view.
28. (A).
Wi HUP TA BRONATE WINN HSA ACA ALCRE NMERETTAIN DIPIDILIIIUSL MMM A MM AMMA AMM EE. RAO MN, MISONO NEN-BIMIe E THE ΝΑ ACEHITNAEZALA AH/EN@ANATWSTIAIAEZ ILI NKAEOI-K ANT QESCO NoltW@EAETYNBWM
hH AK AP WAPETHEEINKN BOYKE@ANEE as
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 75
BGG | eediairo cts. vedmede ὥρῃ τέτμεν, [ἀ]ναλγήτῳ δ᾽ ἐξάγα[γ]εν θανάτῳ" παῖδες [w]e κατέθηκαν id’ ἔγγονοι ὡς θέλε τύνβῳ. "OC μάκαρ, ὡς ἀρετῆς εἵνεκεν οὐκ ἔθανες.
§ 3. 29.—Bey keui (about two hours north-east of Iki kilisse). Marble stele near the tekke. (C.).
——— ς CLITIYS-CF-VELGRA C. Clitius C. f. Vel(ina) Gra- NIVS- ANNORVM IIIf nius annorum ILL C/AB,QNA ESOQVEPA εν glaesoque pa-
TE BQ VAMMINGM VA ter quam minimum
TEVD EUS TESNA R=
30. Ibid., in the mosque. (C.).
DISMANIBVS Dis Manibus MPLANC 1 M. Planci NALE N Tri. 5 Valentis MPLANCIV ὁ M. Plancius [ Valens 3) ... platre
curt |ssimo,
§ 4. AN IMPERIAL ESTATE ?—We now cross the watershed and descend towards the Tembrogios (Porsuk Tchai). The south-eastern slopes are little cultivated and thinly populated and cannot have contained any important site. Mukhalitch itself is a purely modern place, hardly deserving the name of town, although it is the seat of a kaimmakam. The only smiling piece of country is the fine, fertile valley running west-south-west from Mukhalitch and watered by a little affluent of the Tembrogios. Like the fine plain round Tchifteler beside the great fountains of the Sangarios [where Kaborkion! was situated], it is at the present day an estate of the Sultan and there is reason to believe that both these domains have
1 HG. 213-4, 220.
76 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
come down to him as inheritances from ancient times. Nothing is more striking in the East than the continuity of the present with the past: and the fact that life there stat super antiguas vias often helps the historian over a gap. Prof. Ramsay has shown that in Asia Minor imperial estates were mostly land that had been taken by the Greek kings from the priestly rulers of the great hiera and thenceforward remained as crown-lands, passing into the possession of Roman and then of Byzantine emperors (CB. i. p. 10-117). From the Byzantine rulers they frequently passed to their successors the Sultans or (in some cases) to Turkish religious bodies. An excellent instance is supplied by the estate of Dazimon? in the plain west of Tokat. An inscription found by Munro and Hogarth proves that this valuable plain was an imperial estate in the time of the emperor Maurice (582-602 A.pD.)*; and the old French traveller Tavernier tells us that cette ville avec ses dépendances est appanage des Sultancs méres.4 Again, the estate of which Eulandra- Augustopolis was the centre (Hist. Geog. p. 178; Annual of British School, 1897-8) is now, in part at least, the property of the Mevlevi (dancing) Dervishes at Afion Kara Hissar (cp. Ramsay in Classical Review 1899 p. 138). This hypothesis helps to account for the presence of Latin inscriptions in the neighbourhood (nos. 29, 30); and the fact that there were, apparently, two or three small sites in the valley is in perfect harmony with our view.
(1) One of these lay, perhaps, beside Kayé keui (an hour south-west of Mukhalitch) where a mudur has been stationed to look after the Imperial interests. Besides the following inscriptions, there are some other remains (including doorstones) in the village; but we cannot, of course, exclude the possibility that these have been carried.
31. Kayé keui; stele in the cemetery. (A.).
MANICCPEMACTOY Μάνης ᾿Ερεμάστου
ITE PETC KNWONKETWN περὶ τέκνων KE TOV
[ALUN TTOTAMWEYXHN ἐδίων Ποταμῷ εὐχήν. aap ‘ Te
32. Ibid.; narrow stele with a fish in pediment. (C.).
NEIKAN WPI Νεικάνωρ Ké y- YNTTOTAMW υνὴ Ποταμῷ ΕΥΧΗΝ εὐχήν.
1 Of. CB. ii. p. 354, where an excellent (R.G.S. Suppl. Papers 111.}, p. 96.
analogy is quoted from Egypt. 4 Les six voyages de J. B. Tavernier, Paris, 2 Of. Hist. Geog. pp. 220, 266. 1681, p. 10. 8 Mod. and Anc. Roads in Eastern A.M.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 77 33. Ibid.; in the village. (A.).
AMMIA ‘Appia MITH BAB μήτηρ BaB- oYKAAEAD ov Ké ἀδελφ- OCMANIC os Μάνης MNMHC X A μ. χ-
ΡΙΝ
The fem. name Βάβου, ἃ by-form of BABA, occurs again in Nos. 57, 110, also in C_I.G. 4142 (belonging to this district, see below III. § 3) where Franz recepit dulitanter the ‘restoration’ Βαβώ, and at Nakoleia (/.7S8. III. p. 126). The accus. is Βάβουν (Constantinople Σύλλογος, xv. 1884 p. 66). Βάβους in the inser. published by Ramsay in Kuhn’s Z/t. f. vergl. Sprachf., NF, viii. p. 386 is probably masculine. The form Βαβεὶς (f.) is common. Cf. Kretschmer Hinleitung pp. 223-4, 336.
34. Ibid.; broken stele with bust above, broken. (A.). MENEDPWNMA Μενέφρων Ma- NOYAIEY XN νου Ai εὐχήν.
On the form Δὲ for Aci cf. ..11... 1898, p. 96, No. 36, and p. 104; Δεὶ iscommon. The frequent occurrence of the name Μάνης is interesting.
(2) If we may believe the reports of the natives, a small site existed beside the village Kizil Boyukli on the edge of the hills north-west of Kayé (43 min. north-north-west of Geudje, which is 1} h. west of Kayé). The following inscriptions were said to have been dug up there along with a fragment of a statue, etc. The cemetery contains numerous old stones.
35. Kizil Boyukli; small altar with two ox-heads. (A.).
MPAPKOCOE sic Μάρκος Θε- ΟΦΑΝΟΥΎΓΕΡ οφάνου ὑπὲρ BOIAIWNAE//// Boidiov Aci
€YXHN εὐχήν.
36. 7 τά. ; stele with woman above. (C.). ETEIMICAN | ᾿᾿τείμησαν OYAAEPIAN Οὐαλερίαν ANPTTOAIAIO (C ἀνὴρ ἸΤό(πλιος) Αἴλιος MNACKACK Μηνᾶς κὲ ᾿Ασκ- ΛΗΠΙΟΓΓΆΝΒΡ ος ὅ. ληπιὸς γανβρὸς ΚθΘυγάτερες κὲ θυγατέρες “AOYAKNANA Δοῦα xé Nava
MIX APIN μ- x:
L, 7, We might restore Aov(6)a, but AOTA occurs also in No. 50,
78 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
37. Ibid.—Figure, with pediment and pilasters, probably joined by another stone. (C.).
EAETTWIBA id
38. /bid.—Broken column. (C.).
EAI /I/¢ H/T
AWMVOC I«eTEKNAM NHMHC XAP IN
39. Geudje (1} hr. west of Kayé). Stele with figure of a man above the inscription. (C.).
ETE WT
’Ered[unoar] y-
ONE IMJ? ονεῖς [Μην]οφ- Ανν δάσζγ άνην Δ[ούδ]ης KAN OMA MN xe Δόμνα μν- HMC XA PIN nuns χάριν.
TY
(3) The remains at and around the village Tut-agatch (‘mulberry tree’)
point to an old site at or near the village. according to the following inscription which is now at Mukhalitch but was said by its owner to have been carried by him from Tut-agatch.
The name of the site was NARA,
40. (A.). [ὁ δεῖνα
MAA ὑπὲρ τῆς] EAYTOY ἑαυτοῦ MHTPOCKAI μητρὸς Kal TWNTEKN TOV τέκνων WNAIINAPH Avi Napn- NWEYXEN νῷ εὐχήν.
Another dedication to Ζεὺς Ναρηνὸς was found by us afterwards at
Yarikdyji, over the hills (south-east) from Mukhalitch. It is engraved on a similar small pillar, and we were told that it was found in the dere west of
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 79
the village. Doubtless it was erected by a native of Nara at the spot where he and his wife had escaped some disaster.
41. (A). TTRICKOCKAI Πρίσκος καὶ ANTICTIAKY ᾿Αντιστία Κυ- ANHYITEPTHC άνη ὑπὲρ τῆς 1AIACCW " ἰδίας σω- THPIAC P| a τηρίας Ari NAP HYWCY Ναρηνῷ εὐ-
: XEN χήν.
42. Tut-agatch; in a field 10 min. east of the village. (A.).
ITT οὖς, ἀδελ]πὴ
NANAKTEKN//// Nava κὲ téxv[a
A Tto////WNIOC ᾿Απο[λλ]ώνιος
KMINOO1////K xe Μηνόφι[λος] xe
MAPKOCKATI® Μάρκος κὲ ᾿Απφ-
DAMM ////XA ta μνήμ[ης] χά- ΡΙΝ ριν. ἣ
Beneath there are symbols representing shoes (cf. no. 50); we have often seen them represented on the tombstones of these districts alongside of implements, toilet articles, etc.
An old cemetery 36 min. north of Tut-agatch contains the three following inscriptions (as well as numerous uninscribed blocks).
43. Altar, with the bust of a woman (2), and beneath, figure of Apollo holding Marsyas by the neck in r., lyre in 1. (A.).
Γάϊος κὲ ᾿Απφία ὑ[π-
A -“ » , ΄
ép τῶν ἰδίων xe Λάουα- ς ὁσίῳ ᾿Απόλλωνιε,
- ΄ » θεοῖς ἐπηκόοις, €v- - χῆν.
80 J. G. C, ANDERSON,
Adovas = Λάβας which is quoted by Pape-Benscler from Theocritus and from a coin of Laodiceia (Mionnet, iv. 313).
44. Altar, with relief of two figures, one of which holds a spear (7). (C.). QKAILAIKEW TAP! Οσώῳ καὶ δικέῳ παρ- A TATE ¥ ITEPEAY
tWINK TWNIAIWN TANTWNEYXHN
ἴω 2 ΄ ‘\ ΄ αγω]διᾶτε 1 ὑπὲρ ἑαυ- τῶν κὲ τῶν ἰδίων
, ’ πάντων εὐχήν.
ΠΠαραγωδιᾶται, ‘wearers of the παραγώδης᾽ (paragauda, Ed. Diocl. xvi. 15, οἷο), which (when worn by men) was one of the insignia of office, is a suggestion of Prof. Ramsay’s.
Ὅσιος καὶ δέκαιος (δίκεος) is well-known in Western Asia Minor as an appellation of My», the horseman god, whose distinctive attributes are also assigned to Savazios (Sabazios).1 See Athen. Mitth. x. pp. 11-12, and Buresch Aus Lydien, pp. 75-6. The great god of the Galatian country frequently appears as Μήν,---αὖ Myrika (under No. 75, and J.H.S. v. p. 253), at Androna (No. 76), at Kozanli-Pitnissos (No. 131), at Selmea (Nos. 220-1). Often he appears under other Hellenized forms, which express different aspects of his divine power, the special appellation under which the god is invoked being determined by the special needs of the worshipper ;? 6.5. he is“Oavos ᾿Απόλλων as prophet and giver of oracles (No. 43); ᾿Ασκληπιὸς Σωτὴρ as the giver of health (No. 51, Μὴν Σωτὴρ in a newly found relief, infra ; ef. the god Sozon, probably =Savazios) ; Ζεὺς βροντῶν as thundering and lightening god of heaven (No. 24, common in North Phrygia); Ζεὺς Μέγιστος in the Proseilemmene (Nos. 148, 160); very often Ζεὺς simply, with addition of place name;”Hdzos as the all-seeing god (represented with radiate head) who avenges the broken pledge (at Myrika, J.H.S. lc.; cf. No. 46 ; Sozon is often radiate on coins) or the violation of the tomb (cf. CB. p. 271, No. 95, p. 273, No. 194, etc.) or the violent death (CB. p. 339, No. 187).
We cannot here enter into the evidence for this principle of interpretation, which we believe to be the true and the natural one. The reader will find it worked out in Ramsay’s Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, passim. The same principle, we are glad to see, is stated with equal emphasis by the late Dr. Buresch, who brings together an imposing array of evidence in his Aus Lydien, pp. 67-69, p. 74, ete. A singular corroboration of this view is supplied by a remarkable relief soon to be published by Mr. Cecil Smith (in Bull. Corr.
’ It is definitely stated by Proklos (on Plato’s Timaeus iv. 251 C) that Mén was worshipped as Sabazios in Phrygia (ἐπεὶ καὶ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι Μηνὸς ἱερὰ παρειλήφαμεν καὶ παρὰ Φρυξὶ Μῆνα Σαβάζιον ὑμνούμενον). The identification Mén-Manes (cs giebt manches, says Kretschmer, was fiir sie spricht) is definitely proved by the inser. in CB. p. 566, no. 467 B (ὑπὸ Mdvov Adov ‘HAto-
δρόμου Ards) taken in conjunction with the reliefs. Compare also No. 58 (below).
2 No doubt the uneducated would tend to ascribe a certain amount of separate individual- ity to the various titles ; but that (in spite of such a tendency) they are all ultimately the same god, is often shown by the accompanying reliefs.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 8]
Hell.). It is a dedication Myvi Σωτῆρι καὶ Wrovrodern and represents Mén with radiate head and beneath him all the symbols of the various gods of the Greek Pantheon stamped with the crescent: the idea being that they are only various envisagements of the one supreme god.
45. Fragment, with hammer and cutter (like No. 39), and in the pedi- ment cagle standing. (A.). ~EIMHCAN NTEKNA ’AAE €
46. Tut-agatch: in the village. (A.).
να Ἡλίῳ [’Az]or-
λωνος κατὰ κέλευσιν.
ΝΑΘΗΤΙ ΗΛ ωλσοΛὶ AWNOCKATAKENE YC! |
47. Kara-geyikler, ᾧ ἢ. east. Long thin slab. (A.),
LMT | EIABW MON MNHMOCYNON
| TTOIHCANKEETITYNBION |ECTHPIZAN 9.
Here there are also some ‘doorstones’ (one with hammer, cutter and shoes).
48. Doghan Oglu (40 min. south-west). In the mosque doorway. Slab with hammer and cutter beneath. (A.).
ETEIMHCAN AION "Etedunoav Vaiov YiIOIBAPBOAAAC υἱοὶ Βάρβολλας OYACTE=ZKHAIOC Οὐάστεξ κὲ Ἥλιος MNHMHCXAPIN μνήμης χάριν.
Barbollas and Vastex seem certainly to be Celts. The former is a diminutive, akin to Celtic names like Barb-ona, Barb-oniu-s.
(4) The last of these small sites is at Igde-agatch (Yokaru), which les at the head of a broad plain sloping down to the Tembrogios. ‘This plain is separated by a slight ridge from the valley we have been examining, but it is part of the same Estate. The lower part of it is bare, waste land.
The following inscriptions were found here. H.S.—VOL. XIX. G
82 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
49. Igde-agatch; in cemetery. Defaced stele (with one figure). (C. and A.).
ETEIMICANMEAIL ᾿Ετείμησαν Meriy-
INNANHPZMEPTGN. sic ἐνναν (av)np Φμέρτων
KTEKNAAOMNAK Ke τέκνα Δόμνα κὲ
ΔΑΔΆΑΚΓΑΝΒΡΟς Δάδα κὲ γανβρὸς
EPMICMNIMICXA “Ἑρμῆς μνήμης ya- ΡΙΝ ριν.
Meliginna is probably Celtic (Meliganna, a Celtic village-name, and several words with the element Meli- in Holder, Altcelt. Sprach. 535-6).
Zmerton is also clearly Gallic. Compare Σμέρται, a people on the north- east coast of Britain (Ptol. ii. 3, 12); Smertu-litanes (Orelli 188: litan= ‘wide, broad’); Ro-smerta (70 is intensive ‘ very’: Zeuss-ebel, Grammatica Celtica,? p. 860); Smertullus at Ebrodunum-Embrun (C.7.Z. xii. 83).
Their children have Graeco-Phrygian names (see XII. below).
For the Lallname Adéa with by-forms Aovéa, Δόδα, Δούδας, Δούδης, cf. J.HS. 1898, p. 119; Kretschmer, Hinleitung, p. 337.
50. Ibid.; in the mosque beside the cemetery. (A.).
᾿Ανέστησαν Ma- via γονεῖς Θεόφιλος κὲ Δα[μᾶς] ἀδελφοὶ θυγ[ ἀτηρ] Δοῦα.
ANECTHCAKMA NIATONEICQ€eo0pu joc KAAMIM/ AXED ΟἹ OY [μη ΟΥ A
ft WY mpeg
Aova also No. 36.
51. Ibid.; in the village. (A.).
AO1KIOCKAIOL Aolv]xcos καὶ Θ[εοφ- 1////AYTEPTONIZ i[A]a ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδ[έ- WNACKAHTTIW ων ᾿Ασκληπιῷ ΓΩΤΗΡΙΕΎΧΗΝ Σωτῆρι εὐχήν.
On ᾿Ασκληπιὸς Σωτὴρ, see No. 44; he often appears on Phrygian coins.
' Tam indebted to Prof. Rh¥s for help in the matter of Celtic names.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM 83 52. Ibid.; mosque in village. (A.).
AYPKAPIKOCATIONAWNIOYKCY BIOCAYTOYAOMNAANECTHCAN ////ATPIKAIMHTPIZ=€YNAMNH MHCXAPIN
Αὐρή(λιος) Καρικὸς [᾿ΑἸπο[λ͵]λωνίου κὲ σύ-
βιος αὐτοῦ Δόμνα ἀνέστησαν
mlatpt καὶ μητρὶ Ἐεύνᾳ μνή-
μης χάριν.
The name Ξξεύνα occurs three or four times in north-west Phrygia (J. HS,
1898, p. 122, No. 67); also No. 66 below, where M. Perrot’s restoration is wrong.
53. Ibid.; stele in cemetery. (C.).
ANECIH//// ᾿Ανέσ[τ]η[σε Aa- AAZWCA//// δα ζῶσα [κὲ φρο- NOY////AAY//// νοῦ aja αὐ[τὴ E€AY////1MN//// ἑαυ[τῇ] μν[ή- ME////NEK//// [ns ἕ]νεκίεν.
54. Igde-agatch (ashagha), } hr. south-south-east; column beside fountain. (C.).
ETEIMHCANAOYKI "Etedunoav Aovxe-
ONTTATHPCEKTOC ov πατὴρ Σέκτος
ΚΓΥΝΗΤΕΡΤΙΑΚΤΕΚΝΑ κὲ γυνὴ Τέρτια κὲ τέκνα
CEKTOCKAOMNOCK Léxtos κὲ Δόμνος Ke
ANTWNIA MNHMHC ᾿Αντωνία μνήμης ΧΆΡΙΝ χάριν.
LIL. 2, 4. Sektos for Sextos. 55. Ibid.; stele beside a house. (A.).
ETEIMICAN ᾽᾿Ετείμησαν TEPTIOYCAN Τέρπουσαν AIAIAAIONY | C1A// Airia Διονυσία MiTHP μήτηρ
K ωρΑνος κὲ ᾿Ωρανὸς MOMIANOC Μομμιανὸς EAYTWN ἑαυτῶν OYTATPI θυγατρὶ ANECTHC Alt// avéatnaaly ΜΜΗΜΗΓΧΑΡΙ ΙΝ μνήμης χάριν.
84 J. G. C. ANDERSON,
56. Ibid. Fragment of doorstone (with all sorts of implements on the panels) on which occurs the name IIXwtéa. (A.).
57. Ibid. Pair of shoes below. (A.).
//iq@u///KBA ... xe Ba- ////OYRCWKPA βΊου κὲ Σωκρά- ////4CKCANBPO T|ns Ké yavBpo- ////// VX ACLOCMN ς T Ἰύχασιος μν- MU//ICX APIN ἤμη]ς χάριν.
Βάβου, No. 33.
58. Geuktche-aiva (‘ Blue quince’—or Geuk tchai), a village about half an hour north-west; stele with wreath beneath, in the mosque. (C.).
᾿Ανέστησα-
ν Ανναν τίέ-
KNAAM ON κνα Αμων
κΆτολλων κὲ ᾿Απόλλων
KMANHC KM κὲ Μάνης κὲ M-
ATAP MYM (ὦ ἅταρ μνήμης XAPIN χρυ.
Four divine names for the children are notable. The name Matar, the old Phrygian form, is specially interesting.
59. Ibid. (A).
ANECTHCAN ᾿Ανέστησαν TTAANKIANA Il\avedav a- NHPACKAHNA νὴρ ᾿Ασκληπ- ΙΟΟΚ ΤΕΚΝΑ ιὸς κὲ τέκνα: SAS OA ἔτους ὃπ΄.
The date is 59 A.D., if the era is that of the province Galatia (25 B.c.).
ΠῚ. The line of the Roman Road Dorylaion—A ngora—Eccobriga.
§ 1. COLONIA IULIA AUGUSTA FELIX GERMA.—-We go on now to consider a section of the great road which ran from Dorylaion [Eski sheher] to Angora and Tavium. The critical point in the determination of this route is the identification of COLONIA GERMA, which has been the subject of
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 85D
much dispute since Leake’s time. Herewith is connected an interesting piece of history. The inscriptions giving the name of the city (C.U.L. iii. 284-5) were copied at Masut keui, in 1554, by some of the members of the embassy sent by the Emperor Charles V. and Ferdinand of Austria to treat with the Sultan, Suleiman I, the Magnificent, the victor of Mohacs, who was then residing at Amasia (owing to the outbreak of war with Persia). The embassy was headed by the diplomatist, van Busbeek, whose Legationis Turcicae epistolae quatuor form the first European contribution to the literature of travel in Asia Minor ; but geography and archaeology owe more to another member of the embassy, Hans Dernschwam, who joined the expedition apparently for commercial reasons,! but was not devoid of an intellectual interest in the old monuments around him. But in the defective state of geographical knowledge of the country, it was difficult to determine precisely the exact route of the ambassadors. Where was Masut keui? In 1863, at Prof. Mommsen’s request, Prof, Kiepert examined the accounts, and placed Masut keui on the west of the Sangarios, north-east of Sivri Hissar, wonderfully near its real position.2 Now Leake, whose topographical instinct was remarkable, had suggested that the village Yiirme, on the north side of Gunusu Dagh, retained the name Germa, and the ruins there should there- fore be identified with the Roman colony ; and this proposal was accepted by scholars who supposed that the inscriptions copied by Dernschwam had been carried many miles north. In 1890, Humann pointed out the want of any strong evidence to place Germa at Yiirme ; and just before the publication of his book, Prof. Ramsay had shown conclusively that the situation at Yurme was not only inconsistent with the known epigraphic evidence, but that it threw the topography and the road-system into confusion ;? that Yiirme was a good Turkish name and that the remains there were ‘ not those of a Roman Colonia but of a Christian city of the early Byzantine type’; and that there- fore Germa must be sought near Masut keui. Meantime (1887) Kiepert wrote an exhaustive paper on the ambassadors’ route, in which he came to the conclusion that Masut keui lay in the lower Tembrogios or Tembris (Porsuk tchai) valley ;* and. so the village is placed north-west of Bitcher, in his Specialkarte von West. Kleinasien (1890). Deferring to Kiepert’s high authority, Ramsay placed Germa some distance lower down the river than Masut keui.
In reality, Masut keui is identical with M. Perrot’s Massik keui on the north of Sivri Hissar. I now find that Kiepert himself actually makes the suggestion (‘ wahrscheiulich identisch mit Massik-keui bei Perrot,’ op. cit. p.
1 See Prof. Kiepert’s account of the journey in Globus, Band lii.
makes it sound very like Massuk. Perrot did not visit the village. Prof. Ramsay informs me
2 Monatsberichte d. Berlin Akad. 1863, p. 307 ff.
3 Hist. Geog. p. 237 f., p. 16 (Additions), Ρ. 224, 225 etc.
4 Globus, l.c.
5 Route-map C in Exploration de la Galatie. The pronunciation of some of the natives
that he had at first actually identified Masut with Massik and so reached a view similar to ours about Germa; but on seeing Kiepert’s paper he was obliged to give up an identifica- tion which seemed so bold, and rewrite the proof-sheets of Hist. Geog.
86 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
45 n. 1),—a fact which increases the difficulty of understanding how he came to place it in the Tembris valley, for there is really nothing in Dernschwam’s account to suggest it and Perrot’s Itinéraires are remarkably accurate. Masut (more strictly Masud) keui, formerly one of the largest villages in the district but now a mere tchiftlik, lies two hours north of Sivri Hissar! in a long valley running roughly east and west, bounded on the south by Gunusu Dagh (M. Dindymos) and on the north by the ridge that determines the course of the Porsuk tchai (Tembrogios). Many of the old remains here, including the two most important inscriptions copied by Dernschwam, have perished with the village; but a great number of ancient stones still remain in the houses, cemeteries, mosque and fountains. If assurance be needed that we have rightly identified the ‘Masut-kieu’ or ‘ Masot-thoy’ of the Busbequians, it is given by the following inscription (= C.L.Z. iii. 286).
60. On a large moulded (altar-shaped) stone in the cemetery. (C., seen also by A.). exes pe P< Ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) CCLAVDIOQANTI C. Claudio Anti- PAST ROL SW δ FR patro viro fru-
ΑΘ UMPO<E Ps €:0 tk: galissimo et col(o)-
ΝΑ MANTI SS ΠΟΥ PF 5 n(iae) amantissimo pr- AESTAT22 O<AEDIL< SPI 17 aesta(n)t(issim)o aedili sp[len- DIDISIME< NECESSARY”. didissime necessario
A ,
td ΚΣ ETs EP LAC, tempore et epulals Ne Sa ose se gerentt .. .| L. 6. The reading is certain, but praestantissimo seems necessary ; the N has been omitted, and -issim- was probably contracted in some way like
COLN.
61. The only other inscriptions we saw here were a small fragment, apparently Latin, a worn inscription with letters engraved in relief (like Perrot, No. 103 at Dumrek) and C./.G@. 4133 copied by Dernschwam. My copy of the first two lines is
ZOLNELONO ie. Lolon φρ]ονο[ύ- ΓΗΠΡΩΤΟΓΕΝΗΓ on IIpwroyévns eto
The exact site of Colonia Germa lies a little above the old road, about two miles north-north-west of Mas‘ud keui and a quarter of an hour east-south- east of Dumrek. It is called Kuradja Pasha dren, but only a few stones are now left to mark the site. The ruins of Germa have been transported to all
1 And half an hour west of Babadat.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 87
the villages around,—Dumrek, Karadja kaya, Eldjik, Babadat, Miilk,! ete. In Byzantine times Germa was called Τέρμια, Veppoxorwvia, Mupiayyerou (Hist, Geog. p. 224), and the fortress corresponding to it was situated at Soman Hissar, half an hour east-north-east of Dumrek, a rocky hill which bears a few traces of an old castle. The church of Germa was dedicated to the Archangel Michael (Mvnp. ‘Ayior. p. 450, which gives the distance from Pessinus as 15 miles).
Germa has generally been called a colony of Augustus; but it is a serious objection to this view that Augustus does not mention it amongst his foundations. In all probability it owed its origin to Domitian who named it after Julia Augusta, just as he named Ninica Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Ninica Claudiopolis (Ramsay, Levwe Numism. 1894; Babelon, Lnventaire de la coll. Waddington, 4732).
To Germa belong the inscriptions published by Perrot, Huploration Nos. 101-103 (p. 164), as well as the following :
62. Dumrek. In a fountain below the image: very small letters. (A.).
MANIAKOPNOYTOY®S//// Μανία Kopvoutovu θ[ υγά- THPANAPONEIKOY//// tnp ᾿Ανδρονείκου, -YNHXPHCTH γυνὴ χρηστὴ
ΧΑΙΡΕ χαῖρε.
63. Jbid—Worn. (A.).
OECMOCIOCAGAAIOY Θ]έσμος [vi]ds ? AoddLov [///ARI\OFENOY XAIPE Μην]ογένου χαῖρε.
L. 1. The seventh letter is not H,
64. Ibid.—In the mosque : a fragment Λούκιος ’Axeo|[dvdpou?].. .
Besides these are several other fragments of inscriptions, door-stones, and other remains.
65. Karadja kaya: broken slab. (A.).
AOYKIATIWAAI Λουκία ἸΤωλλέ- WN/////////I NTHP wv[os θυγα͵τηρ KAM KO PD ah oar VUMITTIIILNH
XML PE
1 Hamilton ii. p. 436, ‘many sculptured remains and blocks of marble in the burial- ground.’ We did not visit Mulk.
88 J G. C. ANDERSON.
66. Eldjik: stele with garland, in the cemetery. Imperfect in Perrot, Exploration No. 101. (A.).
= ΕὙΝ L A Opi Ne Fevva Λειτογν- AOYOYFATHPO | dov θυγάτηρ O- YET LLA ΕΓΥΝΗ | ὑεττίου δὲ γυνὴ MACHCAPETHC πάσης ἀρετῆς ETAINELAYKYT | ἔπαινε YAUKUT- ATHEYXAPICTIA, ἄτη εὐχαριστίαϊ[ς ENE ΚΕΝΞΕΥΝΑΙΣ ἕνεκεν: Ξεύνα [ἥ-
PWE “AIPE
On the Phrygian name Ξεύνα, see No. 52. Her father seems to be a Celt: Holder quotes names Leitagnos, Litogenos or Litogenes.
In the last line Perrot read PWC, rightly. For ἥρως used of women, compare (for example) C..G. 1784, 1786, 1789 (Thessaly).
pols], χαῖρε.
67. Ibid.—In the cemetery. Rough stone apparently converted later into an architrave block. (C.).
a > AOBHAQN Δοβήδων AIBA‘ LAAC κ]αὶ Βα[σ]ιλᾶς TPL YPC a ie | καὶ] Ilp . υριος IK MAXOC : , πο AS καὶ N]ex[o]uayos
Dobedon is a Celt. Prof. Rh¥s has supplied me with a curiously exact parallel, Dovaidona(s), gen. sing., in an inscr. of the Isle of Man (cf. Holder, s.v.); and for the termination he compares Dumel-edonas in an inscription of
South Wales.
68. Lbid.—In the village. Large stone, originally a font or holy-water stoup, now covered with nails inserted by sick people. (C.).
§ 2, Eupoxtas [syNopIon] and MousGA.—The remains at Yiirme are clearly those of the bishopric EUDOXIAS (see Hist. Geog. p. 225). A descrip- tion of the fine church here will be found in Annual Brit. School for 1898, We learn from the Life of S. Theodore of Sykeon that there was an annual gathering (σύνοδος) of the citizens of Germa and Eudoxias at a village MOUSGA for the celebration of a festival of the Holy Virgin, in which the
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 89
bishops of the two cities took part.! Prof. Ramsay rightly pointed out that this village probably lay on the frontier of these cities and that ‘the Christian custom perpetuated an old religious connection of both cities with some holy spot between them,’ viz. the fine hot springs (Hammam) some hours to the north-west of Yiirme. The actual site of Mousga was beside the ruined village called Arslanli, close to the hot springs. Hamilton says of it: ‘ three miles and a half south by east of Ortou [Hortu] we came upon the remains of a ruined town; and in the walls of the numerous houses, almost entirely built of stone, as well as the neighbouring enclosures, I found many square- hewn blocks of marble, sepulchral monuments, and other fragments amongst which were several inscribed stones [C.7G. 4096-87]... This town or village appears to have been built out of the ruins of a more ancient city.’ Gi. p. 436-7).
To the. σύνοδος at this village is doubtless due the name SYNODION which appears in some of the late lists instead of Eudoxias (see Hist. Geog., l.c.).
The following inscriptions also belong to Mousga.
69. Kotchash (23 min. south-east): in the mosque. The first two lines were covered with lime; the letters are of irregular size. (A.).
ATTAPI Γνὶ NAH NQEYXH I} STICK E YACANToLAI-MG TG AOYEKA TAKEAEYLI( ΤΟΥ defaced, ΘΕΟῚ
relvef In the first two lines most of the letters seemed clear, but I cannot think of any probable restoration. With the eighth letter of 1. 2, cf. no. 96,1. 1.
.. « « δελαην(ῷ) εὐχήν' , sf ém(t)oxevacarvtos Δημο- τ[έϊλους κατὰ κέλευσιν τοῦ θεοῦ.
. 70, Kadyndjik ($ hour south-south-east of Kotchash). In a fountain. (A.).
TELS NT ee stead ες HNOYTFAMO . οὐ γάμο- HOYKYMEN ν οὐκ ὑμέν-
AIAOYNYN ata ov νύν- DIAAEKTPA φια λέκτρα' ΚΑΙΛΑΔΙΚΗ καὶ Λαδίκη EPATWNOCK ᾿Εράτωνος κ- ΑΙΑΚΚΑΘΥΓΑ αἱ ᾽Ακκα θυγά- THPCENTIPW Tp Σενπρω- HIOYAELFYN νίου δὲ γυν-
Η ή.
1 ἐν Μουσγῇ τῷ χωρίῳ, εἰς ἥνπερ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον 1 3 ANE THCEN, |. 6 ΟΝΓΑΓΑΒΡΟΚ χρόνον ἀπήρχοντο αἱ δύο πόλεις τῶν τε Γερμίων (with Hamilton). No. 4097, read ὁ βίος καὶ Εὐδοξιάδος μετὰ λιτῆς καὶ ἑώρταζον K.7.A. (Μνημεῖα ᾿Αγιολογ. p. 424).
2 In no. 4096 the stone has 1. 2 CYNBIW,
tai[ra], the common formula; the main in- scription is not now exposed to view.
90 J. G. C. ANDERSON. Th Tada. ACK AHT//// ᾿Ασκληπιὸ- CKAITEA//// s καὶ Tedlead- oPpoci//////// ὄρος beh! ib ps AN1I////
§ 3. AkKILAION.—The line of the road from Dorylaion (beside Eski- sheher) to Angora, one of the greatest trade-routes of the Empire until it was replaced by the Ismid—Angora Railway,’ is now perfectly clear. Passing Midaion (Kara-hiiyiik) and Akkilaion, it crossed the Tembrogios probably (as the Busbequians did) beside Ak keuprii, below the Station Beylik-aghir, and followed the valley past Germa and Milk (where Hamilton copied a milestone numbered Ixxi, C.Z.Z. iii. 318) over a waste, undulating plateau to Beylik keuprii on the Sangarios, whence it took a direct line north of Bolatli and past Balik-koyundji to Angora.
AKKILAION, which struck coins in the time of Gordian reading AKKIAAEQON (with types: Mén, Tyché, Nike wearing a crown; Head /ist. Num. p. 556), was probably situated near Uyuz Tepe, between Alpi keui and Beylik-aghir. In Dernschwam’s account this village appears as Ugus, where many inscriptions were found (C./.@. 4141-4148, the last two ia tumulo paulo post pagum).? Three inscriptions from Alpi keui are published by Domas- zewski in A.H. Mitth. aus Oster. 1883, p. 179 (Nos. 32-4). Had we read Kiepert’s paper, it would doubtless have been easy to find the exact site. The Antonine Itinerary (quoted Hist. Geog. p. 237) unfortunately omits Midaion, which rouses suspicion as to the correctness of its account, Dorylaion
xxx Arcelaio xx Germa. The distances (measuring on the map%) are
1 Dernschwam says of it, Diese strasse heisst man des Kaysers strasse, ist die grosse und ehene strassen von Constantinopel aus durchs Landt, feiert nit (Kiepert, p. 45).
* The account of the ambassadors’ route be- tween Midaion and Masut-keui is not rightly explained by Kiepert. It is obscure in Dernschwam. His account is :—
21 March. From an unknown village to Karali (also uncertain). This day they have had the Kutaya Su (Vorsuk Su) on their right, dahin wir zogen und [65] uns nachyeflossen ist, mitten durch die landschaft...Darnach in ebenen landschaft ein langleter griner perg...darunter ein dorf gelegen...heisst man zum schwarzen perg (1.6. Karahiytik-Midaion, as Kiepert says). Weiter over the Kutaya Su, which they leave on the left side... Weiter wieder uber obstandt wasser Kuthe [Kutaya) Su uber ein pruggen, haben wirs wider auf der rechten hand gelassen, ist schnell und tief, etc. At Karalisome antiquities.
22 March. Von Karali in ein dorf Togray (i.e. Dograi on 8. of Porsuk Su, some miles
east of Ak Keuprii). An der strassen ein dorf halb under der erden (1.6. Ugus, named on the return journey, as Kiepert says). Weiter an das gestrige Wasser Kuta kommen, das gegen der linken hand wider durchs land fleusst, dar- uber...wher ein steinen hoche pruggen Ath Kyupri...Weiter uber ein klein muelwasserle zwerchs uber auf die linke hand fliessend, fleusst neben dem dorf Togrei fur.
23 March. Von Togret nach Masut Kiew 4 meil....
The explanation perhaps is:—Along Porsuk Su and across it (therefore the river is left on the left) to Midaion (Karahiiyiik); thence across the Porsuk (which is, therefore, left on right) to Karali and next day by Uyuz Tepe (not Uyuz Hammam on the south side of the river, as Kiepert supposes) to Ak Keuprii by which they again cross Porsuk (which flows towards the left) and over a small tributary to Dograi, whence south-east to Masut keui.
% On map-measurements, see below.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 9]
Dorylaion xviii! Midaion xii Uyuz Tepe xxx Germa. As will appear both from what has been already said and from what follows, the numbers in the Itineraries cannot be trusted without corroborative evidence. It is natural they should get corrupted; the Itineraries rarely agree’ with each other or with themselves (when a route occurs twice).
ὃ 4. VinpiA—The next station on the road after Germa is VINDIA. The Antonine Itinerary gives two accounts of this road (pp. 201-2).
(1) Germa xxxii Vindia xxxii Papira xxvii Ancyra,
(2) Pessinus xvi* Germa xxiili Vinda xxxii Papira xxvii Ancyra.
Vindia, Ptolemy’s Οὐϊνδέα, a city of the Tolistobogioi (v. 4, 7) was probably situated at Kara-eyuk (or hiiyiik, 1.6. ‘Black Mound’), two hours and ten minutes north-west of Basra [Basri] keui, where a low square- shaped mound of enormous extent (perhaps a mile or more in circum- ference), strewn with fragments of late pottery, marks the site of an important ancient city. The little village at the foot of the eyuk is pleasantly situated near the head of a plain which runs down to the Railway and contains some fairly fertile arable land,—a rare thing in this neighbour- hood. The country through which the road passes between the Sangarios and Angora is, as Hamilton says, ‘ perfectly uncultivated; no traces of vegetation were visible except in the dried-up stems of a few thorny plants and flowers, which cover the ground instead of grass.’ The description may be extended to the whole Haimane-country : ‘there are no gardens here, it is all desert,’ as a Turk of Balik-koyundji wearily said to us.
The village of Kara-eyuk is full of old stones, and the mosque is entirely built of squared blocks. Inscriptions were not forthcoming here, but they are to be found in the surrounding villages; at Basra is the Latin inscription copied by Prof. Ramsay (C.1.L. iii. Suppl. 6770), a dedication by the soldiers of a cohort to C. Julius Verus Maximus, son of Maximin (A.D. 235-8), and two fragmentary epitaphs not worth publishing; at Beydjaz a defaced epitaph of no importance ; and beside the ¢ekke of a ruined village forty minutes over the hills from Hadji Toghrul* are the following inscriptions engraved on the four sides of an altar-stone.
72, A. (A). OEOICL Θεοῖς
KATAXO ON//; Καταχθον[ίοις ΚΑΙΑΙΛΘ᾽ LYM! καὶ Αἰλ(ίᾳ) Συμφ[ερού- ΕΠ ΤΗΝΕ ad PMT one τῆι σώφρονι ΚΑΙ φ ΠΟΤΕ ἢ -. καὶ φιλοτέϊκνωι AIALOLCAY ΙΑ , Αἴλιος Αὐκ[τιανὸς 7 (or Aux-) IAOETOPFIAL φιλοστοργίας KAIMNEIMIIC Kal μνήμης EMERGN, ἕνεκεν. “2 So Ramsay, H.G. p. 888; 86 km. accord- Ἧ XV according to Life of 8. Theodore (Mv.
ing to the railway survey, which comes to the ‘AyoA.), Ρ. 450. same, 3 Situated 4 h. north-west of Kara-eyuk (325°).
92 nn & Ὁ
B.C). XAIPEMOIMH TEPTAYKYTA THK AIQPON TIZETEHMON OCAZNNEKPOIC
C. Small letters, faint.
METELTHEICTOXPEON
M TADYIWOYPITWKAI
ΓΆΡΡΙω TOYAENTIYIIA
ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΊΖ: ΚΛΛΊΟΥΝΙ - ΩΝ
(A).
ANDERSON.
Χαῖρε μοι μῆ- τερ γλυκυτά- τὴ καὶ φρον-
τίζετε ἡμῶν
ὅσ[α ἐν νεκροῖς.
Μετέ[ στη εἰς τὸ χρεών,
Μ. Γαουίῳ ᾿Ο[ρ]φέτῳ καὶ
Γ. ᾿Αρρίῳ ἸΠούδεντε ὑπά-
τοις, πρὸ ιζ΄ καλ(ανδῶν) ᾿Ιουνί- ων.
Μ. Gavius Orfitus and Z. Arrius Pudens were consuls in 165 a.D. The use of the dative as the equivalent of the Latin ablative absolute occurs, for
instance, in the Monumentum Ancyranum i. 1.
The phrase μετέστη εἰς TO
χρεὼν seems to mean ‘ departed this life’ like Plato’s ἐέναι εἰς τὸ χρεών.
D. (A). YYXH
FAYKYTA THXAIPE
Ψυχὴ γλυκυτά- τη, χαῖρε.
As nearly as I can estimate, the distance of Kara-eyuk from Colonia
Germa is about xxxv MP. which is not far off the xxxii of the Antonine Itinerary. Measurements on the map are not to be relied upon, for the villages in this district are not placed with accuracy.”
§ 5. PaprraA—Lastly comes PAPIRA, which we feel confidence in identifying with an important site on and around a hillock immediately behind the village Balik-koyundji (or Kuyumdji 5), five and a half hours south- west of Angora. Here we found several fragments of primitive pottery (hand- made red-faced Cypriote, a handle of an early painted bowl, etc., which are discussed in Part I. § 2), and numerous traces of a later settlement, which show that the town had a continued existence down through Byzantine
times. trachyte pillar, beginning with the decorated with a large cross down the
2 (Kara-eyuk.
Beydjaz 1 ἢ. 15 m. Miilk 7 ἢ. (so also Hamilton). Babadat ca. 5 miles. Karadja Pasha Oren 1 h. giving a total of 323 English miles (53 km.).
2 They are still less accurate in Von Diest’s new map, here a reproduction of Kiepert’s. Compare note above.
3 Balik koyundji=‘Shepherd’s town,’ balik
The only inscription found on the site is a late Christian one on a
usual formula ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε and middle of the stone; on the rocks on
being an old word for ‘town’ which survives in numberless place-names. This is the name generally assigned, but the pronunciation we heard was distinctly Kwywmdji, and so Tchihat- cheff and Hamilton have it. Kuwyuwmdji=gold- or silver-smith, [We were told that the first element of the name was Bali which was said
by our Greek servant to be, like Pali and Bavlo, ~
a Turkish form of Paul, but this is doubtful. Pali in place-names generally = παλαιός.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 93
the north-east side of the hill some crosses are cut; and in the village we saw a large sarcophagus lid, a stone with a cross in relief, very similar in general appearance to a ‘ door-stone,’! and several other blocks. A cemetery situated a few minutes south-west of the village contains numerous remains, amongst them the following milestone, which has probably been carried a few miles, seeing that it gives the number XXIV and Balik-koyundji is not more than five and a half hours from Angora."
ΤΈΣ ΤΑ
IMPCAESARIDI VITRAIANIPARTHICIFDI
Imp. Caesari di- vi Traiani Parthici f(uio), di-
VINERVAENEPOTITRA vi Nervae nepoti Tra- IANOHADRIANOAVG iano Hadriano Aug(usto) PONTMAXTRPOTV! pont. max. tr. pot. WI. COSITIPERALARGI cos IIT. per A. Larei- VMMACEDONEM wm Macedonem LEG AVG PR PR leg. Aug. pr. pr. M xxiv M(ilia) XXIV.
According to our identifications, the distance of Papira from Vindia (Kara-eyuk) would be about xx ΜΡ. and from Ancyra about xviii. The Antonine Itinerary gives xxxii and xxvii respectively, which are impossible. The sum of its distances from Ancyra to Germa is, on the lowest estimate, 83 miles, which cannot be accepted [Sivri Hissar is not above 72 English miles from Angora (24 hours)]; my estimates make it 74, and Hamilton's milestone at Miilk, which doubtless had been carried some distance, has ᾿σΣτὶ,
The eighth milestone from Angora is now at Aladja-atli, three hours to the south-west of the city. It is mostly underground and we did not think it worth while waiting to excavate it. It can easily be completed from the examples already given.
14. Aladja-atli, in a cemetery. (A.).
COs ΠΙ PERA:LARCIVMMA CEDONIMLEGAVG PR..PR M VIII For the other milestones belonging to the road, compare Hist. Geog. p. 2384
1 On this feature, see below under ‘ Galatian Civilisation.’ 7 "2 So'Sir C. Wilson Handbook p. 18, We took 5h. 20 τη. going vid Aladja-atli. 3 Reckoned 6 houirs, 1,6: 18 miles ; from Balik
Koyundji to Beydjas is 6 hours according to Hamilton.
4 But no. (5) does not seem to belong to this road. It was found one hour to the south of Angora. See below, vii. § 1.
94 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
§ 6. ΒΙΟΥΚΙΟΝ and Pé10on.1—In the twelfth book of his Geography (c. 5, p. 567) Strabo tells us that in the territory of the Tolistobogioi there were two castella, Βλούκιον and Tyov, the former of which was the royal seat of Deiotarus and the latter his treasury. Now we learn from Cicero’s Oration pro rege Deiotaro (cc. 6-7) that on his march westwards from Zela in Pontus, Caesar arrived at a castellum of Deiotarus which the MSS. call Lucetwm. Here, according to his accusers, the Galatian king had laid a plot to assassinate him; but he postponed it to the followmg day, when Caesar would reach another castellum, to which the MSS. also give the name Luceium, It is generally recognised that Zuceiwm is an error for Blucvwm and that the name of one of the two castles has supplanted the other by a scribe’s mistake. Halm (in his later editions), C. F. W. Miiller, and others follow Wagner in making Péion the first and Bloukion the second, on the ground that the valuable gifts which Deiotarus had prepared for Caesar were probably laid out at Péion, which was his treasury (γαζοφυλάκιον).
But it is obviously more probable that Bloukion? was the first (7.e. more easterly) castellum, for it is more likely that the name of the first should linger in the scribe’s memory and supplant the second than that the second should supplant the first; and Deiotarus might very well bring the gifts to the first castle that Caesar visited in order to make a good impression on him at the outset. In any case it is certain that Deiotarus did not admit Caesar to his own treasure-chamber but set out the gifts in a special room.
Now as tothe line of Caesar's march, we know from Cicero, Dion Cassius (xlii, 48-9) and the Bellum Alexandrinum (c.'78), that it led from Zela to Bithynia and passed right across the country of the Tolistobogioi. The latter fact shows that Caesar did not travel by the later Pilgrims’ route ; and practically there is no doubt that he took the road by Vindia, Germa, and Dorylaion. The only doubt is whether he passed through Ancyra or Gorbeous (Castor’s stronghold, see below vii § 3); but as no allusion is made to Castor, Ancyra was probably his last halting-place in the country of the Tektosages. Thence he marched to Bloukion, which we identify with Assarli-Kaya, a fine Gallic fortress a short distance south of Balik-Koyundji (Papira);* and next day he reached Péion, which may perhaps be the ruined castle lying a few minutes’ walk E.S.E. of the village Basra (Basri). His marches were not very long, as he had time to bathe ΓΝ dine comfortably each day. Moreover, he had certain arrangements to make with Deiotarus.
§ 7. GorDION and the ROYAL ROAD.—The famous city GoRDION has to all appearance been rightly identified by Dr. Korte with a very old site on the Sangarios, opposite the village Pebi, a little to the north of the road we have been describing.* The situation of the town, the discovery of remains there belonging to the ‘ Trojan ᾿ civilisation, the ‘ Hittite’ Telief found by αι us
1 This section was suggested to me is Prof. Peter ΕΝ, pp- 215, 974.
Ramsay. * Athen. Mitth. 1897, p. 1 ff. (espec. p. * So Kayser, Sauppe, Klotz, ete. 19 ff.). We did not visit the site, but one * The castle beside Istanos is less probable. obtains a fair view of it from the railway.
On Assarli-kaya compare Hamilton, i. p. 432:
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 95
at Yarre (Part 1. ὃ 3), and the primitive site at Balik-koyundji, show (as has been pointed out in Part I. § 5) that this road was a very old one, and that there is now no need to suppose that the ROYAL ROAD made a détowr by Giaour Kalési, the splendid prehistoric fortress with ‘ Hittite’ sculptures discovered by M. Perrot ;! but that, in all probability, after crossing the Sangarios beside Kavundji Keuprii (‘melon-seller’s bridge’), it took the direct and natural route to Ancyra, which was afterwards followed by the Roman road.
IV. The alternative roud by Giaour Kalési.
§ 1. Myrika.— But the existence of Giaour Kalési shows that the alternative route from the Sangarios to Ancyra was likewise an important one in the earliest times. This road crosses over rolling country to the oasis of the Haimane,? the valley at the southern end of which lies Hammam, the merkez (governmental centre) of this whole region, prettily situated at the head waters of a stream which flows north-west to join the Angora river. Hammam owes its importance largely to its healthy situation and to its hot springs, which were in old time the Therma of the Myrikenoi.’ It is, how- ever, quite a modern town, and MYRIKA (in later times called Hagios Agapetos) lay about three miles down in the valley beside Kadi keui. An exaet parallel may be found in the case of Hieropolis in the Phrygian Pentapolis, which lay about two miles from the hot springs to which it owes its importance (CB. ii. p. 679 f£).4 At Kadi keui there are numerous ruins of all kinds both in the village and in the cemetery. Besides sepulchral stelaz and ‘doorstones’ and squared blocks innumerable, we saw no end of stones suitable for Christian architecture,—moulded blocks, and short pillars of the characteristic Byzantine shape with capitals to match. Several of these have crosses cut on them. In the cemetery are some inscriptions now almost entirely illegible, one with the ‘ Constantinian’ monogram Ἔ within a circle, another decorated with a rosette and beginning Adp. Διομήδης «.7.r. In the village we found only one :
75. Large letters. Very much worn. (A.).
AYPHAI Αὐρήλι- OCTIEKO os Llexo- YAPIOC υάριος THELYTO¥ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ CYNBIW συνβίῳ AYPHAIA//// Αὐρηλίᾳ TIAPGENW /:// Παρθένῳ NANEC~//// «ἀνέσ[τη- CEN ΜΝΜΠ] σεν μυΐή- MHCXAPIN μης χάριν. 1 Hist. Geog. p. 31. Sangarios well over to the Halys. ἜΣ
3 Haimane {-- " Waste’) is the modern name 3 On Myrika Hist. Geog. p. 226. of the country south-west of Angora from the 4 Cf. also Mnizos above, i. § 5.
96 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
To Myrika belongs also the interesting inscription of Kara-khodja published by Ramsay J.HLS. v. p. 253.
Both here and at the neighbouring village Erif we noted the Mén-cres- cent on altar-stones; and half an hour to the north of Gerrim are the foundations and one or two courses of a small temple, doubtless of Mén, the great god of the district. The blocks are very large, but it looks as if the building had never been finished.
From Kadi keui the road passes over a ridge to Dere keui, from which there are two roads to Angora, one passing by Giaour Kalési (20 min. north west of the village) and the other by Oyadja; both coalesce again a short distance below Hadjilar. Six minutes over the stream from Dere keui there is a small fort on a hill which mses above the valley to twice the height of Giaour kalési (300 ft. x 150 ft.). The pottery found here (see Part I. § 2) shows that it belongs to about the same period as Giaour kalési, of which it was doubtless an outpost commanding the alternative route to Angora. A few courses of the walls remain in places and cuttings for the stones are visible in the rocks. The masonry is of the usual kind: unhewn blocks of no great size are laid Cyclopean-wise in rough courses, and the interstices are filled with smaller stones, the whole being backed in the same way. Traces of foundation walls may be seen in the centre of the fort.
§ 2. AnpRona.—The road hence to Angora crosses the ridge on the north of the valley and passes over the undulating plateau by the side of a high ridge on the east to Topakli, which lies down in a hollow (23 h. from Dere keui). At Topakli there is a certain number of remains, much weather- worn. Its ancient name was ANDRONA according to the following inscription which we were fortunate enough to find. We should like to identify Androna? with Ptolemy’s *Avépos, a town of the Tolistobogioi, whose territory seems to have extended well over towards Angora.
76. In the mosque floor: small altar-stone. The letters are well cut.
Mnvi ᾿Ανδρωνη- TPOTTOZ KAIBEA Τρόπος καὶ Béd- AAEYXHN λα εὐχήν. ᾿
Τρόπος at Hermione, (΄.1.6. 1220. Bella isa Celt (Holder Sprachsch. s.v. Bellus), and her husband a Celt with a Hellenized name. The inser. is interesting for the social history of Galatia (see below).
1 Possibly “Avipws, -wvos is the name.
EXPLORATION: IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 97 77, Ina wall, (A.).
The monogram shows this inseription is not earlier than the [Vth cent. after Christ (cf. CZ. ii. p. 739).
V. Some inscriptions of Ancyra.
Our most important finds in the Angora valley were the two lion-reliefs d:scribed in Part I. ὃ 4. At Angora itself we copied a few inscriptions, which may be given here! The first is a quaint set of hieroglyphies which some reader may perhaps be able to interpret. The stone is lodged in the Consulate, whither it was brought by Mr. Cumberbatch, now H.B.M. Consul- General at Smyrna.
78.
The others are a series of Byzantine inscriptions. They are not worth an epigraphic text.
79. Hadji Abdul Pasha tchiftlik (ca. } hr. south-west of Angora), in the cemetery.
[{ Ὀνθ]άδε κεκοί [μητα]ν. ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ | [Θῴεο)ῦ} Acovtios πρεσ [βύ- τ]αιρος καὶ ἡ [[γού]μενος τῆς | [ἐν]θάδε μονῆς [ὁ π]άντων φίλος.
80. In the Zemplum Divi Augusti.
PEvOaSe xexolunt|ar ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ | Θεόδωρος ὁ πάντ] av φίλος ἰνδ(ικτιῶνι) «1, Μαίῳ κγ΄.
1 For another inseription of Ancyra, see no, 95.
HS:——VYOL. XIX, H
98 J. G. C ANDERSON.
Phrases like ὁ πάντων φίλος, πᾶσι ποθητός, ἀνὴρ ποθητός. ctc., are characteristic of Cliristian inscriptions.
The following are all engraved on thin slabs found near the railway station, and have been collected together in the Houck by M. Proestakia.
e a - = lal Ν ΄ ΄ yy 81. + EvOdade κατά] κητε ὁ δοῦλος | τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ ‘TovrAna| vos ὁ ὑποδιά, - κονος ὁ καλῶς | καμὼν τῇ ἐϊ κκλησίᾳ .
, , ΄ a r r b 4 | > ΄ 82. PEvOade κεκύμ ite ὦ δοῦλος τοῦ | Θε(οῦ) ᾿Αναστάσις [" ἐτελεώθη μη(νὸς) Kiav | ovapiov . .. ἐνί(δικτιῶνι) 18".
Ll. 5-6. NYAPIYCTI ENS eae On forms Jike ᾿Αναστάσις for ᾿Αναστάσιος, cf. J H.S. 1898, p. 118, No. 59. Does (ΓῚ mean avy’, year 2191 The form ἐνδικτιὼν sometimes occurs.
83. Ἐ ἔνθα kite | ὁ παρὰ Θεοῦ | κὲ ἀνθρώποις ποθητός], ὃ δοῦλος τοῦ | Θ(εο)ῦ Πλάτων | ὁ κὲ Καλοκόκις.
The person here commemorated is named after the martyr Plato, who suffered near Angora doubtless in the persecution by Diocletian (44. SS. 2 July).
84. “EvOdéde κατάϊκιτε ὁ δοῦλος | τοῦ Θεοῦ ['Iwlayns κοπιαϊτὴς ὁ πάντωΪν φίλος.
Κοπιατὴς =vespillo, 6 τὰ σώματα περιστέλλων τῶν κεκοιμημένων (cf. C.1.G. 9227; Epiphanios (βιέρ. Gr. xli.), ii. 8254; Justinian, Novell. 59, 2).
VI. The Roman road eastwards from Angora,
§ 1. SarmartA.—This road is really a continuation of the Dorylaion- Ankyra road. We explored it only as far as Eccobriga. The line which it followed is not doubtful: indeed, only one line is possible. It runs up the valley of the Engtiri Su (here sometimes called Tabak-khane Su, ie. “tanners’-house river” ?) through gardens and vineyards to Orta keui (2 h. 50 m.). Thirty-five minutes before reaching this village is an old cemetery with a milestone of Severus Alexander (6.1.2. iii. Suppl. 6901). Leaving Orta keui it continues up the glen past a ruined A/dn, a little beyond which the valley opens out into a plain extending up to Hassan Oglu and Idris Dagh. Then it crosses the ridge which separates the water-systems of the Sangarios and the Halys and runs down to Assi (ic. ‘ Rebel’) Yuzgat (about 5 hrs.). About half an hour south-west of this village, at a site called
* There are tanning establishments by its banks in Angora,
EXPLORATION IN: GALATIA CIS ILALY™M, 99
Singur lying near the foot of [πὰ Dagh, we should perhaps place SARMALIA (Ptol, v. 4,5), a town of the Tektosages, called Sarmalius in the Antonine Itinerary. The Itinerary gives this account of the road :—
Ancyra XXIII Bolegaseus XXIITI Sarmalius XX Keobrogis.
The intrusion of Bolegasgus, which lay, as von Flottwell rightly suggests,! beside Balikassat (to which it has bequeathed its name) on the direct road to Gangra, mod. Kanghry or Tehangry, supplies a curious parallel to the intru- sion of Manegordos in the Pilgrims’ Road (above I. § 2). If we simply cut it out, we get 24 Mp as the distance of Sarmalia from Aneyra, which agrees excellently with the situation of Stingir2 The ruins there are absolutely characterless. absolutcly devoid of worked stones; but how few of the cities of the interior have now any character left them! Yuzgat however contains some of the remains of Sarmalia,—a sitting lion poorly executed, but not much worse than the other specimens of this class in Angora itself (Perrot Exploration p. 268, and Plate XT.), in the cemetery near Orta keui, or at Tcheshnir keuprii; a font ornamented with a cross, bunch of grapes, ete. ; 3yzantine capitals; a fair number of building blocks, and some marbles. Ouly one inscription :
85. Ona lintel-piece now used as a trough for the fountain,
CTKAKALEIOCANEXSANAPOLKATA
ATA@HKACEKEAEYCENOHLLION
TEN COAIKALCIAKYPIAAACYITAFE
ΚΑΙΓΕ TIAALAKAAYAIAEIKTONKATA AIA BLOXHKARONOMOLETIOIHAN
ΓΙΚλ(αύδιος) Κάσσιος Ἀλέξανδρος κατὰ διαθήκας ἐκέλευσεν τὸ ἡρώιον γενέσθαι: ἸΚασσία Κυρίλλα θυγάτηρ καὶ ᾿ετιλλία KXavdla ἐκγόνη κατὰ διαδοχὴν κληρονόμοι ἐποίησαν.
L. 4. Perhaps [ΠΠετιλλία.
§ 2. ᾿ Eccorrica.—Leaving Assi Yuzgat the road descends sharply over broken ground to Kilidjlar in the pretty valley of the Tabanli Su (Tchukurt- chek Dere) which is separated from the Halys by a high ridge (1h. 56 m.). There is a direct horse-road over this spur to the Halys but the road for wheeled traffic has to ascend the Tabanli Su for 35 minutes and then turn up a dere, whence the crossing is not very difficult, even without an
1 Aus dem Stromgehiet des Qyzyl Irmak 2 Assi Yuzgat is abcut 37 km. (23 m.) from (Halys), Petermann’s Mitth., Hrganzungsheft, — Angora. no. 114.
HZ
100 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
enginecred road. We descend on the Halys below Yakshi khan (which is reached in 3 hours). The bed of the river is sandy and its blue waters spread out to a width of 100 yards, so that in summer it is easily fordable, though in winter and spring a ferry-boat has to be used.* An hour beyond Yakshi khan on the road leading to Nefez keui (Tavium) there is a very ancient site on a conical hill rising to the height of 150 feet, called Kiiriik kalé (more correctly Kiiriighin kalé, i. the castle of Kiiriik keui, which lies a short distance to the north). Naturally it is much washed by centuries of rain, but foundations of walls are still visible, especially on the north side. The slopes are covered with fragments of pottery and we secured several pieces of the greatest importance, which leave no doubt as to the antiquity of the site (Part I. § 2). That this was the ancient ECCOBRIGA seems almost beyond question. The distance, about 19 miles (30 kim.), corresponds admirably with the xx ΜΡ of the Itinerary; and the name suits the site excellently (on briga, ‘hill’ or ‘ fortress’, sce above 1. § Ὁ). Thata settle- ment existed here down through Graeco-Roman times is proved by the numerous fragments of late whecl-made pottery; we saw, for example, a dark-red painted base of late fabric, the rim of a large flat bowl (brown inside, red outside) perhaps Hellenistic, impressed ware and late black ware.
VII. The roads from Ancyra to Cacsarvein and Arehelais vid Parnassos.
§ 1. All the roads converging on Angora. from.south and south-east coalesced at a point about 20 miles before reaching the city (just below Tchakal keui) and followed the line of the modern chwussée runnimg up the ‘east side of Mohan Gidl, passing between it and Emir Gidl, and then crossing the mountains on the west side of the conical peak of Tchal Dagh. No road could cross by the north-east side of Emir Gidl. Remains of the Roman road are to be seen on both slopes of the hill. M. Perrot tells how dans cette gorge [on the north side] on trouve @importants débris dune τοῖο romaine, que le chemin moderne longe pendant plus dune heure. Jai en ar rarement vu une aussi bien conservée. Elle a, la ot je la mesure, dans le ravin, 5 métres de largeur.2. These remains are still visible (cf. Wilson Handbook p- 32). On the southern slope of the hill we saw further traces of the old road close to the chaussée on the west side. In a vineyard on the northern side is a milestone of Alexander Severus, copied by Perrot (CLL. iit. 316). ;
The most important of the southward routes are the Roman roads to Archelais (Ak Serai), which afterwards became the Pilgrims’ route, and to Caesareia-Mazaka.* These coincided as far as Parnassos. We first give a Table showing the accounts given by the Itineraries.
1 Cf. Sir C. Wilson op. cit. p. 20. 3. Hist. Geoy. p. 254 ff. : see also under the 2 Exploration, p. 279. various names.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 101
ANION, ITLN. J). 206. Anton, Trin, p. 145, Junus. Ivin, Peutincer Tanve.!
Ancyra | Ancyra Ancyra [Aucyra]
| mut. Delemna X
Ι Ἢ r rar r ! / Gorbeous X XIII Corbeunca XX, mans. Curveunta XI Corueunte XXII
Orsologiaco XVIII Rosolaciaco X11 mut. Rosolodiaco XI] ς Garmias XII
Aspona XX Aspona XXXIII Civ. Aspona XVIII Aspona X
| », Aliassum XIII vl. XXX mut. Galea XIII
», Andrapa IX Finis Gal. et Capp.
Parnasso ΧΧΠ Parnasso XXIII | mans. Parnasso XIIL | Aspasi XH |
§ 2. DitmnraA.—The first station? given only by the Jerusalem Itinerary under the corrupt form Delemna, was called DILIMNIA, as we know from an inscription of Ancyra published by Dr. von Domaszewski (Arch. Epig. Mitth. aus Osterr. 1885, p. 115).
Its name shows it was situated beside the two lakes Emir Giél and Mohan Gio]. The exact site is in all probability beside Orendjik, a village near the head of Mohan Gi6l, where there is ἃ considerable number of remains, mostly late in character (including a fragment of a statue, sarcophagus lids, altars, pillars, Byzantine columns, ete.) ; the natives also told us that they dig up pottery, tiles, and stones, in and beside the village. The distance from Angora is about 104 miles (17 km.):* this would give xi mp., while the Jerus. Itin. has x. In a cemetery opposite the end of Emir Giél, we saw a broken pillar with a worn fragment of an inscription,
86. (A.). ΠΠΠΠ{{Π|Π| LEG III XIII
Fifty-three minutes south of Orendjik, at the village Kara-oglan, there is a mound (cywk) with a profusion of ceramic fragments representing a primitive site, as is proved by the pieces of unpainted, red-faced Cypriote pottery which we picked up there. But if we pay any respect to the numbers of the Itinerary—there is nothing else to guide us, and we have found its distances not often far out—we cannot identify this site with Dilimnia. The
1 ‘In the Table the stations are put in the 3 As nearly as I can estimate ; it is reckoned reverse order, so that Corueunte is next to 4 hours by the villagers, but the hill has to be Archelais’ (//ist. Geog. p. 254). crossed,
° Hist. Geog. p. 251.
102 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
fragments of Byzantine architecture in the cemetery-—moulded and squared blocks, short columns, ete.—have been carried from Dilimnia (Orendjik).
§ 3. GorBEous.—Twelve minutes east of Tchakal keui, as we have already indicated, there is a parting of ways to cast, and south-east, and south—the Roman roads to Archelais and to Cacsareia, the road from Angora to the Halys joining the great military road of Byzantine times, and a road down the west side of the Salt Lake Tatta, all diverge here. This, then, was a most important strategical poimt, and near it lay GORBEOUS (Γορβεοῦς), the royal seat of Castor, wlio was slain there by Deiotarus (64-40 B.c.); τὸ δὲ φρούριον κατέσπασε καὶ διελυμήνατο TO πλεῖστον τῆς κατοικίας (Strabo, p.568). The exact site of the town it seems impossible to discover, Prof. Ramsay placed it near Beinam,! a village three miles east of Tchakal, and we cannot get much nearer than this. There is a fair number of remains here, and when we asked for a ‘site’ the villagers could only point to a spot with a fountain, about ten minutes south-east of the village, called XAilisse Buner (‘Church Fountain’) for no reason now apparent. Considering how often the term Asse is used to denote an ancient site, it seems quite probable that Gorbeous was situated here. The distance from Orendjik agrees very well with the Itinerary. I estimate it at about 11 miles (18 km.) or xii Mp. This would give xxiii as the whole distance from Ancyra vid Dilimnia; but the distance straight along the road would of course be rather less, and so the xxii of the Peutinger ‘Table may be right. The exact number is of little importance: it is impossible to estimate distances to a nicety, and no unbiassed reader who looks at the discrepancies | between the four Itineraries will be disposed to place much confidence in the precise numbers given by any of them.
There are some stones at Tchakal keui, which belong to Gorbcous, and we found three milestones in the cemetery.
87: (Ae)
Ι NA P ΓΛ = SA R rb | γι ν Es PAS { A Lip. Caesar dirt Vespasta- NI 4 LM BONAL F0////AVG PON ni | f. Domitianus| Aug. pont. MAX 7/7 GALEN TINGS I Nu DES mein, [trub. pot. cos Χ7.111.] des. ΙΧ: IMPE RAT ORE ee EER LX, imperator [11] per
TE A. amy aif.
A-CAESENN1\ VM ALLVM? : A. Cacsenniwm Callum
COsXKVPABTCOR ι PR. (leg. Aug. pro] pr.
VIASTLORER AAY ¥//// GALATIAE vias [provinciarum] Galatiae CAPPADOCIAE PONTIPISLDIAE Cappadocine Ponti Pisidiae PAPHLAGONIAELYCAONIAE Paphlagoniae Lycaoniae ARMENIAE MINO/Ii’'S-S AVIT? Armeniac Mino[r]is st(r)avit
MIL Bb Ὑ jn Mil(ia) XV.
' Hist. Geog. p. 255, ἄς, He seems right in ΤΉ with Gorhcous Constantine’s "Axap- kovs (error for "AxapBows), γ».ὄ 216.
EXPLORATION IN GALATLA CIS ILALYM. L03
The centre of the stone was crased and a rudely engraved inscription to Valentinian and Valens was then scratched on it, the result being an Allegible chaos. We can make out Lonae Lolrtunace Fl.) Valentinafano et Fl. Vulent(i). ...
A. Caeseunius Gallus was legate of the province Galatia under Titus and Domitian [Wroth, BAL Catalogue of Gal. cite. p. 49, Mionnet Suppl. vii. p. 663]; sec CLL. iti. 312 and 318, which attest his energy in making or repairing the roads. On the extent of the province at this time, see Hist. (reog. pp. 253-4, The enumeration of the different countries included in the province is merely for the sake of clearness. The number of ΜΡ is not certain; it might be any one between xv and xviii.
Ace ia).
WPL CYL I[m]|p. Clvesari DIVITRAIAN////AR divt Traian{t P\ar- TICIFDIVINERVAE {(ἡ γι Ζ(μιυ), divi Neveu NEPOTITRAIANO nepoli, Traiane HADRIANOAVGPONT MHadriano Aug. pont. MAXTRPOTVICOS max, tr, pot. WI. cos, IIIPERALARCIVM 117]. per A. Lareiwm MACEDONIMLEG Maecedonem leg. AVGPRPR Aug. pr. pr.
XXV KE AXV xe’.
89. (A,).
_ BEFDN Bonae) Mortunac) D(omino) N(ostro). IMPCAESLDON // Imp. Caes(ari) L. Dom/(itio) AVRELIANO Aureliano
PF INVICTO 7... invicto AVG Aug. [HIV TS
δ 4. OrsoLocia (RosoLocia).—The road now runs south to Aghaboz, at the head of the valley of the Tabanli Su, which flows north-east to join the Halys below Yakshi Khan. For three quarters of an hour south-eastwards from Aghaboz the vggcer of the old road! may be easily traced and near the village the lateral confining blocks (margines) still remain, though they arc gradually being removed by peasants in search of building material. To all appearance the road was a macadanused one (glarea strata): there is no trace of any flag pavement (οὐ ον, lapis)? In two hours and a quarter from Aghaboz we reach Hadji Izzet Bey tehi/tlik, which lies a little off the line of the road ; and nineteen minutes behind it (north-west), there is a large mound (hiiyiih),
1 Noted by Prof. Ramsay, 7.G. p. 255. article already quoted (2.G.S. Supp. Papers. 2 Cf. Mr. Hogarth’s excellent remarks ἃ iii. p. 42-3). propos of the Caesarcia-Melitene road in the
104 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
shaped like an oblong rounded at the ends, marking the ancient site of the third station from Ancyra. The name occurs in the Itineraries under the forms Orsologiaco or Rosolodiaco, in Ptolemy (ν. 4, 8) as Ροσολογία or ᾽Οροσολογία. Perhaps the form ORSOLOGIA accounts best for these variants. The pottery found here,—unpainted hand-made Cypriot and early painted fragments decorated with lines, side by side with white slip ware and brown painted and late black ware,—proves the continuous existence of a settlement here from the earliest times. The distance from the previous station, about four hours or 12 miles (under 20 km.) ic. xiii MP., is near enough to the xii of the Anton. and Jerus. Itineraries.
There are a few old stones at the tchiftlik, but many more at Karali, a village lying an hour and a quarter north-west! on the slopes of the ridge wee runs south-eastwards between Tchakal and Tol. Here there are two milestones,
90. Onasmall column. (A.). MANO LA ume eo [πη Coes. Te Abii MAV Αι PT Ἵ Ἄ I 5 REANTON/iVSAVECOI Ι Hadrianus Antoninus
ore Aug. Pius cos. IIL, RESTITVERVNTE et Imp. Caes.] M. Awr[e\(lius) Anton[injus Aug. cos. 11. ; restituerwnt ΔΛ M(ilia) XXX AA AXNXITIT. X6
The date is probably Jan.—March, 161 a.p.
91. Worn and faint. (A.).
ἢ //N Ρ.[Ν] IMPCAESCAVRVAL Timp. Coes. C. Aur, Val DIOCLETIANVSPFINY Diocletiunus pf. inv. | AVGETIMPCAESM Aug. et Imp. Cacs. 7]. |
erased [Aur. Val. Mavimianis) PFINVAVGABANCYRA p. f. mv. Aug. ab Ancyra MXXXVIHI M(ilia) XXX VIL.
To Orsologia probably belong two inscriptions now at Tol keui (about 1} hrs, to north- -east),
* Reading 335° from the tchiftlik.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 105 92. Inthe fountain. (A.).
WI ANSV HINT
[///ZAMLOY > KAI > ////
MMMM AP MMMMOY>YIQ |
////ZZIAOYANOYYIOS |
|| ὙΣΕΤΙΝΗΠΊΟΌΣΩΝ.
μητρὶ κ AITTATPIFNHEIOIEKAL
ScAOYANOYTOYMATPOS.
AZAIAMYPSINHEHPO |
(50s waMMHEEAYTOYTONBQ |
μὺν aUNTQAEONTIKAITHEAPG | μνήμηΣ ΕΝΕΚΕΝΚΑΙΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΙ
ας. vacat
926. Altar-stone beside the mosque: very faint. (A.),
ere ath ae ETT ATP Ere ὃπρ' HAKEAONKAI Μακεδὼν καὶ ΚΥΦΑΛΕΖΑΝ Κυρί(ώνιος 1) ᾿Αλέξαν[δρος GAY IU ΜΟΝ ΝΣ, Deme με tide, NOCTIAT(( AY ἡ ή:. vos πατρὶ av[ Tov EYCEBEINYW/H///l, εὐσεβεῖ μ[ν]ήϊμης KA Pity χάριν.
If the era is that of the province Galatia, B.c. 25, the date will be 159 A.D.; and in that case we cannot restore A[vp]. in line 8. There is another illegible inscription on the other side.
§ 5. ALtAssos(?) and Aspona.—The further course of the road south- wards is not doubtful. Passing below Abbasli it avoids the mountainous country stretching from Kartal Dagh over towards the Halys and descends along the valley of the Adji Oz stream by a perfectly easy ‘route, which will be the line followed by the Eastern extension of the Chemin de fer Ottoman d’ Anatolic, if the route vii Caesareia to Sivas be the one finally adopted. At the village Avshar (lying 37 minutes west from the valley 1) there are some ancient remains, and amongst them a very badly cut and exceedingly worn miliariwm of Gordian.
2 At the point where we left the valley to 87. minutes from Avshar, 1 h. 44 πὶ, from visit Avshar there is a cemetery with old stones Tchidemli, and reported to be 2h. from Abbasli (including some heavy columns). This point is (which is 1 h. 22 m. from onsoLoera).
106 J: G. C. ANDERSON.
93. (A.).
BE Bona) Fortinae) IMP CAES Imp. Caces. MANTONIO MM. Antonio GORDIANO Gordiano FELICI felicia INVICTOAY ἀν Au- SO8////OCOP ἢ ΝΡ
It is just possible that ALIASsos lay a little way south-east of Avshar where there is an old cemetery on a slight dwmulus, from which we picked up fragments of white slip ware. The distance from Orsologia would be four hours (according to the data given in the previous note), which is almost exactly xiii MP.
Our road crosses the Adji Oz stream on the north-cast of the wretched Tatar village, Karaburun (‘ Black nose’), and crosses undulating ground to Shedit Hiiyiik, where there is an extensive ancient site around the mound which gives the village its name. The fragments of pottery found here are of late character (thin wheel-made picces with red bands on a pink ground, or deep red on a white ground), and the other remains which are to be scen point to late times. Here undoubtedly was Aspona, which had become a bishopric by 344 A.D. As we did not traverse the direct road from Abbasli, I cannot be sure about the exact distance from Orsologia; but it is probably about xxviii MP.,! as against the xxx of one MS. of the Antonine Itinerary. The whole distance from Angora according to our calculations is Lxiv MP. ; the following milestone in the cemetery at Shedit Hiiyiik is numbered Ixv.
94. (A).
IMP)// LVALERIO Imp. [Caes, FV. Valerio CONSTANTINOPFINNG E Constantino pf. inv. Ang. et IMPCAESVAL erased Ne} Imp. Cacs. Val, [ icinia\nio
erased PFIN///VG [ Licinio| p. f. in[v. A Jug. MLXV M(ilia) LXV MZE M((da) Ee’.
This pillar was carried all the way from Angora to be used as a mile- stone, for on the back is the following Inscription :—
" Shedit Hiiyuk reported 7 hours from Ab- 22m. from Orsologia, ὦ 6. altogether about 42 basli (our map shows 36 km.), which is 1h. — or 43 kilometres (26 miles).
EXPLORATION IN GALATLA CIS ILALYM. 107
YD, (A.).
AC AGHTYXH Ayan “Τύχη: KOPNHAIANCA Κορνηλίαν da-
AWNEINAN λωνεῖναν
CEBMHTEPAK AC Σεβ(αστὴν) μητέρα Kao ΤΡΩΝΓΎΥΝΑΙΚΑ 5. τρων γυναῖκα
TOYCEBITAA tov Σεβ(αστοῦ) 1 αλ- AIHNOY } λιηνοῦ p
HMHTP - THCFAAATIAC ἡ μητρ(όπολις) τῆς ᾿αλατίας BNEWK< ΑΓΚΥΡΑ B’ νεωκ(όρος) “Ayxupa.
The dots denote erasures (those in Il. 4, 6, 7 are only partial erasures). ‘To Aspona belongs an inscription copicd by H. Zimmerer (1596) at Hadj Bekir, Σαχλούστιος Εἰρηναῖος Σωτηρίχῳ υἱῷ μ. x. (Durch Syren, Klemmasien, p- 307).
The road we are describing was traversed by Jovian on his return from the Persian War of 363 A.D.) in which Julian lost his life. Aimianus Marcellinus describes his route from Tarsus through Tyana to Aspona (xxv. c. 10): post quac, ut videbutur expedire, disposita apud Aspune Galatiac municipium breve Gullicuni milites visi prineipi, tagressique consistorin, post audita gratanter quae pertulerant, muncrati redire iubentur ad signa. From Aspona he went on to Ancyra, and thence along the Pilgrims’ route to Dadas- tana on the Bithynian border.
§ 6. Parnassos.—The determination of the next section of the road depends on the solution of the problem as to the site of the important city of PARNASSOS, which has been variously placed by Mordtmann at Kir Sheher, by Kiepert at Kotch Hissar, and by Ramsay a little above [south of] Tehikin- aghil on the Halys? (though he recognises that the exact point where it stood can only be determined by an actual inspection of the localities). We had the good fortune to solve this problem. When studying Prof. Kiepert’s Carte générale with a view to the summer’s exploration, we were struck by the name Parlassan, which appears there some distance north of Koteh Hissar: was it a phantom or a reality? Great was our joy to find, as we approached the district, that not only was there such a village in this neigh- bourhood, but that it was reported to be an ancient site. Already before reaching the village we felt sure that we were on the right track, for on either side of Mulkus Obasi keui, a village forty-cight minutes north-west of Parlassan, we noticed what seemed undoubtedly to be the ayger of the old road, although none of the usual lateral blocks were visible. After our arrival, any lingering doubts were soon dispelled. We at ouce saw that the village is built on an ancient site. Immediately behind it is one of those
1 Gibbon, ὁ, xxiv. 2 Hist. Geog. p. 298 f., 255.
108 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
hiiyitks which are legion throughout all this part of the country; and the village and cemetery are full of remains of all kinds—building blocks, marbles, moulded stones, Byzantine pillars, etc. On the λιν we found fragments of black glazed ware imitating Hellenic fabrics, and in the cemetery the following milestone.
96. On a pillar now split. On the edges are fragments of a Latin inscription. (A.).
AY TOKPATOPQNKEC// Αὐτοκράτορ(σὴν Κέσ[αρσι AoYARK WNC TAN τιν Pr. Οὐαλ. Κωνσταντίνῳ erceBieYTYXICE BA// εὐσεβῖ εὐτυχῖ Σεβ. μ[εγίστῳ κὲ
OYAAALKINNIANWAIKYN4/ Οὐαλ. Δικιννιανῷ Δικιυϊνίῳ CYCEBIEYTYXICEBMEFIET/ evoeBi εὐτυχῖ Σεβ. μεγίστί[ῳ,
λλουλλκριςπώ κε /////// Pra. Οὐαλ. Κρίσπῳ κὲ OYMNKINIW KAI Φ AA Οὐαλ. Λικιννίῳ καὶ Pra. κλλυδιωκωνεταντινω Κλαυδίῳ Κωνσταντίνῳ
ent ιφ -ΚΑΙΓΆΡΕΙΝ ἐπιφ(ανεστάτοις) Καίσαρσιν.
γναεαξ : On the left-hand edge is :— //RESTI tucrunt.... //TIS
The reading of line 1 is certain. Perhaps we should understand Αὐτοκρατόρ(ω)ν, (cf. no. 69), genitive for dative. No number was engraved below the Greek inscription. We may compare with it C.1.L. 1. Suppl. 7172, on which Mommsen remarks Offend(it) sane Crispus pro Iulio Valerius appellatus.
Parlassan retains the ancient name Ilapvacaoy (accusative, as usual) with the slight change of » to/ (due to the greater ease of pronunciation). An exact parallel may be found in the case of Modrene in Bithynia, which is now called Mudurlu in popular parlance, while the older form Mudurnu is preserved in the official terminology (cf. Hist. Geog. p. 459): in this case there was doubtless a concurrent cause of modification, viz. the fact that a form with a meaning in Turkish was thereby attained. The village occupies a fine situation near the head of a fertile valley running along the west side of Kara Sengir! Dagh. It is copiously supplied with water, which runs down from the fountains into the valley, and produces a patch of verdure most refreshing to the traveller who has been wandering over the thirsty lands on the north. The distance from Shedit Hiiyiik (Aspona) is just over seven hours, which gives 22 English miles (36 km.), exactly xxiv Roman miles.”
The importance of Parnassos has passed in modern times to Kotch Hissar, the governmental centre (kaimmakamlik) of the district, and many of
! The italicized g is used to signify that the distant from Kotch Hissar and about 5 hours letter is softened down in pronunciation soasto from T'chikin-aghil (the road has to curve round become almost silent. the mountain). The road to Parlassan from
* The village is marked on our map as ac- the north diverges from that leading to Tchikin- curately as our materials permit. Kiepert’s aghil at a point 1 h. 33 m. before reaching the position is much too far west. It is 2-3 hours former.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 109
the ruins have been carried thither. Hamilton copied two inscriptions there (C.2.G@. 4196-7) and saw‘ many fragments of columns, of white and variegated marble, and other architectural sculpture, but all apparently Byzantine... . In the mosque there were some columns of greater antiquity as well as many marble blocks.’
Parnassos thus lay about 6 (English) miles away from the Halys. We see, therefore, that Prof. Ramsay came as near the truth as was possible without exploration. His localization of the city depended chiefly on a passage in Polybius (xxv ὁ. 4) which describes the march of EKumenes and Attalos from Galatia to join Ariarathes in an expedition against Pharnakes, King of Pontos, who threatened to invade Cappadocia: παραγενόμενοι δ᾽ ἐκ Καλπίέτου [unknown] πεμπταῖοι πρὸς τὸν “Αλυν ποταμόν, ἑκταῖοι πάλιν ἀνέζευξαν εἰς ἸΙαρνασσόν' ἔνθα καὶ Λριαράθης, ὁ τῶν Καππαδοκῶν βασιλεύς, συνέμιξεν αὐτοῖς μετὰ τῆς οἰκείας δυνώμεως, καὶ ἦλθον eis τὴν Κάμησον [Μωκισσέων coniccit Reiske| χώραν. This seemed to prove that the road from Galatia to Cacsareia touched the Halys, a day’s march north of Parnassos ; and when this inference was combined with the fact that south- wards from Nyssa (the next city on this route) the road went along the Halys, the case appeared to be complete. Now the road as we have determined it does not actually touch the river north of Parnassos, though it is not far distant from it. Yet the line of march followed by Eumenes and Attalos becomes perfectly natural—necessary, we may say—when we remember the great scarcity of water in the country below Aspona. Eumenes would not pitch his camp on the waterless plain, when the river was so near.
Parnassos was the meeting-point of the roads from Archelais and from Caesareia. The line of the former road is perfectly clear, but we could not explore it. We may, however, mention for the benefit of some future traveller that an old site with many remains was reported to us at Yagmur Hiiyiik, five hours south of Devekowan, a village on the road [which we afterwards passed] reported to be about six hours from Parlassan.?
ὃ 7. Nyssa.—We, however, explored the road to Caesareia for some distance to try and discover the site of Nyssa. The road wends round the bottom of Kara Sengir Dagh by Palas keui (25 m.), Ishekli (37 m.), [where we copied a fragmentary inscription on a small sarcophagus ... ACEBH//«ai μήτε γῆ αὐτῷ Baty μήτε θάλασσα] πλωτή .. .1, Haidarli (15 m.), Deliler (23 m.) Obasi Yeni Yapan (1 ἢ. 8 m.) to Demirdji keui (20 m.), and then passes over the edge of the plateau, west of Sari Agatch* to Boghaz keui (2 h.) where it emerges into the plain. Between Yeni Yapan, which lies five minutes to the north of the road, and Demirdji keui is the site of a Byzantine village on a low mound ; a sarcophagus and a few other remains
1 Two hours by road according to the owan, Kiirimini, Sofular, Oimagatch, Boyuk,
villagers. and Kutchuk Boyalik (the last three under 2 This road was described to us as going over Ekedjik Dagh). Petchinek Ovassi [immediately south of Par- 3 Pronounced Sariash (in Oberhummer’s re-
lassan] and passing Kadyndjik, Fadilli, Devek- cent map wrongly named ‘Sari Yaghdschy ᾽).
110 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
still le on it, but the stones have been carried to Yeni Yapan, where there are numerous slabs and other stones with Byzantine decorations (also two fragmentary Byzantine inscriptions), and to Demirdyji.!
Nyssa must, I think, be identified with the site now called Bazirgian Hiiyiik, in the plain an hour east of Boghaz keui, where. there are remains on and around two hillocks. These are called hiiyiikler? but like several others (e.g. Parlassan) they are not strictly tumuli or tels but rather hillocks on and round which the town was built and which doubtless served as a kind of acropolis. The larger of the two is about 80 or 90 feet high. Its slopes have been washed bare by centuries of rain, but slight traces of foundations may still be seen. The fragments of pottery found here are umimportant,—white slip ware, one wheel-made fragment with a black line on a white ground. At the foot of the smaller hiiyiik there is a deserted Turkish cemetery—a common characteristic of ancient sites,—full of old stones, amongst which is an inscription (probably Christian) too much worn to be intelligible ; and in the villages around there are remains enough to stock the site, but any inscribed stones we saw were almost entirely illegible. Half an hour south-east there is an ancient cemetery (Gadour mezarlik) with some remains. The distance from Parlassan is a little over six hours, which represents xx Roman miles. The Antonine Itinerary p. 206 gives Aspona xxil Parnasso xxiili Nyssa. On p. 144 Parnassos is xxiili from Aspona (agreeing with our estimate) so that perhaps the numbers have got inter- changed.
From the evidence contained in a letter of Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. vi. ed. Migne, t. 46, p. 1034) Prof. Ramsay placed Nyssa on the bank of the Halys. Gregory 1s narrating his return,—clearly from the direction of Caesareia,*-- to Nyssa about 378 A.D (after his exile). After passing ’Eapoods, a rainstorm began to gather but he reached Οὐεστηνὴ (v.l. -τίνη) without getting wet. Then the storm burst, but after three or four hours it ceased and he set out again καὶ τὸ ὄχημα εὐδρομώτερον ἑαυτῷ (v./. οὔ) ἢ πρόσθεν ἦν, ἐν ὑγρῷ τε καὶ ἐπιπολαίῳ τῷ πηλῷ τοῦ τροχοῦ δι᾽ εὐκολίας ἐνολισθαίνοντος. “Kart δὲ ὁδὸς ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἐπὶ τὴν πολίχνην ἡμῶν πᾶσα ἐπιπο- τάμιος, κατὰ ῥοῦν συγκατιοῦσα τῷ ὕδατι, χωρία τε συνεχῆ περὶ τὰς ὄχθας τοῦ ποταμοῦ, παρόδια τὰ πάντα καὶ οὐ πολλῷ τῷ μέσῳ ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων διῳκισμένα, κιτιλ. But this description is quite compatible with the position we have assigned to Nyssa, about four miles from the Halys, just at the point where the modern road to Kessik-keuprii turns towards the river. The city would of course extend some way towards the Halys and its gardens probably ran down quite close to its banks. Gregory’s twentieth epistle was written from a garden at the riverside. We did not travel as far as Kessik-keuprii, but we could not hear of any ruins in that neighbourhood ;
' From Demirdji Tchikin-aghil reads 346°. word.
* TFiiyiik and eyuk have the same meaning ; 3 Cf κατὰ ῥοῦν συγκατιοῦσα Ke. quoted but hiiyiik is the term used all over this below. country, while farther west eyk is the ordinary
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS ILALYM. 111
and unless someone finds a more suitable site for Nyssa we must accept this identification, which appears to meet the facts of the case satisfactorily.
It. seems necessary to infer from Gregory’s narrative that the Roman road after leaving Nyssa ran along the riverside and then diverged to Nev- sheher (Soanda) and Cacsarcia. The ordinary modern road, on the other hand, goes along the plain by Aladja, Sarikaraman, ete., and we heard of ruins on it. In Hamilton’s time a portion of the old pavement was. still visible in the plain near Bazirgian Hiiyiik. ‘On reaching the centre of Ak sounar Ova [the plain below Harmandal keui], we found, he says, ‘a large and well-paved road running from west-north-west to cast-south-east, along which we continued to the ecast-south-east for some way. It was a causeway formed of small stones partly covered over and probably marked the line of one of the ancient roads’ (ii. p. 241).
VII. The Line of the Byzantine Military Road.
The general line of the Byzantine Military Road across Galatia has, I think, been rightly indicated by Ramsay in Jfist. Geog. p. 216 ff After passing Palia-Iustinianopolis (Sivri Hissar) it probably crossed the ridge of Gunusu Dagh by an easy route into the undulating plain below Miilk, passing near Mousga (Arslanli-Hammam)! and reaching the Sangarios above (south of) Kavundji keuprii. Tne bridge Zompos, by which the river was crossed, was almost certainly situated (as Ramsay says), at or near the junction of the Tlidja stream (near Kabak). If the road ascended the Ilidja Su from the junction, then the bridge lay there; but it is quite as probable that it followed the line of the modern path (see the map) and crossing the Sangarios beside Kabak (where there is a good bridge at the present day), ascended the dere opposite the village for some distance and then struck over the plateau and came down on the Hlidja Su below Katrandji Inler.* This village derives its name ‘Caves of Katrandji’ from the numerous chambers with which the rocky banks of the stream are honeycombed. An ancient site was deter- mined by Prof. Ramsay about 55 minutes south-east of the village and to it belong the inscriptions which we give below. Is it Ptolemy’s VETESTON (Ovéteotov)? An hour and a half further up the valley the road passes under the fine Byzantine fortress APHRAZEIA,> now called Kizil kalé (or Hissar), a well-preserved specimen of late fortification on a hill rising 450 feet above the road. The walls, enclosing a large space, are strengthened by triangular buttresses (perhaps a later addition, for they are not bond- ed into the wall) and provided with round towers on the less impregnable north side; while the gateway on the south is flanked by two massive square towers.
1 Probably not going up to Eudoxias-Yiirme 2 See my paper in Annual of the British (as supposed in 77.G. p. 218, top), which lies School 1898, Part ii. § 2. high up off the road, but keeping lower down * Hist. Geog. pp. 218, 227. First visited by hetween Boz (Arait) Dagh and the Sangarios. M. Perrot (Exploration, p. 276).
112 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
Inscriptions :—
97. Inler Katrandji. In the village. Copy and impression. (A.). ETOYC EZP RPOMIoc ἔτους εξρ΄. Βρόμιος ΒΑς i\Aoye MECACANHP Βασίλου ὁ μέγας ἀνὴρ Οὐ. Γιο ῃβονληενχάριςτει . Τῇ] βουλῇ εὐχαριστεῖ refrHwcKAITAICEZOYCIAIC iw ee καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις.
"», / \ ΄ , 5 κέτωσαν δὲ of κληρονόμοι μου κατὰ τριακοστὴν ἀπόκαυ- Μ 3 \ / σιν day, ἐπειδὴ μέμψομαι αὐτούς.
KET WCANAE OIKAHPONOMO\ MOYKATAT PIAKOCTENPATTOKAY CINOANEREIBHMEMYOHAI - AYTOYC
L. 3. My copy has Ο. ΓΙΟῚ. Β, Ramsay’s Ο. ΓΙΟ.. Β. L. 4 My copy reads ΓΕ Π ς, Ramsay’s [€i1|WC ; the impression seems to show N for the fourth letter. L. 5. KETWCAI A my copy; -CKETWC A . Ramsay ; the impression shows no trace of a letter before kK (which is clear). L. 7. CIN Ramsay, confirmed by the impression; OIN my copy. Elsewhere my copy is confirmed by the impression,
The date 165 probably=140 a.p. L. 5 ff. The custom of making burnt offerings at the tomb is well known; compare, for example, an inscription οἱ Hierapolis (C2. No. 28=Wadd.-Le Bas No. 1687} in which a bequest is made εἰς ἀποκαυσμὸν τῶν ΠΑΠΩΝ. Κέτωσαν is perhaps meant to be an imperative from καίω (for κεέτωσαν). "Oa=aa,a ‘sheepskin’; the reading is certain.
98. Jbid.—In a fountain: roughly cut, unfinished doorstone with two broken reliefs above. The lettering is poor. My copy agrees with Ramsay’s (1883). (Δ.
//KAKXPKOCBEITAMA Μάρκος Βειτάμᾳ ΠΙΔΕΙΑΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΙΕ τῇ] ἰδείᾳ γυναικεὶ ἔϊ στη- /INAANHCXAPEIN _ Sie σε]ν μν(ήμ)ης χάρειν.
99. Ibid.—Doorstone with zigzag border and small incised figure above (very rough). (C.).
AAEZANALOCTW ᾿Αλέξανδρος τῷ ΠΑΤΡΙΕΙΡΗΝΑΏΑ | sic πατρὶ Eipnvaw alv-
| +HCENMNHMHCKAP | | sic éa|tnoev μνήμης κάρ-
εν]. The following come from further up the valley of the Ilidja Su :— 100. Cemetery opposite Kiraz Oglu (ca. 3 hours north-east of Inler).
Stele. (A.). NANATYNHIAIOY Nava γυνὴ Γαίου ANECTHC////_. ἀνέστησ[εν
MHMHC//// mee uv) nuns [χάρειν.
EXPLORATION TN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 113
101. Cemetery opposite Baghtchedjik. Doorstone with four figures in semicircular pediment. (A.).
oh ar Μάρκῳ καὶ Tata γονε[ῦσιν] ἔστησαν xai| αὐτοῖς ζῶντες ἀν[έστη]σαν μνήμης ἕνεκεν. 102, Baghtchedjik. Doorstone in fountain. (C.).
ANAPIAOY°HNWNOYNA’A ‘Avépi ᾿Αουρηλίῳ Novva [Μ]α- TPWNAHCYMPIOCAYTOY τρῶνα ἡ σύμ[βἼ]ιος αὐτοῦ ANECTHCENMNHMHN ϑ8ϊ6 ἀνέστησεν μνήμην
ENEKEN ἕνεκεν.
103. Yamak (at the head of the valley, on the west side), One figure above; linear decoration. (C.).
AYPHOYHATIATIPKAIMHTH Pp Αὐρ. Νοῦνα πατ[ὴ]ρ καὶ μήτηρ
MATPWNAAYP////IYWTPE Ματρῶνα Αὐρ.... ... ἦρε;
πτωγλυκιτάτώανες πτῷ γλυκιτώτῳ ἀνέσ-
THCAN MH MHC Tageu dy nee fe XAPIN | Χχώριν,
L. 2. C. says there is a defect on the stone but no letters have been lost ; but Ramsay’s copy has P , . 1. Τρεπτῷ for θρεπτῴῷ.
104. Ibid.—Very rude lettering. (A.).
AAEZANAPITW Αλεξανδρί(α) τῷ IAIWANAPIAN ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ av- ECTHCENAANH έστησεν μνή- KAHL XAPIN μης χάριν.
From Aphrazeia the military road runs up to the head of the Ilidja Su valley and then strikes north-east to join the line of the modern post-road from Angora by Yuzgat and Sivas to Baghdad, which crosses the Halys by the bridge called Tcheshnir Keuprii. This bridge is admirably situated, as Prof. Ramsay says (p. 218), where the river narrows to enter a rocky gorge ; and there can be no doubt that the military road crossed here. About 1068 A.D. the emperor Romanus Diogenes built a fort on the west side to defend the crossing (Mich. Attal. p. 146 ed. Bonn). The remains of this fort may still be seen on the rocky hill which bounds the gorge. On the summit a relief, representing a draped figure, is cut on the rocks: but it is too much worn to be intelligible; the slopes are covered with fragments of late wheel- made pottery,—thin white slip ware, fine dull red ware, etc.; and at the foot of the hill, beside the modern Khan, the foundations of a rectangular build-
ἘΠῚ; “ΨΌΠ, XIX. Ι
114 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
ing constructed of large squared blocks (possibly an ancient caravanseral) have recently been laid bare. The castern side of the bridge was defended by the older Byzantine fortress Saniana, according to Prof. Ramsay’s view (p. 218 ff.), which seems very probable. We were told that there was an dren on that side similar to the other; but unfortunately we did not examine it. There was nothing conspicuous to be seen from the summit on the western side: and, entirely forgetting for the moment the existence of Romanus’ fortress, we supposed that the ruins on this side represented Saniana. The Halys formed the eastern limit of our exploration.
IX. The north-west of Lake Tatta.
Kiyna.—Thirteen years ago Prof. A. von Domaszewski published from a bad copy by a certain Leonardi, a druggist in Angora, an inscription from Akardja in dev Néhe des Salzsees which ended apparently with the formula apyov[tes β]ουλὴ δῆμος preceded by an ethnic -νηνῶν. This was clearly an important text and two years ago Prof. Ramsay suggested to me that the ethnic might very well be Κιννηνῶν, mentioning at the same time that he had found reason to place the bishopric KINNA somewhere near the north end of the great Salt Lake Tatta. In the Bulletin de Corr. Hell. 1898, p. 234 ff., he has published this suggestion amongst others, and I need only refer the reader who wishes for information about the district to his paper.”
When we were in this region, we endeavoured to find out where Akardja was and to re-discover the inscription. In both objects we were successful. As the reader will see from the map, Akardja is a village at the northern end of the Lake. The inseription is still extant and reads as follows:
105. Ina fountain below the village. (A.).
ATAOBHTYXH ᾿Αγαθῇ Toyn.
MANTWNIONS M. ᾿Αντώνιον
lO P4¥),ANON TON [ορδιανὸν τὸν
ΘΕΙΟΤΑΤΟΝΑΥΤ © sic θειότατον avt(o)-
K PATO PATONE KO€ κράτορα Tov ἐκ θε- WW) NWN HNWN AP ov [Κιν]νηνῶν ap- XON #€CBOYAHAH χον[τ]ες βουλὴ δῆ- Nees MOL yee μος.
It is a strange fate whereby the important part of an inscription so often gets destroyed; but there can be no doubt about the correctness of Prof. Ramsay‘s guess. The next question is, where did the city lie? Akardja is
ἶ ἴτολι.- Ἐρίρτ. Mitth. 1885, p. 131. author informs me) to the fact that ke received * The misprints in the article, are due (the πὸ proofs for revision.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 115
not an ancient site and the inscription has been carried to the fountain, nobody now knows whence. In this neighbourhood there were several small old settlements, near Ak-in, beside Boyuk Kishla, and at the Tatar village
Shekerli. At Shekerli is the following inscription on a small slab. 106. (C.). "“Arrados Σίσᾳ θυ] γατρὶ μ. x.
107. On the road between it and Kulu keui. (C.).
////TOPAIANOYAY//// "Πα TYOATII/ TEM /MOYTAYK | | THCYNBIC | MAA |
Besides these there are altar-shaped stones and other old blocks which have come from a hiiyiik beside the village. At Kulu keui there are a few remains, including cross-shaped doorstones (all carried); this village, we were told, was the local centre of government until the time of Said Pasha, who shifted it to Kotch Hissar in accordance with the general wish of the inhabitants of the district.
These sites, however, are too unimportant to represent Kinna. It is most probable that Kinna was situated at Yarashli, a village some hours to the west, lying under the main peak of Karadja Dagh. This mountain dominates the whole country round! and was clearly the site of ISAMOS Beacon which caught the signal from Hassan Dagh (south of Archelais) and flashed it on to the next station, doubtless on the summit of M. Dindymos (Gunusu Dagh). The ruins round the village are extensive, though now devoid of any very distinctive character. Some walls, however, may be seen which are apparently of rather early construction, composed of courses of large rough-hewn blocks without mortar; and on the hill side, 550 feet above the village, there is a very commodious fort of quite a striking character. It is planned in the shape of an oblong and the walls are massively constructed of roughly squared blocks varying in size; in most places they have fallen down and formed a sort of embankment fifty feet in height from the outer side on the south, where the ground sinks most. Clearly this was a most important fortress before Byzantine times*; and our guide declared that there is an ancient roadway connecting it with the summit of the peak, pointing ont at the same time what certainly looked like the line
1 We took compass readings to it from 3 Compare the account of the Beacon and Herkenli (Dongdurma). fortress on Hassan Dagh in J/ist. Geog yp. 2 For the line of telegraphic stations, compare 352-3. Hist. Geog. p. 352.
116 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
of a path. It would have been a tiresome task to ascend to the summit under a blazing August sun in order to test his statement,—and we refrained ; but there is no reason to doubt his account, for it is not the sort of thing a dull- minded peasant would invent: his information was quite spontaneous and he had no motive whatever to concoct a falsehood. Amongst the numerous old stones at Yarashli we found only one
inscription. 108. In the cemetery.
AOYKIA | MANOY AYTHO CATPIF LIM A Lu MN HMHC ΧΆΡΙΝ
Aovkia Mavov ἑ]αυτῆ[-ς] θ[υ- γατρὶ ἧ-
PD cies):
Beit: "Yai ήμης χάριν.
An old Turkish cemetery an hour towards south-west, near Arsindji (a village lying in the broad rift between the twin ridges of Karadja Dagh),
contains the two following inscriptions.
109. Stele with pointed pediment: much worn. (A.).
MANHCATITHA NOYANCZ:THCEN PiNHKITITINIA KAITATEITICA//// M NHMHC
ΧΑ P////////
Μάνης ᾿Αππια-
νοῦ ἀνέστησεν γ[υἹνηκὶ Τιτινίᾳ
καὶ Taret Τισάϊνδρου ? μνήμης
χάριν.
110. Eagle above, curved cutter below. (C. and A).
AYPBA BOoyYTI////
OFENOYCMENANAP////
MEIPOYANAPIAN//// CTHCEN MNHMH//// +APIN
On Βάβου, see No. 33.
Αὐρ. Βάβου Τι[μ- ογένους Μενάνδρῳ Μείέρου ἀνδρὶ ἀν[έ- στησεν μνήμης χάριν. ,
A glance at the map shows that the situation assigned to Kinna agrees very well with the narrative of the journey of St. Theodore of Sykeon along the west side of Lake Tatta (see Ramsay, B.C.H. 1898, p. 234), which tells us
EXPLORATION FN GALATTA CIS HALYM. 117
that the saint diverged from the road to visit the city on the invitation of the bishop, and then returned to his previous halting-place and pursued his journey to Lagania-Anastasiopolis.'
X. The road down the west side of Lake Tatta.
§ 1. BALBapon (?) and Pitnissos.—Kinna lay quite near the road (which must always have existed, though it is not mentioned in ancient accounts, so far as I know) leading from the west side of the Lake and from Iconium (Konia) to Angora. An ancient site is reported on this route at Shimshit Hiiyiik, about five hours south of Aghaboz, which may possibly be BALBADON ( Hist. Geog. p. 216-7); but when we heard of it we were already far south and could not return to examine it. On this same road at the village Kozanli, less than three hours south-west of Yarashli, there was an ancient city of considerable importance. The remains here are exceedingly numerous, more numerous indeed than can be found almost anywhere in western Galatia, apart from the great cities. The cemetery of the village is simply packed with old stones; there are many other cemeteries in the immediate vicinity likewise full of remains; and we copied here no fewer than twenty-six inscriptions. Unfortunately they are silent as to the ancient name. What can it be? I think there can only be one answer, the Pityissos of Strabo, the Πετενησσὸς of Ptolemy, the Πιτανισσὸς of the episcopal lists. Let us review the evidence. (1) A passage in Strabo makes it clear, as Prof. Ramsay says (H.G. p. 227) that the town lay ‘in the salt desert west of Lake Tatta between Lykaonia and the Haimane.’ The words are Ἥ re δὴ Tatra [τοιαύτη] ἐστί, καὶ τὰ περὶ ᾿᾽Ορκαόρκους καὶ Πιτνισσὸν καὶ τὰ τῶν Λυκαόνων ὀροπέδια ψυχρὰ καὶ Wiha καὶ ὀναγρόβοτα, ὑδάτων δὲ σπάνις πολλή᾽ «.T.r. (p. 568). That is to say, south of Galatia there is, besides Lake Tatta, the bare, treeless, waterless Axylos, extending from the neighbourhood of Kaborkion? on the west to Pitnissos on the east and south- wards to the rolling country of Lykaonia. So far, the site at Kozanli is eminently suitable. (2) Ptolemy v. 4, 10, supplies an important corrobora- tion : Ὑπὸ δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα ἔθνη (1... the three Galatian tribes) διήκουσι Ipoc- εἰλημμενῖται3 μὲν συνημμένοι αὐτοῖς" ὑπὸ δὲ τούτους οἱ Bufnvoi* καὶ μέρος τῆς Λυκαονίας, ἐν οἷς πόλεις Πετενησσός, Εἰκδαύμαυα. .. Κίννα, «7d. Pitnissos is thus assigned to the country on the west side of L. Ταϊία"" (3) In late Roman and Byzantine times Pitnissos belonged to the province Galatia Salutaris (or Secunda) which was formed by Theodosius at the end
1 Μνημεῖα ᾿Αγιολογικά, p. 421. expressed in Hist. Geog. p. 228 that Pitnissos
2 Hist. Geog. p. 229. was perhaps in the district Djihan-beyli near
3 προσειλημενίται, one MS. ; προσελιμενίται, the Sangarios (with territory extending east to three MSS. On this district see H. G. p. 251 L. Tatta). There is only one fairly large site and below § 3. there (xi. § 6), and as it is near a splendid
oH. Gi,0¢ stream, it is ipso facto excluded. -
5 This seems decisive against the suggestion
118 J. G. CG ANDERSON.
of the [Vth century by taking the south-western part of Galatia (including the bishoprics Germa, Pessinus, Eudoxias, Myrika and Pitnissos) and adding to it a corner of Phrygia (containing Amorion, Orkistos, ete. ; ist. Geog. p. 221). Now if Pitnissos be at Kozanli, the boundary between Galatia Secunda and Prima will be a line drawn from the Lake along Karadja Dagh, and passing east of Myrika—a very natural division—and we obtain the requisite bishopric for the southern frontier of Galatia, where it borders on Lycaonia. The territory of the city would, of course, extend far over the sparsely populated, bare country to the west. If it be objected that Pitmissos is thus near Kinna, we reply that the objection is not valid. The country round the Lake was (strange as it may seem) thickly inhabited: nothing amazed us so much as the number of sites all over this district, which produces little but pasturage for great flocks and herds (καίπερ ἄνυδρος οὖσα πρόβατα ἐκτρέφει θαυμαστῶς, τραχείας δὲ ἐρέας x.7.r., Strabo, p. 568). These sites are more numerous than appears from the map. We must remember, however, that the salt trade was as important in ancient times as It 15 now.
Inscriptions :— 111. Kozanli. Ina house. (C.). /ALLETWNCWCG6E | Kaz ?]étov Σωσθέ- | NHTITATPIKAITTEN νῃ πατρὶ καὶ πεν- ᾿ OEPAANECTICEN θερᾷ ἀνέστ[η]σεν | MN HM IHC ΧΑΡΙΝ μνήμης χάριν.
112. Lbid—In the cemetery: marble tombstone, with two figures above. (C.).
\
KOAAOAOCCYAI Kopodos ὑδί- WYWCICINW ῳ ὑῴ Σισιν[ ]ῳ | KEAOMNAYAIW ke Δόμνα ὑδίῳ ANAPIFAYKY | ἀνδρὶ γλυκυ- ΤΑΤωλνεςοτη!! ἃ τάτῳ ἀνέσ[τ- HCANAANH/////// noav μνή- KAHCX APIN////// μης χάριν.
119. JLbid.—In the fountain. (C.).
TIATTACKAIMEATIO | llamas καὶ Μελπο- MENHMANHIAIW | μένη Μάνῃ ἰδίῳ TEKNWEAYKYTATW τέκνῳ YAUKUTATO ANECTHCAN MH MHC ἀνέστησαν μ(ν)ήμης
ΧΑΡΙΝ χάριν.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 119 114, Jbid.—In an oda. (C.),
Μεῖρος τῷ πατρὶ Σωσθένῃ | ἀνέσ[ζτη]σεν | μιχ.
118. Lbid.—In the oda: broken at top and foot. ((".).
In YNOMA ETTIK THT ONECOAO N&®PONHC
116. Jlid.—In the cemetery : stele with pediment. (A.). YPCTEYNOG] Αὐρ. Στεῦνος ANCOR ee N( d@iwna TPG)! KE AH TPG sc AY
“J ἀνέστησε-
Ns ν ἐδίῳ πα-
\ \ τρὶ Ke μη- τρὶ Σίσᾳ τ-
HCOTAY K/ fis yAux- ul ΤΑ Ἢ ΓΕ [γι ς M υἹτάτης μ- Zt M HCOKA®? ν]ήμης κάρ-
ιν.
Στεῦνος, if right (as it seems to be) is an interesting survival of the old divine name of Kybele at Aizanoi ; for the worship of Kybele in the Prosei- lemmene, see No. 163. Σέσα also No. 106.
117. Ibid.—Stele with figure of a woman. Worn. (A.).
CANG ITH! Lar[evivos]
| KAITIPEOYEIC//// | καὶ Πρεουεὶς [γυ-
a TET ΓΔ ΓῚ ' νὴ αὐτο[ῦ] .. Δι Δεν as) οςὦ τ το αι TIATPIFA////// πατρὶ γλ[υκυτάτῳ ANECTHCEN ἀνέστησεν MNH MHC x// μνήμης χ[άριν. roccel//////!/// tos σεΐμουν κνουμανει K.TX.
Larwvivos, also No. 230. The fem. name IIpeovels occurs in various forms in Lycaonia: IIpevoveis (No. 151), Πρειεὶς (No. 164), Πρειεὶ (dat., Nos. 175, 176), Πρειὶς (No. 199), Πριβὶς (Ath. Mitth. xiii. p. 262, No, 91).
120 118. Lbid.—Stele with pediment. A’ PTTATTAC KEANTWNEI |AIWTTATP// FAYKITATW SIN//IIATIITA ANECTHCAN M////1//HC XAPIN 119. Lbid.—Stele with pediment. IME NAN... POC KAI TTATTAC E/ATFHOGA TM NA HHT PIFAY KY
Mite VPA VA “JE IG XAPN HINNUAOC 1 JIONTC: YOCCHWIBICGY KPEITO HIALG OC SPAN AO P OV
J. G. C. ANDERSON.
(A.).
Adp. Iamas
xe ᾿Αντώνει[α
ἰδίῳ πατρ[ὶ
γλυκιτάτῳ
ἀνέστησαν
μ[νήμ]ης
χάριν.
(A.).
Μένανδρος καὶ
Παπᾶς Β[ατρηος ᾿Α- πἸ]πίᾳ μητρὶ γλυκυ- τάτ]ῃ μνήμη(ς) χάρ(ι)ν. μ]ν[η]μόσ[υν)]ον το- [τ᾿ ἐ]σί τ]. βίου . λί[θ]ος: [ἀλ]λο [γὰ]ρ οὐ- δέν.]
a.
With 1. 5 ff. compare No. 123, 1. 7 ff.
120. Ibid.—Stele with pediment. AAITITIOCOAYMTIIKWAAEA dWKMHTPIMOYNAKTIATI JTL MANUATI/IL PAN
121,
NAPIAHOCK loYNAANTUN <1 G//FAYKYTA JANECTHCEN NH MHN 2INKEAYTOI
Ibid.—Stele with three figures in pediment.
(A.). Δάϊππος ᾿Ολυμπικῷ ἀδελ- ho κὲ μητρὶ Μούνᾳ κὲ Ἰαπί- qa... | μνυϊήμης χά]ριν.
(A.).
. . . -]νδριανὸς κὲ
_. . Mjodva ᾿Αντων-
, /
ίῳ τέ]κ[ν]ῳ γλυκυτά- τῷ] ἀνέστησεν suc ! μ]νήμην sic! ya |pu Ke ἑαυτοῖ- s.]
122. Jbid.—On a tall block afterwards used for building purposes. (A.)
A
ΤΙ. tino) iy MSs
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 121
123. Lbid.—Large slab standing npside down and fearfully worn. (A.).
CWCIBIOCANNA Σωσέβιος “Avya MHTPIKAITTATPIEY μητρὲ καὶ πατρὶ Ev- ΤΥΧΙΏΝΙ ΖΏΝΤΙ τυχέωνι ζῶντι ΓΛΥΚΥΤΑΆΤΟΙΚΓΑ γλυκυτάτοις ἀ- NECTHCENMNH 5. νέστησεν μνή-
MHCXAPIN ns χάριν. MNHMOCYNONTOV: Μνημόσυνον τοῦ- WC//IBIOYAITOCAA | τ᾽ éjo[t]e βίου λίτος (Ξε λίθος)" ad- AOYAPOY AENTIOE ? ho [γ]ὰρ ovdév.. ...
TIPONEIZEINOCYNH| -... ἴα
δῦ oso »s εὟ ἀν τ δ (2.
194. Ibid. (A.).
AYPMAA Αὐρ. Ma- TPWNACT τρῶνα Στ- PABWNOC ράβωνος ΤΗΙΔΙΑΘῪ τῇ ἰδίᾳ θυ- FATPITTAP γατρὶ παρ- ΘΕΝΏΔΟΥ θένῳ Δού- AAECTHCEN da ἔστησεν KANHAAEC XA μνήμης χά-
ΡΙΝ pty.
125. Jbid.—In mosque: much worn. (A.).
AYPAPTEMWU Adp. ᾿Αρτέμων TIATIACSNO//// Ileras . . AYTWCAMNFIAV ish sige es ὑ- AIHCOEKNHC ᾿ Sins θέκνης. TIATPODIAOYTE Ilarpo¢idov τε KAITTPOKAHCKEAY καὶ ἸΤρόκλης Ké av- TOIEAYTOICZW τοὶ ἑαντοῖς ζῶ- NTECANECTHCAN vTes ἀνέστησαν
MNH MHCXAPIN μνήμης χάριν. L. 4. For -ης -- -οἰς, cf. No. 126, 1. 2, ete.
122 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
126. οι; (A.).
AYPAOMNAMEIPOY Αὐρ. Aopva Μείρου YIHCIAIHCTIEICWNI vins ἰδίης 1Πείσωνι ΚΑΙΦΙΛΗΤΩωΓΛΎΚΙΤΑ καὶ Φιλήτῳ γλυκιτά- THCANECTHCEN MNH της ἀνέστησεν μνή- MHCXAPIN uns χάριν.
This is perhaps Christian. Φιλήτη, Δόμνα and Meéipos are often Christian.
127. Sultdn Mezarlik (1 ἢ. 20 m. towards the south of Kozanli). (A.).
Ι AIONYCIOC | Διονύσιος
| ANNA@Y//A “Avva θυ[γ]α-
TPIMNHN//C τρὶ μνήμη Ἰς
| ENEKEN ἕνεκεν.
| IOCNICEM: ἢ 5. cog ve σεμ[ιν ?
| KNOYMI κνουμ[α-
| NEIKAKO//N vet κακο[υὴν AKA KE Or) [addaxet
κιτ.λ.].
In 1. 5 the last word is not σέεμουν, but some variant form of the word.
128. Ibid. (C).
MOYCAIOCANTWNIWAAEAOWKAIANEY//// x €AYTOY MNHMHC XAPIN
r , , » “ ‘ 3 Lad Μουσαῖος ᾿Αντωνίῳ ἀδελφῷ καὶ ἀνεψιῷ] ἑαυτοῦ μ. χ.
129. Jbid—Small lettering. (A.).
BABEICKAEAPXW BaBeis Κλεάρχῳ ANAPIAN//// ἀνδρὶ ἀν[έσ- THCEN MN MHCX// τησεν μν(ή)μης x[a- ΡΙΝ ριν.
130. ἢ bid.—Altar-shaped stone. (A.).
XEPEACTEP Xepéas Tep- MANWTEN μανῷ πεν- QEPWMN!I θερῷ μνεί-
ΑΓΧΑΡΙΝ ας χάριν.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 123
131. Zbid.——Altar-stone without inscription but with three reliefs (1) Mén on horseback holding crescent in right hand, (2) eagle standing with outstretched wings ou stag (2), and (3) woman holding garland (yateru 7) to
left hand. (A.).
132. Ibid.—Altar, with serpent in relief on one side. The letters are clear. (A.). MHNOYAOYTO | ECTAPTWNOC | MHTEPECTHC | ON |
which perhaps means Μηνούδουτο(ν) (= Μηνόδοτον) ᾿στάρτωνος μήτ(η)ρ ἔστησ(ε)ν.
133. Cemetery near Kozanli. Large slab. (A.).
TIAIAIOCNATA & Il. Αἴλιος Nata- AHCCTPATIWTHC ANS στρατιώτης YOINIAICY MBIW Oivids συμβίῳ KAITTAWTENHOY καὶ ἸΤλωτένῃ θυ- 581: ΓΑΤΡΙΕΑΥΜΝΗΜΗΚς γατρὶ ἑαν(τοῦ) μνήμης 51 ΕΝΕΚΕῸ évexe(v).
134. Ibid. (C.).
K Ῥ
Ay? οι ΡΟ Αὐρ(ήλιε)οι ‘Pod-
hoc B aC | os Βασι- AAC LA E 4 λᾶς Μεῖ- Oet WPOY θείῳ ‘Pov- i> WOCAN KY dw γλυκυ- TATFWEC τάτῳ ἔσ-
τησαν μνή-
THCANMM MHC KA PIN
μῆς χάριν.
Doubtless some of the other inscriptions are Christian, though there is no certain means of detecting them,
124 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
135. Cemetery near Kozanli. Much worn. (A.).
@) ©)
TATAAAEZANAP Tata ᾿Αλεξάνδρ- ΟΥΑΙ. τις ov [δέῳ [ἀνδρὶ...
§ 2. An ancient village at av-KAFAsI.—The village At-kafasi (‘ horse’s head ’) about two hours west of Kozanli, is the site of an ancient village. The following inscriptions have been dug up there.
136. At-kafasi—In the broken semicircular pediment is a draped figure of a man on right and of a woman on left. (A.).
FAAAIKOCWOIKONOMOC Τάλλιεκος (0) οἰκονόμος τλοάλλλέων Πλομμέων. Πλομμέων looks like the gen. plur. of an ethnic. [f so, it gives the
name of the site. Οἰκονόμος can hardly be a personal naine here. [Γ]άλλεκος also J.H.S. IIT. p. 127.
137. Ibid. (A.).
BAAENTIAA Βαλέντιλα ANECTHCENTIA ἀνέστησεν πα- TPITAIWMNH τρὶ ἰδίῳ μνή- MHCXAPIN μης χάριν.
138. Ibid.—Draped man and woman in semicircular pediment; below,
a plough. (Δ... : COYCOYCATITIA Σούσους Αππᾶ-ἢ ςδιομηδηλὰ ς Διομήδῃ ἀδ- EADWIAIWM ελφῷ ἰδίῳ μ-
NH MHCXAPIN νήμης χάριν.
The first name generally occurs as Σούσου; but Σούσους is also found (No. 192).
EXPLORATION TN GALATTA CIS HALYM. 125
13... Lbid—lii the oda: stele with three broken. tigures in semi- circular pediment. Below, curved hook (cutter) and vase on table. (A.).
MOYNAA!IOMH Movva Διομή- AHKETTATIPOAL sic én xe ᾿παπροδί(τ)- wkrAlWANEC w xe Γαίῳ avéc- THCENEKNO}) sic τησεν τέκνοι(ς) MAH AMAHCX APIN μν(ή)μης χάριν.
140. . Πδὶα.---Τὰ house-wall! : doorstone with plough. (A.).
KOYCOYIWAHTTATPI Κούσου ᾿Ιώδη πατρὶ ste MNHAAHC XAPIN μνήμης χάριν.
For ᾿Ιώδῃ cf. .7.},.5.. 1898 p. 120 (No. 65).
§ 3. The ProseiLEMMENE.—A short distance south of Kozanli we enter a tract. of country lying along the Salt Lake and stretching westwards in the direction of Amorion and Laodiceia (Katakekaumene), which in early and late times belonged to Lycaonia, but in the intervening centuries was attached to Galatia under the name of Προσειλημμένη (se. χώρα), ‘ The added territory | (Ptol. v. 4, 10, already quoted). When this tract was added to Galatia is not certain. In Hist. Geog. pp. 251, 877 it is suggested that it was separated from Lycaonia by Pius (or possibly Hadrian) at the time of the institution of the province Cilicia-~[sauria-Lycaonia. But the author does not now - consider that event sufficiently important to have given a new name to the country; and in an article on Galatia’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (not yet published) he puts forward a very ingenious and plausible view. ‘The analogy of the similar name EKpiktetos, 1... ἐπέκτητος Φρυγία, “the Acquired Phrygia,” suggests that the transference took place as a permanent and real change of rule at ἃ much earlier period. Now, according to Pliny (ΔΗ͂. ν. 95), the part of Lycaonia that adjoined Galatia was given to it as x tetrarchy. This Lycaonian tetrarchy was certainly ciose to Ptolemy's Pros- eilemmene and probably another name for it. Pliny says the tetrarchy contaimed fourteen cities with Iconium as capital, and distinguishes it from Lyeaonia proper (usu Lyeconia)...Ptolemy indeed dees not make Proseiiem- mene extenil so far west as Iconium ; but he is incorrect about the extent of ail the divisions of this whole region. Lycaonia as a whole had been added to the Pergameniau kingdom in B.c. 190; but the kings were not strong enough to hold this didtant territory, and part of it was probably taken by the ua about 160; and this part afterwards passed under the power of the Pontie kings Boek with Galatia....In any case the name Tetrarchy originated before the taba a πω was instituted.’
1 This article contains the only Win hats account to be found of the formation of the province Galatia.
126 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
In determining the names of the sites in the Eastern portion of the Proseilemmene, along L. Tatta, we have to depend almost entirely—to our sorrow !—on the Peutinger Table, which gives a road crossing the Axylos from the Sangarivs (probably from Pessinus) and descending by the Lake to Archelais (Ak Serai). The latter! part of this road is thus represented :—
™.
"τῇ "lai. Bagrum xx ry ; | Vetisso" xx ἘΦ | Egdaua xx xii > Ὕ ἢ asso | Pegella xx Comitan ‘ aut
| Congusso xv pie & | Petra xx 0"
The fivefold recurrence of the number xx in itself excites grave suspicions about the correctness of the numbers; and our previous experience of the value of the Table (in cases where there are other authorities to test it) does not reassure us. But we may certainly regard the sequence of names as fairly correct ; and working back from Archelais, which must be the terminus of this road, we can find sites for the names as far as Egdaua which we can with tolerable certainty identify with the first site on the road south of Kozanli, for reasons which will appear.
§ 4. EanavamMa and Eupokias.—The site to which we refer is that called Tchorgia Hiiytk, about xxii Roman miles south of Kozanli (see the map).* On the mound there is nothing now to be seen but fragments of pottery, from amongst which we picked up pieces of early painted ware decorated with lines. The ruins have all been transported to the modern centres of life, [nevi (a mudurlik) and Insuyu, a well-watered village in a most picturesque situation; the latter especially is full of remains, amongst which are numerous inscriptions. The name which appears as Zgdaua in the Table occurs in various other forms, in Ptolemy as ’Exdavpuava or Exdavpavo, in Hierocles as Γλαύαμα, in the Notitiae as Πάλβανα.. A form ᾿Ε γλαύαμα would account for these variants and may well be the true name.® In the later Notitiae (iii., x., xiii.) Eudokias occurs insteads of Γάλβανα, and Not. i. gives Γαλβάνων ἤτοι Εὐδοκιάδος. Prof. Ramsay has rightly explained that the ‘double name makes it probable that there were two sites included in one bishopric, and that Eudokias was a foundation of the fifth century in a situation of the later type (i.e. on a precipitous hill), while Glauama was at a
’ The continuation westwards is quoted be- 4 In vii. as Γαλβάνου, in viii. Γαλμάνων (a_ low (xi. § 6). mere error). 3 So Mannert reads ; but Verisso seems more
babl 5 The initial E might easily be slurred over probable.
3 There is another similar mound called Kara Tepe about one-and-half hours 8. E.
and ultimately lost; A for A is a common error.
EXPLORATION TN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 127
site of the Roman type’ (Hist. Geog p. 344). Fortunately, we found a site of this later type some distance north-west of Tchorgia Hiiyiik, which may be confidently identified with EUDOKIAS. About three miles west of Yenidjoba (Yenidje Oba) there is a fine fortress, called Karanli Kalé, splendidly situated on a high cliff projecting from the range of Kara Dagh and commanding the country around.!' There are considerable remains of building: the corners of the fort are well marked and perfectly rectangular, and the masonry consists of squared but unfaced stones; there are also some cisterns to be seen. The place was certainly a stronghold of the Byzantine period. The identifica- tion of Eudokias and Eglavama is therefore fairly certain.
Inscriptions of Eudokias :—
141. Kutchuk Beshkavak; in cemetery. Doorstone, with a figure between pilasters above the inscription. (C.).
| MAPKOCTHIAIALFYNAIKINANAMN | HMHC | | XAPIN
Μάρκος τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικὶ Nava μν- ήμης χάριν.
142. Cemetery 1 h. 20 m. from preceding (over the ridge of Kara Dagh). Altar with wreath underneath. (A.).
MUU ERIN SENHZO a. ee TIKWTEKNWHEW MNHMHN τικῷ τέκνῳ θεῷ μνήμην.
The tombstone here (as in multitudes of other cases) takes the form of an altar (βωμὸς) dedicated to the deceased man, who is regarded as deified (θεός), rnerged in the divinity from whom he sprang. This is a unique confirmation of Prof. Ramsay’s view (CP. i. p. 99 ff. τι. p. 367 etc.) which was already clearly proved by a not uncommon class of inscriptions stating that the erection of the altar-tombstone is a dedication made to the god (or goddess) in accordance with his command eg. κατὰ ἐπιταγὴν Διὶ εὐχήν, κὲ ἑαυτῷ Car (Gott. Gel. Anz. 1897 p. 409, quoted B.C.H. 1898 p. 237) or πατρὶ γλυκυτάτῳω μνήμης χάριν, Ke Net βροντῶντιεεύὐ χὴν (A. Ε. Mitth. 1883 p. 179) The altar was not merely a tombstone but a real altar on which the cultus of the dead was kept up (see CB. ii. No. 226 p. 884). It is important to realise the inseparable connexion between religion and sepul- chral rites in Lydo-Phrygian conceptions, because the fact has a wide bearing : e.g. on the disputed question as to the purpose of several of the old Phrygian rock-monuments. When we realise this close connexion, we see that those monuments which seem to be merely shrines (because no grave is visible) are, in all probability, as necessarily sepulchral monuments as the monuments
1 This pointed peak is very conspicuous. foot ; I had fever at the time and could not The fortress was examined by Mr. Crow- accompany him.
128 J. G. ὦ ANDERSON,
which are indisputably sepulchral must be at the same time shrines. (It is not necessary that the grave should be actually in the rock on which the monument is carved).
143. J&d.—Doorstone with two figures in semicircular pediment. (A.).
MOYNAIAIWANAPICOY Modva ἐδίῳ ἀνδρὶ Σού- COoVANECTHCENMNH σου ἀνέστησεν μνή- MHCXAPIN μης χάριν.
144. Ibid. (A).
ADWBAAAE/ |///MOYNA ες ἀδεϊχφῷ Ba ἀδε[λφῇ] Modva ἈΚΑΙΑΚΚΑΓΥΝΑΙΚΙΔΟΥΝΑ ... ja καὶ Άκκᾳ γυναικὶ Μούνᾳ ἱΠΟΝΠΩΝΙΘΝΓΑΤΡΕΟΩΙΝ καὶὶ ἸΤονπωνί(ᾳ) θυγατρέσιν jigures \IMANHEFPTON//MNHMH_: κα]ὶ Mavy ἐγγόν[ῳ] μνήμης \PINANECTHCEN χάριν ἀνέστησεν. dvuor
145. Ibid.—Broken doorstone. (C.).
TLACKA////{///TACE!!// MN AUT Al/// WKA//// IK AIAAANHKAILIC /)/|MHCXAPIN
i46. Zbid—Doorstone. (C.). TIATIACTWIAIW//
147. Cemetery called ‘ Djelil’ ucar Kushdjali. Two figures, grapes and
zigzag decoration, and a plough. (C.).
KOVCIAOC COvVCOV AKAAA Oc cc ITO: rTONEYC MNHITHC XAPIN
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. Inscriptions of Glavama (Eglavaina) :—
145. (A.).
Insuyu.—In the village. Small altar with ox-head: much worn.
//N\APOCAATEINA /IHCALIMEFICTC/ τΊης Avi Μεγίστ[ῳ EYX: IN εὐχ[ή]ν. Is Aayewalt]ys an ethnic, a native of Lagina? Steph. gives Λαγινέτης ur Aayivaios as ctlinics of the Carian town of that name.
KA ]apos Aayewa-
140. Lind. (A.). ΦΡΟΥΓΙΓΑΠ Φροῦγις ᾿Απ- ΠΙΑΓΥΝΑΙ πίᾳ γυναι- Κιιδί'ἡλυΥγα Ki ἐδ[ da} @)vya- TPit ////MI tpt [μνή]μ[ης XAPINIKAIA) χάριν καὶ alv- ΤΩ ΖΩΝΤΙ τῷ ζῶντι. 1δ0. LMi/.—Onaslab. (A.) TEIMOKAHCKAILHC Ῥειμοκλῆς καὶ Γῆς OIFONEICMENEKAH οἱ γονεῖς Μενεκλῇ TEKNWMNHMHCXA τέκνῳ μνήμης Ka- Pi N ριν. 151. Lbid.—Chipped fragment. (Δ...
/ JHO'CIAYPTIPEIOYEIC 'INCINOICTEKNOICAY THC
/'//AONWKMNHCIOE® On the name Πρείονυεις, see No. 117. 152. Ilid.—In another cemetery. (A.). | AVPH//// Αὐρη[λία ΚΥΡΙΑΜ] Κυρέα | TEINC) /p/ Τειμ]ο[θέου 1 a- | NE CTH//// νέστηϊσα ΠΜΙΤΡΙΜ, μητρί μου ᾿ΑΠΠΉΗΚ ᾿Λππῃ κὲ [ἀ- ΔΕΛΠΗΡΙ δελπῇ ῬΙ|ο- ΟὙΦΕΙΝ υφείνῃ κἰὲ ΕΑΥΤΗΖΟ ἑαυτῇ ξ[ὥ- | CAANNH//// sic σα μνή(μ)ης XAPIN//// χάριν.
H.S.—VOL. XIX.
130 J. G. C. ANDERSON. 153. Jbid.; altar by the nesdjid. (C.).
ALALATF Eel Ainig Te- JAIN, OY
μίνῃ θυ-
| RACER ΓΑῚ | yatpi Ai- AOC Mi ΒῪ Atos [ΧΊρύ-- CAN Ws OC | cav[ Ojos Thee WML | πα[τὴρ μνή- WHC εἰ μης ἕϊνε- 5 KE NO | κεν.
Christian Inscriptions :—
154, Jbid.—In cemetery: plain stone. (C.). MENNEACAILAK ANIOC//////// NIOYAIAKOVYC NK //////////// TONYIQNMOY//ALAE/////////// KAINAPMAEL//CoKAIA/////////// ANEC7~HC N////ENAANH////CX A////
L. 1. Διάκων for διάκονος ; cf. Ath. Mitth. xiii. p. 253, No. 62; Sterrett
E.J. No. 215.
155. Jbid—Slab much worn and overgrown with lichen, (A.).
AAE ZANAP ᾿Αλέξανδρ. OCTIPEBTH os πρε(σ)β(ύτερος) τῇ ΓΛΥΚΥΤΆΤ : γλυκυτάτ- HAYTOYMH ῃ αὐτοῦ μη- ΤΡΙΝΟΝΝΗ tpi Novyn AILAKON//////// dcaxov| (aon
ANEC ἀνέσ- THC/NMN THhol[e|y μνήμ-
ns χάριν.
There are also other fragments not worth publishing.
156. Inevi. In the cemetery. (A.).
EMATASGOC//// ᾿Ἐπάγαθος ... CVNBISLA//// συνβίῳ γλ[υκυτάτῃ K- AIAYTRZ//// awavuT@ flav ave- CTHCEN στησεν.
I omitted to write down the name ; but my recollection is distinct.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 131 157. Ibid. Stele. (A).
A ΄ a , ‘ a Os ταύτῃ τῇ στήλῃ κακὴν χεῖρα προσοίσει ὀρφανὰ | τέκνα λίποιτο
‘ ‘ “ » » x | xnpov βίον οἶκον | épnwov,—the common formula of execration.
158. Lbid.—Two figures and a lion(?) much worn; below, basket of fruit and spindle. (A.).
AAEZANAPO//// ᾿Αλέξανδροϊς ΚΑΙΑΘηναύζι ἢ, καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶ ζῶ[ν- ΤΕΓΑΝΗΡΚΑΙΓΥ Ϊ} τες ἀνὴρ καὶ γυ[νὴ MNHMHCXAPIN μνήμης χάριν.
159. Ibid. (Α..
//P AM /I//A1OICTEK . . ἐ]δέοις τέκ- NOIAOMETIW sic vous) Δομετίῳ YWKAIAIAW vo καὶ Aida 8YTFATPIAANH θυγατρὶ μνή- » NHCXAPIN sic (μ)ης χάριν.
δ᾽ 5. PsineLA—VERINOPOLIS.—The next city on the road is Pegella, which is clearly a corruption of PSIBELA or PSIBELLA! (as Ramsay suggests), afterwards renamed Verinopolis, probably about 457-474 (Hast. Geog. p. 345). It is to be identified with the site at the Kurdish village Herkenli about xxii MP. south- east of Glavama. The village is built on a hiiiik which conceals ancient ruins. We picked up here a piece of ‘Samian’ ware; beside the mound a sculptured stone was recently dug up and sent to Konia, the capital of the vilayet; and the remains in the village and cemetery—capitals, bases, marble fragments, moulded stones, pillars, and large squared building blocks—are in themselves sufficient to attest an ancient settlement. Five minutes below Herkenli there is a ruin which gives to the village the alternative name of Dongdurma, 1.6. cement or composition resembling stone.’ It is thus described by Ainsworth? who saw it in 1839. ‘The ruin appears to have been used as as aqueduct, the masonry of which is completely hidden by a thick incrustation of traver- tine, deposited (as on the aqueduct near Antioch) by the waters trickling down from the channel above. This pass [it lies on marshy ground] is called by the natives from the existence of the ruin Kaya Boghas (“ Rock-pass”).’ We found here a fragmentary inscription (on which occurs the name Μεῖρος) as well as the following.
1 So in Notitia ili. ; otherwise Ψίβηλα or Ψίβιλα. * Travels und Rescarches, }). 190. K 2
132 J. G. C.-ANDERSON.
(A).
160. On a tall column in the cemetery; large letters.
AIIMEFIC Au Meyio- TWKAGA τῳ Καθά- POYCNA ρους Πα- ΠΙΟΥΕΖΕΝ πίου ἐξ ἐν- ΤΟλΗΟΤΕΙ τολῆς Τει- MOKAEOYC μοκλέους MAPKOYAN Mdpxovu ἀν- APOCAYTHC Spas αὐτῆς ANECTHCEN ἀνέστησεν."
Καθάρους (f.) is ἃ strange-looking name; the reading is certain.
δ᾽ Ὁ. Perta and Koncousros.—Beyond Pegella the Table is much coafused and corrupted. The names which it places on the road hence to Archelais cannot all belong to it for the simple reason that there are too many of them and the sum of the distances is ridiculously large. Ak Serai (Archelais) is about 58 Roman miles from Herkenli!: the Table represents the distance between Arciiclais and Pegella as 96. Comitenasso is probably for Koropasso (fist. Geog. Ὁ. 344, 242) which belongs to the road; Ulinanaca is a corruption for some other name (iid. p. 338) and may be cut out, but even then the distance 67 is too great. Tl:is means that either the numbers are wrong or that one station has got in from a differeut road. We find that the latter mistake frequently occurs in the Table when there are in reality two roads coinciding in part and then diverging” I believe that that is precisely what has happened here: that at Egdaua (Eglavama) the road rcally forked, one branch going to Kenia and the other to Archelais, and that what the Table meant to represent was this :— 7
Egdaua xx
| Pegella xv weet τ Petra
\ Ne
Congusso
Now there are two important sites in this vicinity, Tuzun Hiiyiik ou the read to Ak Serai (Archelais) and Toprak Kale on the road to Konia (Iconium), The former is exactly xy Mr, from Herkeuli (Psibela) and the latter xx MP, from Tchorgia Hiiyiik (Eglavama).. Pzrva, then, at Tuzun Hiiyiik and Koncoustos at Toprak Kale seem to be very probable. :
* Eighteen hours; which agrees with the Mmap-measuremient.
7 A goml example is given in my second article on Phrygia, J. ἢ. δ΄. 1898, p. 85-6.
3 Ptolemy places Kongoustos further west (ef. Hist. Geog. 1». 361), in the same longitude as
Laodiceia Katakekaumene, but Ptolemy's posi- tions always require corroboration. Kiepert in his map in Franz’s Fénf Inschriften wu. fiinf Stddte alters the longitude of Laodiceia from EB to ty’ and places Kongoustos N.E. of it (as it ought to be according to our identification).
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 133
Let us now describe these sites. Tuzun Hiiyiik represents an important town, which was built on and around an isolated low hill in the plain. On the summit. there were buildings which are now a mass of stones fallen together into a heap, and round the hill traces of an old settlement extend over a large area. <A small cemetery on the north side still contains ἃ number of old blocks, pillars, ete., but (as usual) the remains have been mostly carried to the large, neighbouring village of Eski-il (‘Old tribe’) and crowded into a cemetery of colossal extent. When Ainsworth passed this way, there were more remains on the hiiyiil:. He says (p. 191), ‘ After a ride of nine miles we arrived at a large artificial! mound in the plain, which apparently once supported an edifice. The ruins of what appears to have been a town of some size are also circularly disposed around the mound. These ruins are however now, with the exception of a few upright shafts of coluinns, level with the ground; nothing but foundations and_ scattered fragments are met with: so that after riding over and among them for some time we discovered nothing of interest nor any inscription. This place is now ealled Tusun Uyuk .. . [He proposes to identify it with Kongoustos.].* At. Eski-il itself (where Ramsay ‘conjectured Perta, without exploration, p. 344) there is a small site on and around a tepe on the west of the village beside a cemetery which is full of old stones. This is very near Tuzun Hiiyiik; and doubtless it was a subject village or outlying settlement of Perta.
in the large cemetery at Eski-il we copied the following.
101. Altar-stone, much worm; vine on one side, the other reliefs defaced. (C., seen also by A.).
Al///e///c//w Adi Μ)})εγί]σ[τ]ῳ
AOP//M («ΠῚ Aop|v|uelvns
TIATHIOYIIPX! llamiov [ἀρ͵]χι- PAMENOCIEI εἸρα(σάγμενος tel p-
EYCAIABIOYE evs διὰ βίου e- YXHN ὑχήν.
162. Rough stone with cross. (A.).
MNH MHM ATP NHC
} This is a mistake. only mean that he saw no stones there.
2 The place was visited by Dr. F. Sarre in 3 Dr, Sarre says again Hier (at Eski-il) fanden 1895. When he says (Arch.-Epig. Mitth. 1896, wir keine Spwren einer antiken Ansiedlung,— p. 34), Bei dem Dorf Tuzun, wo Ainsworth on which we may remark that he did not look Ruinen fand wnd das alte Congustos vermuthet, all round and well about! haben wir keine antiken Reste gesehen, he can
134 EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM.
At Tuzun Hiiyiik there is a fragment of an mscription.
Toprak Kale (¢ Earth Castle ’), which we have identified with. Kongoustos is a site of the same nature as Tuzun Hiiyiik, with extensive remains on and around a low hill. There were three surrounding walls, one below, one on rising ground, and the third round the highest point with a gateway on the north side. On the outskirts we saw many fragments of late pottery. A few minutes towards W.N.W. there is a small eywd: with a square ruin of no great size; plan and orientation suggest that if was a mosque, and that the site was therefore occupied down into Turkish times. None of the numerous blocks lying on the site showed any inscription. Some of the ruins have been carried to a deserted village, Tekir keui, an hour and twenty minutes towards the west. Dr. Sarre passed this way in 1895, but he does not appear to have seea the site. He found, however, an important Cultusstdétte connected with the city on a Inill a short distance to the east (called Tuzuk Dagh). The most important feature about it is the Throne or Seat of the god or goddess of the district (Zeus Megistos or Kybele 1), similar to those on Mt. Sipylos, at Aizanoi (Annucl of British School tor 1898), and other places.
J. G. C. ANDERSON.
1 Kybele is mentioned in an inscription now at Suwarek (see the following number of the Journal).
(To be continued).
NOTE ON THE MAP.
No pains have been spared to make the map as accurate as the available materials permit. Published maps have, of course, been laid under contribution ; but for a large part of this country they are almost entirely blank or inaccurate. For the district on the north of a line passing through Angora and Sivri Hissar much help has been derived from Von Diest’s recent map. But the alteration which is there made in the position of Sivri Hissar, on the strength of a compass-reading of Von Diest’s, combined with Vrotchenkov’s astronomical determinations, we found to be quite untenable. [Unfortunately, also, the position assigned to the town on the map does not agree with the evidence on which the cartographers themselves rely, as Mr. Darbishire at once detected.) We began to work with the proposed new position (latitude 39° 28’, longitude 29° 3’ east of Paris) and found that it led to impossible results ; e.g. it would bring Amorion too far west (the pointed rocks of Sivri Hissar are visible from the ruins, and our readings agree almost exactly with those of Prof. Ramsay). With Kiepert’s position, on the other hand, our readings worked ont quite well, and we therefore accepted it. Vrotchenkov’s astronomical determinations are unreliable.
J. GC.
———
NOTES ON AMASIS AND TONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. [Puates V.,.VI.}
AMONG the artists who have signed Attic black-figured vases perhaps the most singular and interesting personality is the potter and painter Amasis. He is interesting both as one of the masters of that delicate decorative work, which gives bf. vases their artistic value, and through the curious contradictions which can be traced in his style. Only seven vases bearing his signature are known up till now,' yet each shows characteristic peculiarities of shape, decoration, or style, which one would seek for in vain among the mass of contemporary Attic pottery.
No artist has surpassed Amasis in easy mastery and accuracy of drawing, or in the painstaking, delicate treatment of detail; yet his figures are often rigid and affected, his choice of subjects monotonous and limited. The technique and style of his vases, the alphabet and dialect of their inscriptions prove that he worked in Athens; yet both his numerous peculiarities of style and his name seem to denote a foreign origin.
It is but natural that so peculiar and interesting an artist should have excited curiosity to trace his origin and influence, and the wish to enrich the scanty stock of his work which we possess, by unsigned vases that may be attributed to him. Studniczka (Zphem. Archaeol. 1886, 117, Pl. 8, 3) has published a fragment of an amphora found on the Acropolis of Athens, which he considers, with some probability, to be a work of Amasis, and has added some interesting remarks on the artist’s origin. Fossey (Rev. Archéol. 1891, xvili. 367) has drawn attention to two vases in which he recognises the style of Amasis; we shall revert to these below. But by far the most important addition to our material is the beautiful amphora recently acquired by the Museum of Berlin, which Furtwiingler (Arch. Anz. 1898, 83) has first recognized as one of the best works by Amasis’ hand. This amphora has since been accurately published by Adamek (Unsignirte Vasen d. Amasis, 1895), who has added to it a series of other vases which he attributes to the same master. This latter question will be examined later. But first we must add to the list of Amasis’ work a new unsigned amphora, which forms
1 Two amphorae and four jugs published 1896, 178 note 1. That the amphora in the Wiener Vorlegebl. 1889, 3, 4. Anunpublished — Brit. Mns. bearing the name Amasis is not by amphora quoted by Hauser Archaeol, Jahrb. our artist, will be shown below,
136 GEORGE KARO.
the exact counterpart of the one in Berlin, and is at the same time one of his finest and most interesting productions.
The amphora figured on PI. V. and fig.1,! now in the Museum of Witrzburg (331 Urlichs) originally belonged to the Feoli collection ; we may thus in all probability assume it to have been found at Vulci. Its resemblance to the amphora in Berlin is too striking and complete to admit any doubt of its authorship. Both vases have the same rather heavy and unwieldy shape, the neck not being distinct from the body, the same proportions and profiles of
' the mouth, foot and handles; instead of the
tubular handles more usually employed for
| — b.f. amphorae of this shape, these are grooved
ἢ - . on the outside (for their shape see the initial
φ ts letter of Adamek’s treatise), and their ends Fie! 1
are ornamented with a pattern of short lines, zig-zag? on our amphora, straight lines on the Berlin one (if Adamek’s drawing is cor- rect). Even more strikingly alike is the decoration of both vases: a large panel is reserved on each side, divided into the main picture and a frieze of tiny figures, about one-fifth of the whole panel in height, above it. I know no other Attic example of this peculiar system of decoration. Two Chalcidian amphorae of the same shape (Petersburg 54 = Loeschcke Bonner Stud. 256, and Louvre E 802) show similar panels divided into two pictures; but here the upper one is about half as high as the lower, and by the choice of subjects for the former (mostly animals) the disproportion of size is as much as possible obliterated. The same principle is observed on two Tonic amphorae, akin in style to the well-known Phineus kylix, which were formerly in Comm. Castellami’s collec- tion in Rome, and of which Prof. Loeschcke has kindly communicated tracings to me (cf. Bulle, Silene p. 8, No. 14); further on a Chalcidian amphora in the Museo Faina at Orvieto,‘ different in shape. But in all these cases the upper pictures are about one half as high as the lower, and thus unlike the friezes
* For Herr Gaab’s drawings (which have been frieze divided from the main picture by a plait so far modified as is necessary for the purpose pattern, an unusual one in Attica; the Witrz- of general publication), and for permission to burg amphora has no ornamental patterns, publish them, I am indebted to the liberal — the pictures being framed by plain douhle kindness of Prof. Sittl 1 also wish to express _ lines.
my gratitude to Dr. Boehlau, who had imtended 4 This vase, unhappily in a very fragmentary to publish this vase, and very kindly gave up — condition, is of peculiar interest, as it combines his plan in my favour. a neck distinct from the body, with reserved
* This ornament, not frequent in Attica, is panels for the pictures: (α) a youthful horse- constantly used on the finest Chaleidian vases man opposite a man draped in a chlamys. and on Corinthian ‘anfore a colonnette.’ (b) two sphinxes seated heraldically opposite
= On the Berlin vase the panels are framed each other. In each of the upper pictures, on each side hy a maeander, and the upper remains of two animals,
J.H.8. VOL. XIX. (1899).
PL Vi.
IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
BLACK-FIGURED PSYKTER
᾿ 4 a a “ss ub ik μ"
ag me P
= Pm, “ὦ. —— }
,“«-. hes 50, = “ ae an ἝΝ 4
μα. - Ὧν». ᾿ ἔ ee a 4 Fa δ | — suicide « = ee νῶν... ποι —— [ * ee, α,,. Ne el
͵ » ~— SS. ; : ν pete <a 2 >
“ < fi ὡν J ‘Wir ΣΧ etgadee: (£ (4OPFO ORT Celts cag ΣΌΣ
αὐτο πος:
\ ie tN
MI
y , ν Ltn"
wo)
ἣν
J χτ νυ τ
"
J.H.S. VOL. XIX. (1899). PL. V.
if) ὶ
: [Ὁ Sy, Udlt,
© 22
‘OUNEZEUNM LY VHYOHAWY
o/ oe ; A P ᾿ ; FS a wos ἐν Ἢ up 7 — δ ὦ
NOTES ON AMASTS AND TONTC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 137
of tiny figures on our amphora, Still it is important to note that the only analogies to this peculiar scheme of «lecoration are found outside of Attica, on Tonic vases.
Another detail of decoration which both our amphorae have in common, while it is distinctly foreign to Attic art, is the double vow of rays (Fig. 1) tapering upward from the base. In Appendix II. to this article I have tried to trace the origin and development of this pattern, which, we shall see, is characteristic of Amasis, and again connects his work with Ionic art.
The analogy of shape and ornamentation between the two vases is cutirely corroborated by their style. In the small frieze of the Wiirzburg amphora, on the obverse, Dionysos is seated on a folding chair, 1 drinking horn in his hand, surrounded by a wild dance of alternate Sileni and Maenads. On the reverse there are more dancing Maenads and Sileni, one of whom is playing a double finte. An exactly similar frieze is painted on the obverse of the Berlin amphora, some of the figures being almost identically alike in both eases. The same identity of style is evident in the main pictures. The reverse offers a subject froquent on b.f, vases: Dionysos, walking to the left, clad in a long kimation, a wreath of vine-leaves in his long flowing hair,a bunch of vine branches in his left hand. In his right he holds a large kantharos, into which a Silenus, his face drawn in front view, is pouring wine from a skin. Behind him a second Silenus plays the double flute, a wreath hanging on his arm, while to the right of Dionysos two others trip along, drinking-horns in their hands, and their arms twined about each other’s necks in the scheme which is peculiar to Amasis, and is found both on the Berlin amphora and on the famous signed one in the Cabinet des Médailles. The scene on the obverse is more unusual and interesting! Under a trellis of vines a large wicker basket has been placed in a flat trough resting on trestles; a Silenus is standing in the basket, stamping the grapes, which another throws into it out of a flat, probably wooden tray, the end of which is seen above his neck ; while a thir Silenus, to the right, is gathering grapes off the vine. A large jug stands under the trough, from which the must flows through a spout into a large pithos sunk deep into the earth. Next to this pithos,a kantharos is standing on the ground, and behind it a Silenus plays the flute, while another is pouring water from a hydria into a large pithos standing almost wholly above ground. The whole is drawn with great skill and care, and the scene is full of life and humour. The Sileni are ithyphallie on both sides, most of them with an entirely stippled, hairy body, long beards and mane-like hair (especially bestial in the one with the hydria); their faces have the expression of brutal, yet harmless and merry bestiality which is characteristic of Amasis’ Sileni.
Altogether, we will not hesitate to add the Wirzburg amphora to the list of the best and most careful works by our artist’s hand ; it is, in fact, his
1 Examples of Sileni engaged in grape-pick- subject, though not in style, Gerhard 4.7% 15 ; ing are rather rare ; 2 specially characteristic οὗ, an amphora and a cylix hy Nikosthenes, one, very similar to the Wiirzhurg amphora ἢ Wien. Vorlegebl, 1890-1, 3, 5,
138 GEORGE KARO.
most vigorous and lifelike production. It may be added that the edge of Dionysos’ himation is fringed, a detail which Adamek (/.c. p. 12 ff.) regards as equivalent to Amasis’ signature. It does appear on all his work, but Adamek himself has given a long list of other vases with fringed ae, which proves how exaggerated lis conclusion is.
By cine the Berlin amphora, Adamek has rendered an undoubted service, and it is certainly useful too to have the drawings of the other vases which he attributes to Amasis. Furtwiingler had already collected the amphorae of the Berlin Museum in his catalogue (1688-1692, and the jug 1751), and called attention to their excellence of technique and accuracy of style. Adamek’s work has been mainly restricted to the publication of these vases (Fig. 3-16 of his treatise), and to the tracing of fringes on each of them ; he has likewise found fringes on the two vases published by Fossey (/tev. Archéol.
1891, 367: Brit. Mus. B 52 and Louvre F 26), and already. connected by him with Amaia: and the same detail seems to Adamek a sufficient reason for attributing to the same master five vases as different in style as Berlin 1686 (ktr, camp. Vas, 2/3), Brit. Mus. B 197 (Walters, Pl. 5-6.), Mus. Greg. IT. 3 (Diimmler Roem. Mitth. 1887, 190), Munich 81 (Gerhard A.V. 121-2) and 73.
I have already said that Adamek’s own list (p. 14-15) is the best proof that fringed dresses are not, as he terms it, a kind of signature of Amasis, but a detail which, while it constantly appears on the vases by his hand, is not unfrequent in Attic b.f. and rf. painting generally. Of the five vases last quoted, the first four are as like or unlike Amasis’ work as any carefully executed Attic vase of the same period! As for the other vases, they do really form a series which shows a marked resemblance to the style of Amasis, and probably were made in his workshop, though not, I think, by his own hand. The following examples are known to me (Nos. 8-12., 15 are new) :—
1.—Amphorae.
1-5. Berlin 1688-1692. Adamek Fig. 2-13. 16.
6. Munich 75. Adamek p. 43-4. Furtwiingler, Miinchener Fihrer, p- 28, who claims the vase for Amasis ; it certainly is most strikingly similar to his work.
7. Louvre F 26. Fossey (ev. Arch. 1891, 367), has published one panel, a naked youth with a hare in his hand, between three men. On the reverse, a man clad in a short chiton and pointed cap, holding a lance and a shield with a lion’s head in relief, stands between two men and a youth with four wings, of which two are recurved, exactly like the Gorgon’s on one of Amasis’ jugs (Wien. Vorl. 1889, 4).
8. Louvre F 25. A small and unusually delicate and beautiful vase. (a) Warrior in full armour, but without a shield (his chiton fringed), holding a dog by a chain, and a wreath, is talking to Poseidon, clad in a long embroidered
Berlin 1686 resembles Amasis in style, but is probably somewhat older.
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 139
chiton and chlamys, and holding a trident. On the other side a woman, in the sleeved chiton of Amasis’ Maenads, holding lance and wreath. () Dionysos with kantharos and vine branch, between Hermes (wearing petasos and winged shoes, holding /erykeion) and a youth with two lances.
9. Louvre F 36. (@) Herakles attacking a warrior (shield, with the fore- part of a lion), between a woman holding lance, and another warrior (shield, with snake in relief). (/) Dionysos with kantharos between two dancing couples.
10. Brit. Mus. B 151. (a) Youthful rider to στ. holding a second horse, a boy running underneath him; on either side a naked youth and a long- robed man. (/) Two warriors with blank round shields to ]., between them a dog; on either side a long-robed man with a lance. Double rays round the base, the only example in this series.
11. Orvieto, Museo Faina 40. (a) Man standing to r. in linen chiton and fringed Aimation; Hermes opposite, touching his chin with his might hand, then Athena, Herakles (bow, sword, club, without lion’s skin, but a lion by his side), Dionysos with drinking horn, all of them to 1. (ef. Berlin 1691). (ὁ) ‘ Persian Artemis,’ with four wings, holding lion by hind paws and doe by neck; on either side two youths, in chlamys and himation respectively.
12. Chiusi, Museo Municipale. (a) Dionysos and Ariadne (her flesh drawn in outline) opposite each other, between three Sileni, (ὦ) Quadriga with warrior, two warriors behind it.
Il.— Jugs.
13. Berlin, 1731. Adamek Fig. 14-15.
14, Brit. Mus. B 52. Fossey 16. Important as having been found at Rhodes.
15. Louvre F 28. Man fastening his second greave on his leg, his helmet between his legs, a woman opposite holding shield and lance. On either side two naked youths, and on one side a long-robed man, all holding lances.
This list could no doubt be considerably enlarged, but for our purpose it is amply sufficient. There is hardly a class of works of art in which stylistic criticism is so dangerous and misleading as the Attic b.f. vases, with their conventional treatment of types and myths which for the most part have been created elsewhere and taken over ready-made by the Athenian potters. One cannot be too careful in attributing unsigned work to any known artist, and when that artist has marked and unique peculiarities of style and treatment, it is a mistake to blur our conception of his art by attributing to him vases which merely resemble his work, or have been made under his direct influence. Now no other painter of his time has a more characteristic style than Amasis. Not only are his methods of decorating the amphora utterly unlike the ordinary Attic types, but numerous details, like the drawing of women’s flesh
140 GEORGE KARO,
in black outline,! the Bacchie couples with arms clasped round each other's necks, the peculiar zig-zag folds of the chiton (Wien. Vorl. 1889, 4 4; Adamek Pl. 1), would be sought for in vain among the vast number of Attic b.f. vases ; and the double rays round the base are at least as conclusive as Adamek’s fringes, since, besiles a erater by Nikosthenes, they occur, to my knowledge, on only two Attic vases, both under Amasis’ direct influence: the aunphora Brit. Mus. B 151, just quoted, and the psykter B 148 which we shall examine below. For these reasons I consider the two unsigned amphorae in Berlin and Wiirzbure to be undoubtedly by Ainasis himself, while I am un- able to admit this for the others.
It may be permitted, as we are treating this subject, to recur briefly to the amphora Brit. Mus. B 209 (iVien. Vor/. 1889, 3, 2), on which the name of Amasis has been explained as a signature of the artist. Adamek has reverted to this explanation, which Loeschcke (A.Z. 1881, 31) and Cecil Smith (text of the Wien. Vorl.) would seem to have rendered wntenable, by showing the impossibility of explaining the inscription as a signature, and pointing out that the vase in its style resembles Exekias, not Amasis. I would add that ‘the artificial folds of the chiton’ of Achilles and Memnon, quoted by Adamek in defence of his assertion, are just not like the typical zig-zag folds of Amasis: and that among all the numerous warriors on Amasis’ vases not one has a metal armour sucli as Achilles and one of the negroes wear,? not one a leather armour entirely resembling Memnon’s, nor the peculiar tassels inside the shields, nor the mode of dressing the hair with its three separate curls which we see in the case of both heroes. This amphora must be definitively struck off the list of Amasis’ works.
We have thus altogether five amphorae and four jugs which we can safely attribute to Amasis’ own hand. The jugs are all of the same shape and scheme of decoration, a type which the Athenian potters received from Corinth (a Corintho-Attie example, Vienna 123 Pl. 1 Masn.); while it is remarkable that the five amphorae present four distinct types, each different from the ordinary Attic ones. The Paris amphora, with its narrow frieze of warriors on the shoulder, shows a scheme of decoration corresponding to the best Chalcidian amphorae, while only solitary examples, most of them clearly bearing the mark of foreign influence, occur among Attic ware.? Nor is the decoration of the Amasis amphora in Mr. Bourguignon’s collection (Wien. Vorl. 1889, 3) at all an habitual one, two purely decorative figures
* The same technique is employed by Chol- chos ( Wien. Vorl. 1889, 1), but it is only one isolated example ; Amasis gives women’s flesh in white also, mostly for small figures, as on the upper friezes of the two unsigned am- phorae.
* On the contrary, this armour finds its exact counterpart on the amphova by Exekias ( Wien. Vorl. 1888, 6, 2), which gives the same myth in an almost identical manner.
* Two very fine examples in the Museo
Municipale of Orvieto, especially one resem- bling Amasis in the palmettes under the handles and the decoration of each side by only three large figures (a) Apollo between Aphro- dite and Artemis, (Ὁ) Zeus with the new-born Athena on his knee, between two Eileithyiae). The other examples mostly have no special resemblance to Amasis’ style ; e.g. Brit. Mus. B 212, 213 (Micali Storia 85) Louvre F 199, 216. Berlin 1713, 1716, 1717. Strassburg Univ, Mus.
NOTES ON AMASIS AND TONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 141
of Dionysos under the handles being substituted for the usual Attic palmette and lotos ornament. The second amphora belonging to Mr. Bour- guignon scems, according to Hauser’s description, to resemble the ordinary Attic type with red body. While the two unsigned vases in Wiirzburg and Berlin find their only parallels in Chalcis and Tonia (see above).
I think that another rare type of vase may be traced back to Amasis, even though we have no example of it actually painted by him. On Pl. VI. is figured one of the most accurate and delicate b.f. vases of the British _ Museum, the psykter B 1481; it is one of a small series of amphorae with a double bottom and a spout on one side, the wine being poured in through the neck, the cooling water through the spout.2 This is the typical b.f. type of the psykter, and its ingenious arrangement corresponds exactly to the predi- lection for such vases with special contrivances, evident during the archaic period.® The later type of the psykter, which is merely a vase containing wine and floating on the water in a large crater, I take to be an invention of rf. ceramic art; at least I know no bf. example anterior to the severe rf. style On the other hand, our type of the psykter is distinctly archaic, and represented by a small series of Chalcidian vases, which we may hope soon to see published by Locselhcke. The finest example of all is in Copenhagen (Daremberg-Saglio /.c.); another belonging to the Berlin Museum is figured in the Archaeoloy. Anzeigrr 1889, 91; two more are in the Museo Municipale at Corneto and in Comm. Castellani’s collection in Rome, the latter being specially interesting through a stippled Silenus closely resembling those on our vase. Fragments of a fifth psykter of the same kind are in Mr. Bourguignon s collection at Naples.
The Uhalcidian examples all have the neck distinct from the body, while ours is of the ordinary shape of Attic b.f. amphorae with reserved panels, the spout alone distinguishing it. This spout is decorated with rays and a zig- zag pattern which we find both on Chalcidian vases and on the handles of the Amasis amphora at Wiirzburg. The lotos and palmette chain above the pictures, frequent in b.f. art, finds its counterpart on the jugs by Amasis, and the double rays at the base of the psykter are, as we have seen, characteristic of all his work. Further resemblances are noticeable in the style of the panels. Their subjects need no explanation: on one side® Theseus. wearing
1 From a drawing by Mr. F. Anderson, which on the oinochoe by Xenokles and Kleisophos
Mr. G. Ἐν Hill kindly procured for me; I am also indebted to Mr. Murray for his kind per- mission to publish this yase.
2 See Darembere-Saglio i. 2, 821, Fig 1026 ; the water was emptied out of the vase through a hole in the bottom.
3 Cf. M. Pottier’s valuable article on the beautiful Corinthian vase published B.C.H. xix. PJ. 19-20. I know several other examples of such vases with secret contrivances, all of them belonging to the seventh and sixth centuries.
4 The oldest example known to me is figured
(Wien. Vorl. 1889, 1). Existing psykters of this shape, e.g. Louvre F 319, 320, 488. 1.131. Brit. Mus. B 299. One in Dr. Hauser’s collec- tion, now in Leipzig, one in the Museo Munici- pale at Corneto.
5 Another example of this type, Naples, Coll. Santang. 38 Heydem., also Attic, and of similar, though less characteristic, style. Simple rays, ivy wreath on spout and grooved handles.
ὁ The vase was intended to be placed with the spout-side backward, as is here indicated hy the chief subject being reserved for the other panel.
142 GEORGE KARO.
only a curious loin-cloth with a rosette embroidered upon it,’ is driving his sword into the neck of the stippled Minotaur, while with his left hand he seizes the monster’s left wrist. Theseus’ ch/umys is lying between his legs on a stone or mound of earth, the sheath of his sword hangs behind his back. On either side two Athenian youths are regarding the scene with interest, two of them draped in a long embroidered himation, the third naked, the fourth with a short chiamys thrown over his shoulders. All have most elaborately dressed hair. On the other panel, Dionysos, wreathed with ivy and dressed in an embroidered chiton and red chlamys, stands stiffly, a drinking horn in his left hand; before him is a stippled Silenus ges- ticulating. On the other side of the spout, two similar Sileni and a Maenad in a red Ionic chiton with a nebris tied over it, are dancing along, while under the spout a smaller Silen, not stippled, is trying to catch a hare.
The general style of the youths, with their elaborate head-dress, elon- gated limbs and stiff postures, and especially of the stippled Sileni with horses’ ears and bestial faces, closely resembles Amasis’ work, and the hare in the Bacchic scene is also suggestive of his influence (see the amphorae in Berlin and Paris). Yet I do not think that the psykter is by his hand. The type of Dionysos is different: Amasis always gives him the kantharos, not the drinking horn (except in the upper frieze of the Wiirzburg amphora), and a different style of clothing. The same applies to the Maenad, whose dress is quite different from the peculiarly characteristic chiton with short. slit sleeves which Amasis uses (see the amphorae in Paris, Wiirzburg, Berlin) while he avoids the nebris ; besides, the Maenad on the psykter has her flesh painted white, not drawn in black outline, as Amasis draws it on his best work. Even the Silent do not quite render Amasis’ type: they are not ithyphallic and their faces are stippled, while Amasis restricts this indication of hair to the body.
If, thus, a conscientious examination does not allow us to attribute the psykter to Amasis himself, its many analogies of decoration and style make it evident that the vase was made under the direct influence of that master. And so we may attribute to him the importation with modifications of the Chalcidian type of the psykter into Attica ; a supposition which is confirmed by the fact that the unique type of the two unsigned amphorae by Amasis in Berlin and Wiirzburg corresponds to a Chalcidian one (see above), and that here also Amasis has modified the type, by reducing the upper picture of the amphora to a narrow, almost decorative frieze. It is impossible to say whether he drew his models from Chalcis itself or copied a common Ionic prototype; in the case of the amphora, the latter is rendered probable by
1 The loin-cloth is of exactly the same cut
as the garment showing under the cuirass of
Chalcidian warriors, and the rosette too is quite Chalcidian, and unusual in Attica at this period, On a b.f. hydria of ordinary Attic style in the Museo Gregoriano (ii. 8) we find
Theseus, who is killing the stippled Minotaur, clad in exactly the same loin-cloth decorated with a rosette. <A similar garment without the rosette is worn by a youth on the amphora, Berlin 1686 (see above p. 138).
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 143
the two Ionic examples quoted above. Of the psykter we have as yet found no traces in Tonia,
Thus we see in Amasis an artist, working doubtless in Athens, as his inscriptions prove, a consummate master of Attic b.f. style, employing current Attic shapes and types, yet trying constantly, both in the shapes of his vases, in the scheme of their decoration, and in details of technique and style, to introduce new clements, derived from foreign sources, into the monotonous rigidity of Attic b.f. art. The drawing of women’s flesh in black outline, the stippled Sileni, the couples with their arms clasped round each other’s necks, the naked Maenads with their great ear-rings, the invariable leather cuirasses with shoulder-flaps, worn by the warriors, the fringed garments and their rich embroidery and curious folds, the complicated head-dress of the men, are all so many signs of Ionic influence; and these signs could be multiplied by a detailed examination of Amasis’ work. Here, I merely quote the type of the Gorgon and the bearded Perseus, the panther’s skin of the Maenad on the Parisian amphora, the episema of the shields, like the Asiatic stag (dame vulgaris, an animal known only to eastern Ionic art) or the panther’s mask, which I shall show to be an Ionic type in my publication of the gold ornaments from Camirus; further, the Scythian archer and the man blowing the bugle on the shoulder frieze of the Parisian amphora, and—assuming the fragment published by Studniczka to be by Amasis—Athena’s helmet with its phalos (Loeschcke, Festschr. d. Bonner Jahrb. 1891, 10) and its band of lotos flowers and pomegranates. Everywhere we see the influence exercised over Amasis by foreign models, whereas his own influence in Attica seems to have been a small one. We have traced a series of unsigned vases back to his workshop or his direct pupils: but they are all amphorae of the ordinary Attic type, while the peculiar innovations in the decorative schemes to which he devoted especial care, have remained almost unheeded by his contemporaries. We have a couple of psykters which most probably imitate models by his hand, and a few amphorae with narrow friezes on the shoulder, though these mostly show no special affinity of style with Amasis. But on the whole one must admit that his efforts have hardly influenced Attic art; while on the other hand these very innovations which he attempted to introduce confirm the supposition of his own foreign origin.
It is a generally accepted opinion that Amasis was one of the numerous artists and artisans whom the rapid development of the commonwealth under the reign of Pisistratus drew to Athens from all countries. Studniczka has supposed him to be a native of Naukratis, as his name naturally points to Egypt. But it is growing more and more apparent that Naukratis was a great trading city, where the wares and merchants of many countries gathered, but not a centre of original commercial or artistic production. Moreover, Loeschcke (Pauly-Wissowa J. 1748, s.v. Amasis) has justly pointed out that towards the middle of the sixth century Attic influence was strong in Naukratis, while not a trace of a Naukratite b.f. style has yet been discovered. He therefore concludes that Amasis came to Athens from eastern Greece, and considers the possibility of Samos being his home. [Ὁ is impossible at present
144 GEORGE KARO.
to arrive at any sure conclusion on this point, but I think it may be shown that many peculiarities of Amasis’ style connect him with a current of Tonic art, which seems te have included Samos. To explain this it is necessary to go back beyond the period of actual b.f. painting.
In the most valuable and suggestive account of his excavations in Samos (Aus. ion. und rtal. Nekrop.), Dr. Boehlau has shown that the large class of vases hitherto called by the conventional name of ‘ Fikellura, and found in large numbers in Rhodes and Daphnae, represents the ceramic industry of Samos in the second half of the seventh century. For the history of archaic pottery this discovery is of the greatest importance; it definitively corroborates the solution which Prof. Loeschcke had long ago proposed for this difficult problem (Athen. Mitth. xxii. 261). It was he who years ago discovered the fine amphora at Altenburg (Boellau, p. 56) which, with its frieze of grotesque dancing figures, represents the highest development of this class of Samian pottery, and the transition from the archaic to the bf. style. Other examples of this transitional stage have been found at Daphnae (7; αὐυΐς 11. PIL. 28), while Boehlan’s excavations have as yet touched only poorer parts of the necropolis, with simpler and more archaic Samian vases.
But we ean follow the thread farther, with the assistance of a small group of vases found in Italy, which show what the Samian b.f. pottery not yet found on the island must have been. M. Pottier has been thie first to draw atten- tion to this group and has proved its Ionic origin in one of his excellent articles on archaic pottery (B.C.H. xvii. 423). I am able to enlarge his list by a few important examples, all of the same shape known as deinos:
1. Louvre E 731. Pottier, Fig. 1, p. 424. Ivy wreath on rim, tongue pattern ou shoulder; frieze of dancing Sileni and Maenads, then chain of lotus buds aud flowers, and simple rays.
2. Louvre E 804. Pottier, Fig. 2, p. 427. Ivy wreath on rim, herring- bone pattern on shoulder ; frieze of grotesque dancing youths, then pattern resembling an undulated ribbon.
3. Louvre E 812. Pottier, Fig. 3, p. 428. Undulated line on rim; frieze of warriors, then one of Sirens, and an undulated ribbon.
4. Vienna 215 Masner, Pl. 5. With support. Ivy wreath on rim, tongue-pattern on shoulder; frieze of Sileni dancing, then elaborate zig-zag pattern and double rays.
5. Florence 1839 (quoted by Masner, p. 20). Parallel Jines on rim, tongue-pattern on shoulder; frieze of grotesque dancers as on No. 2, then chain of lotus buds and blossoms, and simple rays.
6. Cervetri, Coll. Ruspoli. Frieze of dancers as No. 2, but among them adeinos on a tripod of metal bars, and a man and woman pounding something ina mortar. I have unhappily only had a glimpse of the vase, aud noted no details.
7. Brit. Mus. B 46. Lotos chain on rim, tongue-pattern on shoulder ;
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 145
banquet scene, seven couches, five servants between them ; then frieze of animals and ‘ polypus’-pattern. 8. Rome, Pal. dei Conservatori 106, with support like No. 4. Broad
band of painted scales round body, no figures,
9. Louvre E 810, quoted by Pottier, p. 430, who doubts its Ionic origin, the men having the Attic shape of the eye. Yet I think the vase belongs to our group. Ivy wreath on rim, burlesyue dancers on body, ‘ polypus’ ornament on base.
That all these vases have a common origin is proved by their identity of shape, their many analogies of style and types, in spite of slight individual discrepancies. Nor is the similarity, pay identity, of the grotesque dancers on the deinoi (Nos, 2, 5, 6), and those on the Samian amphorae quoted above, less evident ; this analogy is all the more significant, as we find on the deinoi a transition stage of technique, white painted lines and incised lines being used simultaneously for the indication of details.1. This peculiarity is another connecting link between the deinoi and the Samian vases, on which incised lines are only once employed ; and the similarity of the decorative patterns bears this out. We find on the deinoi the band of lotos buds and flowers peculiar to Samian ware, and a broad band of painted scales as on the Samian amphora Tanis 11. Pl. 52,3 while at the same time new ornaments appear—the rays, double or single, the ivy wreath, the undulated ribbon afterwards not rare in Attica, the tongue and herring-bone pattern, the so-called ‘polypus’* an elaborate zig-zag and a curious undulated pattern (No. 3,7) to which we revert.
We have thus a clearly defined group of vases, belonging to the earliest b.f. style, and offering the most striking resemblance to that highest development of Samian pottery which directly precedes the actual bf. style. Of course, without the aid of either inscriptions or local excavations, it would be impossible to prove, and premature to assert that we have here a later phase of Samian art. But certainly these deinoi can serve as examples of what b.f. Samian vases must have been, and must be near akin to them. We may, at any rate, assume them to have been made on one of the Ionic islands, or in a colony on the Asiatic coast ; and a similar origin is probable for a small series of amphorae, which offer striking analogies to the deinoi, but appear to be somewhat younger, representing as they do some of the best Ionic examples of developed b.f. pottery.
1 See Pottier τ. 425. These white lines 150 (from Rhodes), Further a Rhodian oino-
appear only on Nos. 1, 7; they represent a transitional technique, while the Samian vases use reserved lines for details (the Altenburg vase has a few incised lines), and the Clazo- menian sarcophagi only white lines, no in- cisions.
2 Cf. the Clazomenian sarcophagus Ant. Denkm. i. 45, Ionic amphorae: Berlin 1674, 1885 (B.C. Μ΄. xvii. 484 Fig. 7), Arch. Jahrb. i.
E.S.— VOL. XIX.
choe in the Louvre (A 821, Pottier Vases du Louvre 13). The oldest examples known to me are on Mycenaean vases, 6.9. Myk. Vas. x. 62.
3 I take the crescent pattern characteristic of Samian ware to be developed out of the poly- pus, when a foot was added to the vase, just as the rays are derived from a lotos chalice sus- taining a vase without a foot ; see App. il.
L
146 GEORGE KARO.
The finest vase of this series is the beautiful amphora now in the Marquis vf Northampton’s collection, and published by Gerhard (4. V. 317-8; Burling- ton Club Cat. of Greek Ceramic Art, p. 20, 112). To it we may add two amphorae in Munich, Nos. 573 ( Wiew. Vorl. 1890-1, 12) and 583, published by Lau (Gricch. Vas. x. 7, xi. 4) and Studniczka (Arch. Jahrb. v. 142), who has recognised the resemblance and Ionic origin of these three vases. A fourth amphora, Berlin, 1676 (Gerhard A.V. 9), though akin to the other three, is slightly different in shape and style.
The stylistic identity of the Northampton vase and Munich 583 (the ‘Dolon amphora’ according to Studniczka’s explanation), is evident in the un-Attic combination of reserved panels on the body with a neck distinct froin it, and decorated with two pictures, in the elaborate profiles, copied from metallic models, of neck and foot, in the disposition of the decorative patterns on the vase (bands of ornaments on the rim and foot as on the ‘ Caeretan hydriae’), in the types of these patterns, such as the lotos chain or the double rays, above all in the quite peculiar and characteristic arrangement of palmettes with little hares among them, which occurs on both vases. As for the third, the so-called ‘Io’ amphora (Munich 573), it has a different shape, the neck not being distinct from the body, nor the pictures in reserved panels, an equally un-Attic combination (A.V. 9 shows the ordinary Attic shape, only with double rays) ; but the type of the Argos and of the Centaurs’ heads as well as the Triton with wreath and necklace A.V. 9, connect both with the Northampton amphora; both also have lotos chains and double rays. On the other hand the resemblance to the deinoi quoted above is striking. We find the same type of lotos chain in both groups, also the same ivy-wreath; the double rays appear on deinos No. 4, the plait pattern of the Dolon amphora, though shown by none of our deinoi, is characteristic of Samian ware, while the curious undulated pattern on deinos No. 3 finds its counterpart on the Northampton amphora.? Further, the Sileni on the latter vase, with their bestial faces, mane-like hair, and ribs indicated by incised lines, correspond exactly to the deinoi 1-4;° while the curious tripod of the Northampton amphora recurs on No. 6, the Ruspoli deinos.4 We may thus safely conclude that this group of amphorae is most nearly related to the deinoi and is contemporaneous or slightly younger,
* The red nipple surrounded by a circle of white dots is a characteristic Ionic peculiarity. It recurs on a Triton on a fragment of an Ionic cup in Bonn, of the class which Diimmler has wrongly called Pontic.
* It is not quite the sume; the pattern of the amphora recurs now and then on Ionic vases (¢.g. Vienna Hof-Mus. 278); an exact counterpart of the deinos pattern on the frag- ment of an Ionic pithos from Caria, published Athen. Mitth, xxi. PI. 6.
4 Two of the Northampton Sileni have horses’
hoofs, which are found on none of our deinoi, but as both these types constantly appear side by side in archaic art, the absence of one of them proves nothing.
4 For this type of tripod see Savignoni’s careful and accurate study, Mon. ant. vii. 277 ; he quotes the Northampton amphora as the only example of such tripods on painted vases. Besides the Ruspoli deinos, I know another example on Munich 984, an Etruscan hydria copied from an Ionic model, of the class treated by Diimmler Roem. Mitth. iii. 173.
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 147
The connection between the series just examined may appear insufficient, and the documentary evidence fragmentary and incomplete. But it should be remembered that as soon as we leave the well-known track of Attic art we are forced to reconstruct, as best we may, large and important classes now lost to us, from a few stray fragments which chance has spared. And while one cannot be too careful in the inferences drawn from such fragments, yet every effort should be made to retrace their parentage as far as possible. 1 do -not pretend, out of the documents quoted above, to form a continuous chain, but I take them to be links of a broken chain, which if complete would lead down from the archaic pottery of Miletos and Samos, to the fully developed b.f. style of Athens, from the middle of the 7th to the end of the 6th century. And to the links which we have quoted we can add a last one, placed near to the end of the chain.
Among the mass of Attic b.f. vases there is a series of amphorae, which form a distinct class by themselves, and were evidently made in the same place, if not by the same hand. Only amphorae have been found, and all in Italy (in fact, with two exceptions in Etruscan tombs), while not one has to my knowledge till now appeared or Greek soil.! Their queer angular style has earned for these vases the name of the ‘affected Tyrrhenian’ group, They have hardly been noticed tili now; but for a few passing remarks by Jahn (Munich Cat. Einl. clxxi.), Urlichs (Beitr. 2. Kuwnstgesch. 16 f.) and Furtwingler (Miinchner Fiihrer 25), the only archaeologist who has studied them is M. Gsell, who, in his excellent Fouilles de Vulci, has given a list of the examples known to him, a short analysis of their style and type, and the only really faithful reproduction of such an amphora as yet published (PI. 7-8, p. 502). The list given in my appendix i. contains more than twice as many vases as M. Gsell’s, but no doubt several more exist in museums which I have not visited. However, the present material is amply sufficient for an appre- ciation of the whole class.
The amphora found by M. Gsell at Vulci is important through its having been discovered, as very few examples of this class have been, in excavations conducted with scientific accuracy. It was found in a tomba a camera of a rather archaic type (tombe xlv.; Gsell p. 101, cf. 431 f.), together with a number of ducchero vases of the fully developed type with modelled reliefs some coarse local ware of no chronological importance, and a b.f. lecythus apparently Attic; the tomb had already been plundered, but the objects just described, and the fact that bones of only one body were found in the tomb, allow us to date it with tolerable certainty towards the middle of the 6th century. ‘his date is confirmed by the few other specimens of our class discovered in circumstances known to us :—
I.—tomba a camera, Orvieto; Gamurrini Not. d. Sc. 1881, 51. Helbig, Bull. 1881, 267. The ashes of several bodies were found in this tomb, which had also been rifled; any exact chronology of the objects found is thus
1 Dr. Hartwig kindly informs me that not a single fragment of such ware has been found in the ‘ Perserschutt’ on the Acropolis. Ν LZ
148 GEORGE KARO.
impossible, yet the fact that besides an amphora of our class (No. 30 of our list) only late bucchero and b.f. and severe r.f. Attic vases were found. gives us a valuable terminus post quem.
II.—tomba a camera, Orvieto; Helbig Bull. 1882, 233. Gamurrini Noe. d. Se. 1882, 374. Milani Mus. Jtal. 111. 209; the contents are now in the Florentine Museum. This tomb, in which the remains of several unburnt bodies were found, had also been plundered. But as it contained a series of vases certainly older than the middle of the 6th century, viz. a panathenaic amphora second only to the Burgon vase in age, a Chaleidian oinochoe, and a Corintho-Attic anfora a colonnette, together with ἃ r.f. kylix signed by Chachrylion, the tomb must evidently have been used for at least a couple of generations, The two affected amphorae discovered here (Nos. 1., 18) probably do not belong to the very oldest deposits of the tomb.
I1I.—Remains of two amphorae have been found at Adria. One (No. 43) almost intact, was excavated in 1816, ‘alla profondita di piedi 20 circa’ (Schone, Jfus. Bocchi p. 27), a depth which corresponds to the lowest stratum yet found in Adria. Two small fragments of another amphora (No. 8) were found in 1879 among the remains of a building evidently belonging to Greek settlers of the 6th century, together with numerous b. and r.f. fragments (Not. d. Se. 1879, p. 96. 101. PL. IIT. 47). The fact that no vases older than common Attic b.f. ware have as yet appeared at Adria is again important as a chronological limit.
We have thus gained an approximate date for our amphorae, inde- pendently of their style; and the importance of this fact will immediately become apparent. I have already said that all the vases of this class are amphorae, a circumstance in no wise unique in Greek pottery: we can compare the well-known Ionic group of the ‘Caeretan hydriae,’ in which like- wise only one shape of vase occurs. However, the affected amphorae do not ali have exactly the same shape, but two distinct fundamental types, each with minor variations :—
I—The neck is not distinct from the body, the handles tubular, the foot has the shape of an inverted echinus; the whole body is painted black, save for a double row of rays round the base, and two reserved panels, decorated at the top with a chain of hanging lotos blossoms, or of double
alternating lotos blossoms and palmettes, such as is constantly employed on archaic Attic amphorae. 3
a. The shape is identical with that of the Attic b.f. amphora with reserved panels (Walters, Brit. Mus. Cat. ii. Fig. 13).
b. Like a, but for the orifice, which instead of being rectangular in profile, is rounded like that of the Attic so-called pelike; the nearest
approach to this shape is shown by a Chalecidian amphora in Munich, No. 1106.
NOTES ΟΝ AMASIS AND TONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 149
II.—The neck is distinct from the body, the shape thus roughly corre- sponding to the Attic b.f. amphora with red body (Walters, Fig. 15). How- ever, the shapes both of the body, narrowing below and broader above, and of the neck, which is shorter and smaller, differ from the Attic type, while they closely resemble the Northampton and Dolon amphorae described above. The neck is bordered at each end by a narrow plastic ring, painted red, and imitating the rings of solder on bronze vases ; a similar broader ring connects the body with the foot, which is elaborately moulded. The handles are usually composed of three bars, sometimes they are tubular. Some of the plainer specimens have no plastic rings, and the foot is like an inverted echinus. The lower half of the body is painted black, but for a narrow double band of rays round the base and a band of lotos flowers (sometimes missing) above these. On the shoulder, a tongue-pattern, painted alternately black and red, and a chain of hanging lotos blossoms. Below these, a broad frieze of figures. We have three variations of this shape :
a. Figures painted on each side of the neck (3-4), the shoulder frieze divided into two pictures, of one to two figures each, by a very elaborate and beautiful palmette ornament under the handles.
b. Neck as a, but the shoulder frieze is continuous, the figures under the handles being painted smaller. The large figures next to the handles are often partially covered by them, thus showing that the vase was painted before the handles were attached to it. The base of the handles is surrounded by a painted tongue-pattern ending in volutes. In two cases, Nos. 20, 21, the lower ends of the handles are flattened and decorated with small figures in reserved square panels.
6. Body as b, but the neck instead of figures has the double chain of lotus flowers and palmettes addorsed, which is the constant decoration for the neck of Attic b.f. amphorae with red body.
Within the limits of these variations the execution of all our examples is identically alike. The clay is a fine warm orange colour, rather less reddish than ordinary Attic clay, the glaze black aud brilliant, never un- equally fired or discoloured. White and red are freely used for details, also incised lines drawn with great delicacy and precision. The execution is careful and accurate in the extreme, the smallest details of decoration recur with unfailing regularity, nowhere do we find the individual pecu- liarities and variations frequent in other classes of pottery. At the same time, the excellence of technical execution and the sure, easy, faultless drawing, are most remarkable. I have not noticed a single case either of careless omission or of mistaken rendering of any detail, nor of those blunders in anatomy which M. Pottier, in a recent admirable article (Ποῦ, d. éud. grecques 1898, 355), shows to be due to the use of silhouettes in vase painting. There is no class of vases more correct, faultless and ac- curate in its minutest details, and the easy excellence resulting from a long tradition is evident everywhere. But while the affected amphorae represent an exceedingly high development of ceramic art, they are at
150 GEORGE KARO.
the same time not only lifeless, angularly stiff, and almost grotesque in style, but strangely monotonous and poor in the range of their types and subjects. Each figure is executed with the minutest care, delicate ornamentation is lavished on robes, armours and arms; but only a few ever-recurring figures make up the few dull scenes repeated again and again on these vases.
If we examine first the decorative patterns, we find the double row of rays to be absolutely constant and characteristic of all examples, throughout the different variations of shape and decoration. The amphorae of type I. have in addition a chain of lotos flowers or an an alternate lotos and palmette chain, both frequent in Attic art and particularly in Amasis’ circle: we find the latter pattern constantly on the jugs signed by him, while the chain of lotos flowers is characteristic of that group of amphorae which we have attributed to his workshop. Only here the flowers point upwards, while on the affected amphorae they are invariably drawn hanging downwards, a peculiarity which I have noticed upon hardly any Attic vases, but on a few Ionic amphorae.
On the amphorae of type IL the lotos chain above the rays, the tongue- pattern and lotos chain on the shoulder, are equally unfailing ornaments. Their delicate thin drawing distinguishes them from the similar patterns on ordinary Attic amphorae with red body. Only the double lotos and palmette chain on the neck of type IIc is quite Attic in style. For the peculiar practice of reserving small panels at the base of the handles (Nos. 20, 21 of our list) I only know one Attic analogy, the little hares on the handles of a rf, amphora by Andokides (Berlin 2159. Gerhard, Trinkschalen 19-20). However, Andokides was very probably much influenced by foreign models, and we find a similar, if not identical, scheme of decoration in the gorgoneia on the handles of the beautiful amphora published by Pottier (B.CLH. xvii. 439-40, Fig. 10-12) which I am inclined to think of Ionic workmanship. It is important that both the chain of lotos flowers round the inner lip of this vase, and the choice of subjects for the shoulder frieze—man on folding chair, and youthful rider, both surrounded by men in long robes dotted with rosettes, lizards in the field—entirely resemble the affected vases, though their style is different.
Returning to the decoration of the latter, we have still to examine its most important elements. The tongue-pattern, which almost invariably surrounds the base of the handles of type II., is evidently an imitation of metal vessels, where such a pattern, attached to the end of the handles, covered the place where these were soldered to the body. This detail appears on no b.f. Attic vase, while it is quite characteristic of the ‘ Caeretan hydriae’ quoted above, and thus probably of Ionic origin! And the same
* Of the practice of painting the vase with to a class copied directly from Ionic bronze so little regard to the handles, that their ends models, the reliefs have been stamped on before partially cover some of the figures, an interest- the addition of the handles, one of which ing example is offered by a fine bucchero hydria accordingly covers all but the legs of a male of fully developed style, in the Museo Muni- figure. A tongue- or egg-pattern round the base cipale at Orvieto: on this vase, which belongs οἵ handles is frequent in later r.f. art.
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 151
applies to the beautiful palmette ornament painted under the handles of type II a (the rarest type, of which I know only four examples). Savignoni, in his valuable article on Ionic tripods, has been the first to recognize the importance of this ornament, and has published one of our amphorae (No. 14. Mon, ant. vii. 342, Fig. 22); as he justly explains, these palmettes imitate the elaborate decoration of Ionic and Chalcidian metal vases. We still possess quite a characteristic example in the beautiful bronze handle in Berlin,. published Arch. Anz. 1893, 97. From similar prototypes the palmettes on our amphorae are derived. though they are probably not copied directly from metallic, but from other painted vases; and an idea of these models is given by the strikingly similar ornaments on the Northampton and Dolon amphorae, which are already connected with the affected series through their shape and scheme of decoration. In Attica again the most similar, if considerably simpler ornament is the palmette arrangement under the handle of the amphora by Amasis in Paris; while the same master, in his amphora at Naples, gives an example of the continuous friezes with smaller figures under the handles, whick are peculiar to the affected amphorae and almost unknown in Attic art.
Thus at every step we discover discrepancies between the affected group and the ordinary b.f. ware. Another peculiarity of the former is that very narrow fillets and small pieces of stuff are frequently scattered among the figures (Nos. 4, 6, 8 bis, 21, and 11, where an aryballos and a flute-case are added): it is the old horror vacut which in Milesian and Corinthian art fills the field with ornaments, and which the Attic developed b.f. style had left far behind. The same applies to the animals, which are often painted on the affected amphorae purely as decorative elements. Lizards run across the field (1, 4, 6), foxes or deer hang dead against the wall (4, 6, 12, 41), birds fly above the figures very frequently, now and then with snakes in their beaks, as on Chalcidian and Corinthian vases (17, 21, 29). Dogs accom- panying their masters are very frequent, but of course neither merely de- corative nor in any way characteristic, and the same applies to the does standing beside men (11, 23, 25, 28 37, 43). Other animals occur oc- casionally, swans (12, 24),a hare (4), cock (39), ram and goat (32), eagle (8 dis), boar (21), also a siren (12), a sphinx (23), and winged horses (18, 19, 20, 24; with rider, 21); while in one case we find the group of two panthers at- tacking a doe (39= Mus. Gregor. ii. 31), its Ionic origin being shown most clearly by the female sex of the panthers But the most important type of all—the animals appearing in connection with human figures will be treated below—is the bird with a griffin’s head, which appears on No. 37 (Micali, Storia 77). In the Strena Helbigiana, to be published shortly, I have traced the development of this monster, and shown that it was introduced into Greece by the Ionians, and was practically unknown in Attic art. Nota single example of it is found on ordinary bf ware, and the type figured on our
1 Such female animals, mostly with very large udders, are a favourite subject of certain Tonic and Etruscan series.
109 GEORGE KARO.
amphora, resembling more a pea-hen than a griffin, yet proved to be that monster by its recurved wings, has till now been found only on later Corinthian vases, though it is an ancient oriental creation.
Thus we find not only a number of purely decorative animals, such as the Attic painters had long since discarded, but also types like the female panthers killing a doe, or the bird with the griffin’s head, which are foreign to Attic art, and reminiscences of ancient Ionic tradition, We find a com- bination of the most highly developed and brilliant b.f. technique, with a preference for archaic elements of decoration, a faithful preserving of antiquated types, which is in marked contrast to the ordinary Attic vase painting, so strongly susceptible to new foreign influences and individual innovations. If we procecd to examine the scenes represented on this peculiar series, we again find the same contrasts and discrepancies. It is surprising how few types, hardly varied, constitute the entire stock of such a large number of vases.
The most important and frequent are the male figures: we find, first, a naked man or youth, usually gesticulating in an affected manner, never ithyphallic; his breasts, and sometimes his beard and hair, are painted red, the latter, bound by a fillet or wreath of beads, either hangs down his back or is tied up in a curious loop peculiar to this class; sometimes he wears a similar wreath or περίαμμα round his arm or across his breast.
The same type then appears with a short chlamys, either hanging over one arm or over both shoulders, with slight variations in the folds ; it is decorated with red dots, and rosettes of white points with a red centre, and has tassels on its corners, but no fringes.
The third frequent male type is a man—only once a youth, No. 2— ~vearing a long chiton, mostly red or black with red dots, and an himation
er it embroidered like the chlamys of the preceding type. This embroidery “od the tassels appear quite regularly. Both arms are always visible, a peculiarity of this class, while on ordinary b.f. vases such men usually have one arm wrapped up in their himation. The long-robed man, though he may gesticulate with his hands, always stands quietly, leaning very often on a staff or lance, or holding a wreath, and usually wearing sandals. This figure is easily changed into a god by placing attributes in his hands: a fish (4, 11, 12, 21), a fish and trident (21), a kantharos and vine branch (see below); he also appears seated on a chair or throne, a variation which we shall examine below.
Besides these three most frequent male types we occasionally find another, clad in a short chiton, mostly red, cut off straight at the loins, always showing the phallos, and a chlamys round his shoulders. This figure is rare (23, 28, 30); it occasionally wears a nebris strapped across the chiton (34, 39), and in this form is used both for Hermes (see below),~by the addition of winged shoes, pilos and kerykeion, and for the frequent type of the warrior. The latter wears a metal cuirass over his chiton and nebris, a Corinthian helmet, and greaves, and carries a sword, lance and shield, usually a Boeotian one, decorated with a large snake springing from its centre, an evident
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 153
imitation of metal work. The snake is occasionally replaced by a Silenus’ mask (12, 21) or a flying eagle (30, 31, round shields), a frequent episemon on Chalcidian vases. All the metallic parts of the armour are ornamented with white dots along the outlines, and the cuirasses show the double volute on the breast which is so frequent on b.f. vases.
The same male type, clad in a short chiton, is further employed for the horseman (see below), and for the curious winged man who occasionally stands Among other men, without any apparent significance (5, 16 bis, 25, 39, 42) ; this figure, with two spread and two recurved wings growing from his shoulders, and winged shoes on his feet, is one of the most peculiar and characteristic types of the affected class. Such winged figures are a favourite subject of Ionic artists, who copied them from Oriental models, while in Attica they are a rare foreign importation. It is important to note that an exactly similar double pair of wings is worn by the Gorgon on a jug signed by Amasis, and by the winged youth and the Artemis on two of the amphorae we attributed to his workshop: another of the numerous resemblances between that artist and the affected vases, and another proof of the influence of Ionic art on both.
The types examined above constitute the whole stock of male figures on our amphorae; the little boys who occasionally appear (17, 20, 22, 41) are simply reductions of the nude youth, and have no special significance, with the exception of 41, where a long-robed man brings such a boy to another man standing before a tree, probably a reminiscence of the well-known scene of Peleus entrusting the infant Achilles to Chiron.
Women are rare on the affected vases, which show quite a peculiar prefer- ence for men. Their flesh is white, the eye usually incised, but occasionally painted in red outline on white ground, a technique which I have noticed on some of the amphorae attributed above to Amasis’ school. There is one female type clad in a long Ionic chiton with an ἀπόπτυγμα, and a peplos, both embroidered exactly like the men’s dresses; she wears sandals, and usually holds the edge of her peplos before her face, in the scheme so frequent on Chalcidian and Corinthian vases, while it is discarded by the Attic artists of the developed b-f. style (J, 3, 6, 12, 27, 28, 34, 37, 42); another detail in which the affected vases have preserved an archaic tradition long given up in their time. The same woman appears holding a lance (4) or a fish (11) in her hand, or seated on a throne (4), probably as a goddess, just as similar attributes make gods out of long-robed men; further, as Deianira, seated on the Centaur’s back (20, 42).
Besides this ordinary female type we find the Maenad, in a shorter chitoi with an ἀπόπτυγμα of curious cut, for which the nearest analogies are again offered by the Maenads on Amasis’ vases; just as most of these, she wears no nebris, and is always found in company with a Silenus, either follow- ing Dionysos (29) or under the handles of the amphora, dividing two different scenes (30, 31, 34, where an ordinary man is substituted for the Silenus). The Silenus, one of the most important types of our vases, is always ithyphallic, with human feet, not hoofs, as is natural in this period, but with
154 GEORGE KARO.
a horse’s ears and tail and a bestial expression; the face is rarely drawn in profile (3), almost always in a front view (3, 29, 30, 31, 38 ?) unusual in Attic art, while it closely resembles the Silenus’ head on the Wiirzburg amphora by Amasis. We have also some Ionic examples of this first attempt at a per- spective of the face.
Having thus analysed the types used on the affected vases we must now examine the scenes which they compose. It has already been said that the technical perfection of these amphorae forms a striking contrast to their poverty and monotony in the choice of subjects. Not only are the scenes on either side of each vase usually almost identically the same, but the artist has followed the invariable principle of composing each scene out of two central figures, the principal one always turned to the right, surrounded on either side by one or two spectators, who are usually meaningless and superfluous. The few exceptions to this rule, necessitated mostly by want of space, only serve to confirm it (14-16 bis, 23, 25, 32, 36). The monotony and lifelessness of such a system of decoration is obvious, and rendered more striking by the small number and scanty interest of the scenes represented.
I.—Two male figures of the types discussed above—mostly naked or with a chlamys—in animated discourse, their gestures affected and very slightly varied, between two to four spectators. Many of these scenes, which are by far the most frequent of all—more than forty examples are found on the forty- six vases of our list—are quite devoid of meaning, others have a paederastic significance, emphasised in some cases by gifts offered by one of the central figures to the other: a cock (7, 36),1 a hare (28),a cr and perhaps a doe (43), an aryballos (17). It is worthy of note that the men are never ithy- phallic, and that no women appear in these scenes. In one case the scene is varied by one of the youths holding a diskos (20). Published examples: 19 (Urlichs Beitr. z. Kunstg. Pl. 1-6). 23 (Mica!i Storia 75-6). 26 (Mus. Greg. II. 30). 35 (Gsell Vulci Pl. 7-8).
IJ.—Warrior putting on his armour; he is fastening his second greave, while helmet and shield either lie at his feet or are held by a man or woman opposite him. On either side one or two spectators: 6A. 11 Α. 18 Α. 14 neck B. 41 B.
IlI.—Warrior fully armed talking to a man or woman—on 13B and 21 B to Hermes—with spectators on either side; on 14, 16 bis there are no spectators for lack of space. This scene usually occurs on the reverse of vases with Scene II. on the obverse (6 B. 11 B. 13 B), but also in other cases (12 AB. 14 AB. 16 dis AB. 21 AB. 23 AB=Micali Storia 75-6), and warriors are occasionally found among the spectators (21 AB. 28 B).
IV.—Two warriors fighting with lances; without spectators 15 AB, for lack of space; with spectators 30 AB. 31 AB. 36 A. 37B (Micali Storia
1 On a small b.f. amphora in the Museo offered as gifts; some of the men wear περιάμ- Gregoriano (ii. 44) of rather a peculiar shape,we ματα like those on the affected vases. find a similar paederastic scene with cocks
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 155 77-8). 42 B (Gerhard A.V. 117). On 33.AB (Micali Mon. in. 44. 2) a long-
robed man stands between the two warriors, in the scheme usual for the combat between Herakles and Kyknos.
V.—A rider, almost always youthful and holding a second horse ; without spectators, for lack of space, 16 AB; usually one or two spectators on either side, with one of whom the horseman is conversing: 17 A. 19 A (Urlichs Beitr. z. Kunstg. Pl. 1-6). 20 B. 24 A. 34 AB. 43 A.—single riders under handles 21, 26, 41. On 21 B a horseman, bearded in this case, stands between Hermes and Poseidon, while on 28 B we find a reminiscence of the well-known Troilos myth: a long-robed man (Priam) holding a sceptre, is seated on a chair opposite the youthful rider, whom a warrior (Achilles) pursues; while to the left stands a woman, holding not the traditional hydria of Polyxena, but an oinochoe which is entirely out of place, and shows that the artist was hardly conscious of the myth he copied from memory or from some model.
VI.—Dionysos with kantharos and a large vine branch in his hand, long- robed and crowned with vine leaves (on 37A he has winged shoes) stands opposite a man in the same dress (2A, 3A, 32B, 38AB); this man is occasion- ally characterised as a god by his attributes: fish and lance, perhaps Nereus, 4A ; a doe beside him, probably Apollo, 28A, 37B (Micali Storia 78); or he is replaced by a naked man (29AB) or a woman (perhaps Ariadne, 3B). The spectators are men or Sileni (2A, 3AB, 29AB, 38AB), only in one case a Maenad among them (29AB). Sileni and Maenads under handles, without Dionysos, 30, 31.
VII.—A long-robed man seated on a folding chair, or more frequently on a throne, holding a lance or sceptre crowned sometimes with an animal’s head (griffin 2B, with open beak and two knobs on it; pegasos LAB; ram 8 bis, just like the sceptre of the man on a jug by Amasis, Wien. Vorl, 1889, 4). On 1B he is characterised as Zeus by a large thunderbolt in his right hand. Before him Hermes, in the garb described above, is walking away, his head turned back to speak to ‘Zeus.’ On either side one or two spectators: 1AB, 2B, 8 bis, 16 neck AB, 17B, 18AB, 19B, 24B, 394A. Occasionally Hermes is replaced by a long-robed (16B, 16 dis neck AB, 24A) or a winged man (39B, where, however, a man with a short chiton and nebris, but without the other attributes of Hermes, is standing behind ‘ Zeus’); while on 4B a woman, holding a wreath and a lotos flower, sits on the throne in‘ Zeus’’ stead. The back of the throne terminates in a swan’s head, its traverse usually bears a small animal, a pegasos (1B), lion (2B, 19B), sphinx (4B, a hare under the throne), panther (17B); this is an ancient oriental feature, which we find on Assyrian reliefs e.g. Botta-Flandin Mon. de Nineveh I. 18, Rawlinson Five Great Monarchies I* 394), and is a most important sign of strong Ionic influence on the affected vases; in Attica we occasionally
1 See Loeschcke 4.Z. 1876, 114. Savignoni, ‘Zeus’ of No. 17, and recognised the orienta] Mon. ant. vii. 334, who has published the origin of the type.
156 GEORGE KARO.
find a similar throne with the back ending in a swan’s head (Mon. d. Inst. VI. 56), and once also a sphinx sitting under it, not on the traverse (Gerhard A.V.1: back of throne ending in a lion’s head). Both these vases are archaic and represent the birth of Athena, while our scene seems a reminiscence of a myth in which Hermes appears as the messenger of Zeus. But when we consider the thoughtless manner in which myths are reproduced on the affected amphorae, we shall hesitate to attribute a special significance to this scene, as Urlichs (Leitr. z. Kunstg. p. 16, pl. 1-6) has done in publishing No. 19.—Hermes alone, among other men, 135, 21 AB, 36B.
These scenes really constitute the whole stock of our vases. A few other subjects occur in isolated examples : Theseus killing the Minotaur with his lance (5A), a unique treatment of this myth; Herakles wrestling with the lion, also drawn in an unusual way,! Herakles pursuing Nessos (42= Gerhard A.V. 118, the ordinary type; on 20A Herakles is replaced by an ordinary warrior). On 32A a procession is moving to r., towards a burning altar placed under one handle : six long-robed men, three of them carrying myrtle branches, one an oinochoe, another an oinochoe and a flat plate with cakes on his head, while another plays the flute; a ram is walking behind the second man. This vase, figured by Micali, Moun. in. 44,1, is of the greatest importance, as the subject, even in details like the peculiar plate with cakes, the oinochoe and myrtle branches, is almost identical with that of one of the amphorae of Amasis’ school quoted above (p. 138, Adamek, fig. 8). On 36B we find a similar scene, only the altar and the offerings of the men are missing, and Hermes appears among them; on 21B Poseidon is standing to left, while a procession of five men moves towards him: first Hermes, with a κέβισις over his arm, his head turned back and striding across a burning altar—an attempt at perspective, the altar being evidently supposed to stand in front of him; behind him two war- riors and two long-robed men with lance and fish, alternating in rapid motion. All these are simply scenes of sacrifice or worship, with- out any special mythological significance.
ΓΑ last and one of the most important features of the affected series has still to be - examined: while the Attic potters usually
Fic. 2. show a marked preference for inscriptions,
lavishing them on human beings and even on
inanimate objects, the affected vases, conforming herein also to Ionic custom, carefully avoid all inscriptions? I know only two exceptions to this rule,
Vedi Ὁ AL ἀπο, DAL kA BD © ᾧ νει
CES a> ClO imc) 1
1 Under the handles of 19 (Urlichs 1.6. Pl. 2) sword (Roscher, Lexikon d. Myth. 2196). and 20: Herakles, clad only in a short chiton, 2 On all the principal Ionic classes, the seizes the lion by both front paws and pulls Caeretan, Samian, pseudo-Pontic, etc., inscrip- him towards himself. This is not the oldest tions are entirely missing. type, where he attacks the animal with his
NOTES ON AMASIS AND TONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 157
No. 11 (Louvre F 23), on which meaningless signs imitating letters are painted between the figures (Fig. 2), and No. 12 (Louvre F 94), Of the latter vase I am able to publish drawings by M. Devillard (Fig. 3-4), thanks
Π
Ν Ϊ Zh ὴ
᾿ A
Νὰ
nel 2)
taupe καὶ
BiG. τά.
to the generous kindness of M. Pottier, who has himself devoted particular attention to the same series and will soon, I hope, give us the results of his
researches, I am glad here to express my gratitude for his unsurpassed
158 GEORGE KARO,
liberality. On both sides of the vase we find the same scene: a woman offering a wreath to a departing warrior, between two spectators, long-robed men on one panel, a warrior and a man holding fish and lance on the other. A dead fox hangs against the wall, while a swan and a siren stand between the warrior’s legs. Unhappily the vase is in a very bad state of preservation —M. Devillard’s drawing only gives what is certain, leaving out the doubtful parts—and would offer no special interest, were it not for the inscriptions, which M. Pottier has been kind enough to revise for me. On one side there are only combinations of letters giving no sense, but each clearly formed, and intended to imitate names written beside the figures: among these letters appear the ©, the younger form of the theta ©, and the un-Attic A with point upwards ; but it would be dangerous from such meaningless inscriptions to draw inferences concerning the origin of a vase. On the other panel we read χαῖρε καὶ πίει ; 1 the artist has thus copied his inscription from one of the so- called ‘Kleinmeisterschalen, the b.f. kylikes immediately preceding the earliest rf. ones. Not only the fact that this inscription is unfitted for an amphora, or any vase except a drinking cup, but even the position of the letters and their unusually small size show that the artist. was trying, as a new experiment, to copy something he had seen elsewhere. This is even more apparent on the original than on the drawing. Altogether, this exception only proves the rule which excludes inscriptions from the affected vases, and is one more sign of their difference from ordinary b.f. ware. Moreover, the fact that a b.f. kylix of such late type served as a model for the inscription, proves again that the affected amphorae belong to the second half of the 6th century, the period of the fully developed b.f. style.
Were these vases then made in Attica? It has till now been generally taken for granted that they were, and Reisch (Helbig Fiihrer 11, 237) connects them with an Attic pinaz signed by Euphiletos (Zph. Archacol. 1888, Pl. 12; from Eleusis).* But a fragment showing only the bust of a woman and the body of a long-robed man is not a sufficient proof, all the more as the man’s left arm is wrapped in his himation, while it is a characteristic trait of the affected vases that such men almost invariably show both their arms. The style of Euphiletos’ figures, the embroidery and the tassels on their garments are really strikingly similar to our series; but we find the same types on other b.f. vases (e.g. Gerhard A.V. 117, above the affected amphora), and may not, [ think, draw from this analogy any conclusion as to the authorship of the affected series.
On the other hand, at every step of our examination of this interesting group, we have found traces of foreign influence. The shapes and schemes of decoration, the palmette ornaments and the tongue-pattern round the handles, the ornaments scattered in the field and the purely decorative animals, the περιάμματα of the men and the winged figures, the oriental
1 The three letters above this, written verti- 2 R. Delbriick, Linienperspective in d. Gr. cally, have no sense, nor any connexion with Kunst, Bonn 1899 p. 10, 12, quotes nr. 42 the lower inscription. (Gerhard A, V. 118) as an Ionic vase.
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 159
type of the throne, are all distinctly un-Attic peculiarities, and connect our «umphorae with Tonic art, and principally with those series for which we have collected the rather scanty documentary evidence above. On Attic soil, the most striking analogies to the affected vases are found in the work of Aimasis, and in those very peculiarities of his style which again point to Ionia: the palmettes, the double rays, the winged figures, the type of the Silenus and Maenad, etc. The sceptre with a ram’s head on the affected amphora in Gotha (8 dis, kindly pointed out to me by Prof. Loeschcke) is exactly like the sceptre on one of Amasis’ jugs. And on the vases we attributed to his school we find the same procession of men bearing votive offerings (Adamek, Fig. 8), the same scene of the warrior putting on his armour (No. 15 of our list, p. 139), the same four-winged youth and naked gesticulating men, as on the affected vases. ;
I have already repeatedly drawn attention to the strange contrast between the brilliant technique of these vases, their careful, elaborate and faultless drawing, and the small number and monotony of their types and subjects. Such excellence of workmanship is possible only when generations of good tradition have prepared it ; and that the ‘affected’ potters recognised the value of this tradition is proved by the tenacity with which they cling to many of its antiquated details. Thus their work appears far more archaic than it is, while in reality it represents the last stage, grown dry and lifeless, of a long development. On the contrary, the contemporary Attic potters, while they devote less and less care to the technical execution of their vases, seem chiefly anxious to make them interesting by a varied range of types and subjects, and instead of jealously retaining an older tradition, are ever ready to accept any innovation in shape, decoration, or subject. The ‘affected’ potters felt the influence of Attic art, as is proved not only by the inscription on No. 12, copied from an Athenian kylix, but by the myths which they sometimes try to represent, without understanding them. But the Attic influence was not the predominating one.
That these vases were made in the same workshop, perhaps by the same artist, is evident. Iam unable to prove that this artist, or school of artists, did not live at Athens ; if they did, they were, like Amasis, with whom they are connected by 58 many affinities, foreigners who had settled in Pisistratos’ capital. But I incline to believe that the affected amphorae were actually made in some Ionic town. Nota single example of the series has appeared at Athens, and the only two not discovered in Etruscan tombs were found at Adria, an Ionic colony where almost only coarser and later Attic ware has come to light. Of course both these facts cannot be used as proofs, but only as additional slight indications of foreign origin. But, however this question may some day be decided by new discoveries, for our appreciation of the affected vases the result remains the same.! We have tried to reconstruct an important branch of Ionic art, in which all stress is laid on excellence of technical execution and delicate ornamentation, while the figures are stiff and
1 Attic vases have always been largely ex- natural that their influence should have made ported to all other parts of Greece and it is but itself felt: while the Attic potters lo not seem to
160 GEORGE KARO.
angular, the range of types and subjects restricted and monotonous, Just τὸς ἷ : the reverse of that other great Ionic branch, comprising the ‘ Cacretan, pseudo-Pontic and other series, with its somewhat coarser execution, large, fleshy figures, full of life and movement, and its varied stock of originally and vigorously treated myths. neha To the former branch we can ascribe the Samian ware, the Clazomenian sarcophagi, the Tonic deinoi, and the group of amphorae discussed above (p. 146): and its last shoots, already ingrafted with Attic art, are Amasis and the affected vases. GEORGE KARO.
APPENDIX I.
List or ΔΡΕΕΟΤΕΡ AMPHORAE. The different shapes are discussed above, p. 148; the scenes, here only quoted by their numbers, p. 154.1
1.—Amphorae with reserved panels.
(a) The usual Attic shape :—
1 (N). Florence, Sala di Volsinii. Orvieto (see above p. 148). A. Scene VIL: throne with pegasos on traverse, behind it a duterion. Zeus holds a thunderbolt and a sceptre with the forepart of a pegasos. B. Scene VII.: ‘Zeus’ on folding chair, holding only sceptre: behind him, a lizard in the field. Among the spectators, two women.
2. Brit. Mus. B 149. A. Scene VI.: a Silenus with περιάμματα. B. Scene VIL.: ‘Zeus’ on throne, holding sceptre with griffin’s head: on traverse, a lion. Youth with περιάμματα.
3 (Q). Orvieto, Mus. Munic. 167. A. Scene VI.: 2 Sileni. B. Scene VI.: a woman opposite Dionysos, 2 Sileni.
4. Corneto, Museo Bruschi. A. Scene VI.: opposite Dionysos man holding a fish : fox hanging against the wall. B. Scene VII.: woman on throne, holding wreath and lotos blossom : sphinx on traverse, hare under throne. Among spectators woman with lance, man with fish and lance. Fillets, pieces of stuff, and a lizard in the field on either side.
5. Munich 74, A. Theseus, clad in short chiton and chlamys, his sword hanging by a belt, drives his lance into the Minotaur’s neck. 10. winged man among spectators,
6. Louvre F 27. A. Scene II. B. Scene III.: woman opposite warrior, a dog beside him. On either side, a fox against the wall, lizard, bird, fillets in the field.
7. Bologna, Museo civico, <A. Scene I.: cock offered as gift. Two dogs.
8. Adria, Museo civico A 47. Not. d. Se. 1879, Pl. IIL, pp. 96, 101. Two small fragments, each the left upper corner of a panel. A. upper part of two men; Β. of one man, to r.
8 bis. Gotha (noted by Prof. Loeschecke). A. Scene VII.: ‘Zeus’ on folding chair, holding sceptre with ram’s head, before him an eagle. Hermes’ kery/eion ends in snakes’ heads.
have modilied their style to please their foreign Cyprus. Yet their style is purely Attic, with- customers. Among the vases foundintherecent out any attempt at accommodation to foreign excavations in Cyprus conducted by the British tastes.
Museum, I have noted an amphora and an ! The capital letters in brackets are those of oinochoe, both of the typical Cypriote shape, Gsell’s list of affected vases (Fouilles de Vulei, but made at Athens, evidently for clients in 502).
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 161
(b) Orifice rounded, otherwise like ὦ :—
9. Brit. Mus. B 150. A.=B. Scene I. MXA scratched on the bottom.
10. Louvre F 22. A.=B. Scene I.
11. Louvre F 23, A. Scene II.: long-robed man with fish. B. Scene {ΠΠ.: woman with fish and wreath, man with fish ; dog beside warrior, youth with doe. In the field, on either side, fillets, pieces of stuff, a flute-case (A. an aryballos), and meaningless signs (see above, Fig. 1).
12. Louvre F. 24. Published above, Figs. 3, 4.
13. Parma, Museo archeologico. A. Scene 11., B. Scene III.: Hermes opposite the warrior.
Il.—Amphorae with red body, and distinct neck.
(a) Figures on neck, palmettes below handles :--
14(L). Florence,1818. Neck: A.Scene I.,B. Scene 11, Body: A.=B. Scene 11].: warrior opposite long-robed man, without spectators. Savignoni, Jon. ant. vii. 842, Fig, 22 (side view). 4
15 (P bis). Orvieto, Mus. Munic. 270. Neck missing. DBody: A.=1. Scene IV.: no spectators.
10 Munich, 72. Neck: A. Scene VII.: folding chair. B. the same, but long-robed man in Hermes’ place ; naked man with περιάμματα. Body: A.=L.: youthful horseman, no spectators.
16 bis. Naples, 2744. Neck: A. long-robed man on chair between two others. 10. the same, but one of the standing men wears four wings. Body: A.=B, warrior to r. shield seen from inside), without spectators.
(b) Figures on neck, continuous frieze on body :—
17(M). Florence, 1788. Neck: A.=B. Scene I. aryhallos as gift, on B. Body: A. Scene V.; bird with snake in beak. 10. Scene VII.: panther on traverse of throne, behind it a small boy. Savignoni, Aon. ant. vii. 334, Fig. 20. Under handles gesticulating figures.
18. Florence, Sala di Volsinii (see albove, p. 148). Orvieto. Neck: A.=B. Scene I. Body: A.=B. Scene VII. Under handles pegasi.
19 (K). Wiirzburg, 257. Urlichs, Beitr. z. Kuasty., Pls.1-6. Neck: A.=B. Scene 1. Body: A. Scene V.; bird flying. B. Scene VIT.: lion on traverse of throne. Under one handle Herakles seizing lion, under the other a pegasos, above which a bird flying.
20 (E bis). Munich, 84. Vulci. Neck: A. fragmentary, probably Scene I. B. Scene I.: man holding diskos. Body: A. Nessos carrying off Deianira, pursued by a warrior; woman among spectators ; flying bird. B. Scene V.: one spectator holds little boy. Under one handle youth wearing chlamys, under the other remains of a horse. Handles flattened at base, with little panels: Herakles and lion,
21. Louvre F 19. Neck: A. Scene I., B. Scene III.: on either side a folding chair : three men wear περιάμματα. Body: A. Scene V.: Hermes, Poseidon and a warrior among the spectators ; two dogs. Bird flying, with snake in its beak. ΒΒ. Poseidon to 1., behind him a youth with a box between his legs: towards him Hermes with «Scots, striding across a burning altar, then two warriors (striding across folding chairs, Silenus-masks on shields) and two long-robed men with lance and fish, alternating. Below handles: (a) rider galloping, folding chair with bird above it, long-robed little man, (4) boar rearing and rider on winged horse. Small panels at base of handles: (a) rider on winged horse and naked man. (/) rider galloping and long-robed man with lance. No tongue-pattern round base of handles. On neck and body, fillets and pieces of stuff in the field.
22. Louvre F 20. Neck: A.=B. Scene I. Body: A.=B. Scene I. One man leads a little boy. Under handles small men, and on one side a column hearing a great bowl.
23 (H). Brit. Mus. B 152. Neck: A.=B. Scene I. Body: A.=B. Scene III.: on each side two dogs and a doe; on B., the warrior has no shield. Under handles a sphinx and asmall boy. Micali, Storia 75 6.
His: ——-V OLS ΣΙΝ. M
162 GEORGE KARO.
24. Bonn, Kunstmuseum. Neck: A.=B. Scene VII.: on B., long-robed man in Hermes’ place. Body: A. Scene V., B. Scene I. Under handles swan and pegasos.
25 (R). Corneto, Museo Bruschi. Neck: A.=B.: winged man between two men, Body: A.=B. Scene I.
26 (A). Museo Gregorian, ii. 30. Vulci. Neck: A.=B. Scene I. (one youth with aryballos). Body: A.=B. Scene I. Under one handle small rider. Reisch-Helbig, nr, 10 (ii. 237).
27. Arezzo, Museo civico. Neck missing. Body: A. woman with wreath between men. Fragmentary.
(v) Palmette and lotos chain on neck :—
28. Brit. Mus. B 153. A. Scene VI.: man with doe opposite Dionysos; no Sileni. B. Scene V.: modified as a picture of Achilles pursuing Troilos (see above, p. 155). Flying birds on either side. Under handles: (w) naked man with hare and long-robed man with fillet, (6) man with chlamys and doe.
29. Orvieto, Mus. Munie. 239. A.=B. Scene VI.: Silenus and Maenad, bird with snake in beak, naked man opposite Dionysos. Under handles: (4) man with chlamys, (b) Silenus and Maenad.
30 (O). Orvieto, Mus. Munic. 460. A.=B. Scene I1V.: round shields with flying eagles. Under each handle a Silenus (head in front view) and Maenad.
31 (P). Orvieto, Museo Faina 63. A.=B. Scene IV.: shields as 30. Under handles Silenus and Maenad as 30.
32 (C). Munich, 77. Vulci. A. under one handle a burning altar: towards it six long- robed men tor. holding: 1. myrtle branch and wreath ; 2. myrtle branch and oinochoe ; 3. oinochoe and plate with cakes on his head, a ram beside him ; 4. blowing double flute ; 5. as 1; 6. uplifted hands; flying bird. B. Scene VI.: ram before Dionysos ; no Sileni. Under handles long-robed men. Micali, Aon. in. 44, 1.
33 (Ὁ). Munich, 79. A.=B. Scene TV.: a long-robed man between the warriors. Under one handle a tripod. Micali, Mon. in. 44, 2.
34 (ΕΒ). Munich, 82. Vulci. A. Scene V.: περιάμματα ; flying bird. B. the same, but in front of rider a man in short chiton, nebris, chlamys, pilos. Under one handle man in chlamys pursuing ἃ woman.
35. I?ome, Museo Torlonia. Gsell, Vulci, Pl. 7-8. A.=B. Scene I.: περιάμματα.
36 (F). Berlin, 1715. A. Scene IV.: two spectators holding lotos blossoms ; flying birds. B. procession of men, among them Hermes (sce above, p. 156). Under each handle three small figures ; one holds a cock ; on other side a dog.
37 (1). Wirzburg, 313. Vulci. -A. Scene VI.: Dionysos with winged shoes, opposite him man with chlamys and doe beside him: behind him a woman. Two birds with griffin’s heads perched on the handle volutes. B. Scene LV.: two birds perched on handle volutes. Under handles gesticulating men. Micali, Storia, 77-8.
38. Wiirzburg, 338. A.=B. Scene VI.: Silenus between Dionysos and the man opposite him. Under handles running Sileni, one holding a cup.
39 (B). Museo Gregorian, ii. 31 (Reisch-Helbig, nr, 9, 11.237). A. Scene VIL: folding chair, behind ‘Zeus’ a winged man, and a cock; Hermes with κίβισις. B. the same, but winged man in front of ‘Zeus’: behind him man with chiton and nebris. Under each handle two female panthers killing a doe. The whole body striped: cf. the Attic amphora Vienna 229 Masner.
TEs ox ΤΠ 40, Perugia, Museo civico. Only neck preserved. A. Scene I. ΤΡ ΟΣ ΤΣ
41. Louvre F 21, Neck modern. <A. long-robed man standing before tree to r., another bringing him a small boy (see above, p. 153): three others as spectators. Β, Scene : Lf. Under each handle small bearded rider, above him a flying bird,
NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC BLACK-FIGURED POTTERY. 163
42 (G). Gerhard, 1 V.117/8. A. Herakles pursuing Nessos ; woman among specta- tors ; flying bird. B. Scene IV.: woman among spectators; flying bird. Under handles small men, one winged.
43 (J). Adria, Museo Bocchi 7. A. Scene V., B. Scene I.: one man holds cup, the one opposite a wreath, and a doe by the neck. Schéne, Mus. Bocchi, p. 26, PI. XV.1-2= Micali, Mon. in, 47.
44, Naples, Coll. Santangelo. A variation of II*, showing all the ornamental patterns on neck and body, even the tongue-pattern round the handles, but no figures, the rest of the body being painted black.
APPENDIX II. Norte ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DovusLe Rays AS AN ORNAMENT,
With the exception of a few remarks by Pottier (B.C. H. xix, 227), this peculiar decora- tive pattern has never been examined, It was evidently designed originally to imitate the chalice of a lotos flower, which was supposed to support a vase with a rounded bottom: as such we find it on Egyptian vases (e.g. Pottier, Vases du Louvre, Pl. 9, A 234), and later on the alabastra of so-called ‘ Egyptian fayence,’ which seem to have been made in Greek colonies on the Egyptian and Syrian coast (¢.g. Perrot-Chipiez, iii. Pl. 5). The Greek potters, by adding a foot to their vases, obviated the necessity of separate supports, and thus, from an imitation of such supports, the rays became a purely decorative pattern, encircling the base of the vase ; just as we have seen that the ‘ polypus’ pattern develops probably into a band of crescents (see above, p. 145, n. 3). One would suppose that the oldest Greek vases showing rays would prefer the double row most resembling the original lotos chalice ; but, on the contrary, both the geometric proto-corinthian and the ‘italo-geometric’! series, while constantly using rays, show an exclusive preference for a single row of them. . Among the finest proto-corinthian vases, decorated with human figures and animals, we first find, not only double rays, but a variation peculiar to this class, the ends of the rays being alternately recurved.?, The connection between these vases and [onic art is growing more and more apparent, and it is thus but natural that double rays are frequent on Ionic vases. I have noted them in the Cyrenaic class (Louvre, E 691, 692 and Brit. Mus. B 58, where pomegranates on long stalks alternate with the rays: A.Z. 1881, Pl. 10, 11), and on vases the exact origin of which has not been determined: a beautiful crater in Comm. Castellani’s collection at Rome, one of the deinoi discussed above (p. 144 : Vienna 215 Masn.), and the small series represented chiefly by the Northampton amphora (p. 146).
Double rays are further frequent in Corinthian pottery, both archaic and later, while in Attica they are an entirely foreign importation, and very rare. They are peculiar to that small group of very archaic amphorae, of which the ‘ Netos’ vase is the finest example (Ant. Denkm. i, 57, Benndorf, Griech. Sic. Vas. 54, 1-2, Eph. archaeol. 1897, Pl. 5-6), and I have also found them on three Corintho-Attic amphorae (Louvre Τὰ. 724, 773, 275). Among Attic b.f. vases the only example known to me (beside Amasis) is a crater by
1 Cf. Karo, Bull. d. Paletn. Ital. 1898, 148: Berlin 970. Vienna, Hofmus. 182 (Arch. Anz. on the Greek geometric series and the Cypriote 1892, 171); pyxides: Louvre L 159. Berlin vases, rays do not yet appear. The Milesian 990; otnochoc: Louvre L 158; kylix: Coll. potters use a lotos chain instead. Somzée 104, Furtw. ; amphoriskoi: Brit. Mus.
2 Double rays: two lekythoi (4.Z. 1883, Pl. B 41, Ath. Mitth. xix. Pl. 8; statuette vase 10, 1, 2) and two skyphoi (Brit. Mus. A 1530, published by Pottier, B.C.H. xix. 227, PI. Vienna 98 Masn.). Alternately recurved: 19-20. Later Corinthian: Aydria: Louvre E four lekythoi (Berlin, Arch. Anz. 1888, 247, 641; amphorae: Louvre E 755 bis, 757. Rouen, .895, 33. Corneto, Mus. munic., Arch. Anz. Mus. archéol. Brit. Mus. B 19. Vienna 137 1888, 247. Syracuse, Not. d. Sc. 1895, 190). Masn. Naples 336.
3 Early Corinthian : skyphoi: Louvre L 166.
164 NOTES ON AMASIS AND IONIC KLACK-FIGURED POTTERY.
Nikosthenes (Wien. Vorl. 1890-1, 5), who was strongly influenced by [onic models (Loescheke, 1.7. 1881, 31, Pottier, B.C. H. xvii. 431). It is thus of great importance that both Amasis and the affected amphorae employ only the double row of rays: while they appear but as an isolated phenomenon in other series,! here it is an absolutely constant peculiarity, just as it isin the Lonic ‘ Northampton’ group, which we have seen to be akin to them.
NOTE.
Further evidence as to the oriental influences traced by Mr. Karo in the ‘affected’ vases is hardly required; but it may be of interest to note an analogy between the type represented on the vase in the Bruschi Museum (Mr. Karo’s 4B) and certain types on the silver coinage of Nagidus in Cilicia, where, it need hardly be said, oriental influence was strong. These coins are of course much later than the vases, but types of this kind always preserve ancient features.
1. NATIAIKON Aphrodite, draped and wearing polos, seated r. on throne flanked by sphinxes, smelling flower which she holds in her L.; in r. phiale. ([Obv. Head of Ares and name of Pharnabazus in Aramaic letters]. Persie stater. Babelon, Perses Achénénides, p. xxxvil.
2. Aphrodite, draped and wearing polos, seated |. on throne flanked by two sphinves, smelling flower which she holds in her r,; her ]. elbow rests on
arm of throne. [fev. Copy of Athena Parthenos]. Persic stater. Imhoof- Blumer, Monnaies grecques, Pl. G. 15.
3. Aphrodite, draped and wearing polos, seated 1, between two sphinzes, smelling flower which she holds in r.; in L. flower on long stalk held over her shoulder like a sceptre. [Obv. Beardless head 1.1. Persic obol. Imhoof- Blumer, op. cit. p. 372, No. 75.
4, Aphrodite, draped and wearing polos, seated 1. on throne, in r. phiale, |. rests on arm of throne; in field Eros flying towards her with wreath held in both hands ; before her feet, flower and bud growing on long stalks; under throne, mouse 1. [Πευ. Bearded Dionysus standing]. Babelon, Ziventaire Wad- dington, No. 4404.
All these types, of which Nos. 1—38 can be dated approximately to 379—374 B.c., while No. 4 belongs to the period 374—333 B.c., obviously show strong oriental influence, which probably came chiefly by way of Cyprus. We may compare, for instance, the association of the sphinx and lotos-flower with Aphrodite on the coins of Idalium, and a fine terra-cotta in the British Museum, from Larnaka (No, C 80): Female figure, wearing decorated polos, seated on throne flanked by sphinves; in r., which rests on her knee, a flower ; 1. enveloped in drapery and raised to 1. breast. G. F. HI.
' All the examples known to me make up a very considerably smaller number than our list of affected aliplorae,
ATHENA HYGIETA. [ΓΑΕ VIL]
Tue British Museum in 1898 acquired a small bronze figure of Athena, which is figured on Plate VII. from three points of view. Mr. Murray has described it in his report as a bronze statuette of Athena, looking down- wards at the serpent which she holds in her right hand. This type of Athena, as he points out, is very rare.
This figure is included in the new Catalogue of Bronzes under the number 1055 (p. 189), where it is described in much the same words as above. In discussing it now at greater length I have the kind sanction of Mr. Murray for making use of certain suggestions which he has made as a result of further investigation of the type.
The provenience of the bronze is unfortunately unknown, but we may conjecture that it comes from Southern Italy, probably from the neighbour- hood of Rome or Naples. The goddess stands in a somewhat peculiar attitude, the left leg being so much bent that the whole body appears to be thrown backwards. The left foot is drawn very far back, while the right leg is quite straight. The serpent is coiled on her breast in a single coil, the tail hanging over her right shoulder. Her left hand hangs. down by her side and is slightly extended ; the fingers are broken away, but it would appear that they had held a patera or similar object, and we may therefore suppose that, as so frequently occurs in Hygieia types, the patera contained food for the serpent.
At first sight the figure appears to belong to a good period of art, and to be a piece of genuine Greek workmanship. This is due chiefly to the treatment of the drapery, which is no doubt a reminiscence of the Pheidian period. But the face is far inferior, and has no pretensions to merit or beauty, except for the quaintly pensive air which characterises it. Again, the helmet is not Greek, but Roman in type. It is distinguished from all Greek varieties of helmet by the projecting brim which goes all round it, and the low crest which, instead of falling clear behind, tails off into the helmet just above the brim.
The hair is parted and waved ; the body is draped in the usual fashion, with long chiton and peplos. The latter garment falls in quasi-archaic zigzag folds down the left side, leaving the arms bare. At three points on the edge of her aegis, on the left shoulder and twice on the waist a coiled
166 H. B. WALTERS.
snake is attached, clearly forming part of the acgis itself. It is worthy of note that there is no Gorgoneion on the aegis, and this finds a parallel in other examples of the same type.
The figure stands on an elaborately moulded base which though ancient, does not belong to it, and has therefore been omitted from the illustration. It is, as may be seen, quite intact except for the loss of the phiale in the left hand, and the surface is in good condition except for occasional roughness or corrosion in the lower part of the figure.
I think that we have here an undoubted instance of the Athena Hygieia, about which much has already been written.!_ There is in fact no need to say more than has already been said by Frazer, in regard to the establishment of the type and of its introduction αὖ Athens. Frazer, following Bergk and Loeschcke, compares a bronze relief existing at Rome (Visconti, Mus. Pio- Clementino, iv. pls. 5,6=Braun, Vorschule der Kunstmythol. 69) which may be identified as Athena Hygieia. Let us see how far our statuette corresponds therewith. The most noteworthy resemblance is in the treatment of the drapery, which in the relief hangs down the right side of the body in zigzag folds. Roughly speaking, the attitude is the same in each case, but though the Athena of the relief stands on the right leg, the left is not so much bent, and the body is consequently in no way distorted. The most marked difference is in the serpent, which in our statuette is very small, no larger than those on the aegis, but in the relief is almost of colossal size, and at full length would extend to several feet. It is twisted about the body of the goddess and rears its head in order to partake of the food in the phiale which she holds aloft in her right hand. In our bronze, as we have seen, the phiale is held in her left hand, and the serpent in her right, so that a different moment is meant to be pourtrayed. But the parallel is instructive, and though the differences are marked, it is clear that both the relief and statuette may be referred to the same type of Athena Hygieia.
This subject 1s a very rare one in art. Besides the example already men- tioned, and the statue by Pyrrhos of which we only know from the mention of it by Pausanias,? there are only the vase-fragment published by Wolters,* and a statuette found at Epidauros,t which represents the goddess rushing impetuously along, and presents no parallel with our bronze. But no doubt a careful and exhaustive study of Athena types, such as has not hitherto been made, would reveal other examples; for instance, in S. Reinach’s Repertoire (ii. p. 282, No. 6, p. 289, Nos. 1, 2) under the heading ‘ Minerve’ are given three statuettes which represent the goddess with the serpent, with or without other attributes. None are exactly similar to our bronze, though the third comes nearest; but all may fairly be regarded as instances of Athena Hygieia. It should be noted that the second figure on p. 289 has no Gorgoneion on the aegis.
’ For a bibliography of the subject see Fra- = aris, 4.
zer, Pausanias, ii. p. 277 ff., who sums up the % Athen. Mittheil. xvi (1890), p. 154. whole question in reference to the Athena + Ἔφημ. ᾽Αρχ. 1886, pl. 12.
Hygieia base on the Acropolis of Athens.
J.H.8. VOL. XIX. (1899).
ao é
The tes name
PL. Vii.
ATHENA HYGIEIA.
ATHENA HYGIEIA. 167
There is of course another type of Athena, in which she is accompanied by a serpent ; that where the serpent represents Erichthonios. But it must be remembered that in these cases we have Athena in a more warlike aspect, as she appears for instance in the Parthenos statue. Again in the Louvre statue figured by Prof. E. Gardner in this volume of the Journal (p. 7), the presence of the cista is sufficient to identify the serpent with Erichthonios.
The type of Hygieia feeding the serpent is well known at a later date, and was‘probably evolved from the Athena type, just as the conception of Nike owes its development largely to the older cu!t of Athena Nike. The worship of Asklepios was not generally introduced before the end of the fifth century B.c., and Hygicia as a distinct personality does not occur earlier either in literature or in αὐτὸ But in the Hellenistic and Roman periods she is a sufficiently common subject. The connection between her and Athena Hygieia is not easy to trace; possibly it was accidental.
There is however more than one instance of an apparent contaminatio of the types. Thraemer in Roscher’s Lexikon, i. p. 2788, in classifying the figures of Hygieia according to types, gives as his first instance a type which he regards as that of the ‘‘Tempelbild des athenischen Asklepieions, and 15 evidently disposed to consider it the earliest type of Hygieia. Now in this type Hygieia holds the serpent in her right hand and the phiale in the left ; and not only that, but the serpent actually comes over her shoulder, as in our statuette. This type on coins is rare, but is to be seen on Athenian tetradrachms of the period B.c. 146—-87.2 We find it again in certain statues, eg. Clarac, 552, 1172c and, in a less marked degree, 11724 on the same plate. The first-named statue was in the Mattei collection at Rome,’ and is now lost ; the latter is in Lord Carlisle’s collection at Castle Howard.*
It has been suggested to me by Mr. G. F. Hill that this undoubted resemblance of Athena and Hygieia types may point to the fact that the two statues of Hygieia and Athena Hygieia mentioned together by Pau- sanias® are by the same hand, 1.6. that of Pyrrhos. If so, the received text of Pliny (ΠΝ. xxxiv. 80: Pyrrhus fecit Hygiam et Minervam) receives additional confirmation. It is true that it implies an earlier instance of Hygieia as a distinct personality than is admissible by the other evidence ; but if Pliny had meant to speak of Minerva Hygia only, he would naturally have inverted the present order of the words. As they stand, they are in favour of Mr. Hill’s view.
We have seen that our bronze cannot be referred to an earlier date than the Graeco-Roman period, and that most of the existing examples of the type belong to the same period. But evidence from the monuments is not wanting to support the any origin of the Athena i Le cult. The
1 See Wroth in this Journal, v. p. 83 ff., for 3 Coll. Mattei, ΡΝ 59 ; ἬξΑυΝ Clarac de an exhaustive study of the subject. Poche, p. 290.
2 Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins of Attica, No. 375; 4 Reinach, loc. cit.; Michaclis, Ancient Mar- cf. Imhoof and Gardner, Numismatic Comm. to bles, p. 326, No. 5. Pausanias, pl. EE. V ; Beulé, Monn. d Athénes, ive ae’ p. 259 ; Zeitschr. fir Numism. xii. p. 106.
168 ATHENA HYGIEIA.
Epidauros statuette, it is true, belongs to the fourth century B.c., and is subsequent to the introduction of the Asklepios-Hygieia cult. On the other side however we have: (1) the Pyrrhos inscription, which Wolters ascribes to the year 429 B.c.; (2) the vase-fragment from the Acropolis, dating 500— 480 νος; (3) the inscription on the Acropolis base dedicated by Euphronios the potter,' on the upper side of which the name YAIEIA 15 to be read with certainty. This latter cannot of course be later in date than (2); Studniczka (/.c.) hesitates to pronounce definitely for the interpretation of this word as referring to Athena, and thinks it may possibly not mean more than the abstract idea of health (‘ Wolergehen’). Unfortunately the word preceding, of which only \N remains, cannot be conjectured with safety.
H. B. WALTERS.
1 Jahrbuch ii. (1887), p. 1445 C.1.A. iv. p. 154.
ws hee ee
wits
Fic, 1.—WoMAN AT TuUMULUS.
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOI.
[Puates If, ann IIL]
ΡΠ)
. AmonG the white lekythoi, upwards of a hundred in number, which have passed into the National Museum at Athens from excavations at Eretria, there is one which especially claims attention on account of its unusual size and exceptionally well preserved design. It is reproduced on Plate I. after a water-colour drawing made in the summer of 1896 by M. Chesnay, architect, of Paris, who was then working in Greece under the
direction of the French School.!
T am much indebted to Dr, Cavvadias for
permission to publish what is justly regarded as one of the chief treasures of the Greek national collection, and to Dr. Stais for facilities in studying it.
It was found in 1889, ἐν κτήμασι Nootpaxn,” on an estate which yielded a large proportion of the wonderful harvest obtained during the authorised
excavations of 1SS8—92.
1M. Chesnay, who is an accomplished draughtsman, but had then had little ex- perience in vase-copying, was attracted by the noble lines of the original, and determined to reproduce them, more for his own pleasure than for archaeological purposes. Naturally in certain details the result falls short of the rigid ac- curacy which archaeologists expect. Never- theless it has seemed better to make use of a copy which preserves so much of the spirit and style of a master-piece, than to wait for the doubtful chance of securing an absolute fac-
Unfortunately there seems to be no register of the
simile. Although I have not had an oppor- tunity of examining the vase since the drawing was made, it has been possible to test its ac- curacy and have certain correetions made by Mr. F. Anderson with the help of three photo- graphs which I took earlier in the same summer, Copies of these photographs, which are in size two-thirds (linear) of the original, are obtain- able through the Hellenic Society.
* Δελτίον, 1889, p. 136, 1. Cf. p. 51. now numbered 1935.
It is
170 R. C. BOSANQUET.
several graves and their contents. It is known that a number of white and red-figured lekythoi were often found together, but their association in the grave has neither been perpetuated on the shelves of the :museum— - where the study of such groups would supply an invaluable series of fixed points in the progress of the potter's art—nor recorded in print. The absence of all particulars is the more regrettable in the present case because so fine a vase is likely to have come from a well-furnished tomb.
The reproduction is of the full size of the original. The dimensions of the vase, which is 0'49 m., or 19} inches high, are exceeded by several of the later polychrome lekythoi, but are quite exceptional in the period of glaze outlines, during which the normal height is from 0°30 to 0°40 m., or 12 to 16 inches. It is whole and intact. Owing to an incrustation on the shoulder it is at present impossible to say how the palmettes, of which faint traces can be made out, were arranged. The meander and the main design were drawn with glossy black paint, thinning into a muddy yellow-brown. Not only the meander but its framing-lines, which were drawn with the aid of the wheel, must have been added, contrary to the usual practice, after the design, since they are stopped against the intruding stele. The potter who exercised this provident forbearance was probably himself the painter. The colours used were red, light blue, white, and green, which has almost dis- appeared, leaving faint blue traces.
A grave monument occupies the centre of the picture. From a high- stepped basis rises a stele terminating in a pediment, the tympanum of which is filled by a white palmette ‘reserved’ within a black background and bordered below by a strip of tongue-pattern. Behind appears the mound of the actual grave, drawn with an oval outline that appears to be a compromise between plan and elevation. The tomb, evidently well cared for, exhibits a variety of offerings. Eight vases, lekythoi and oenochoai in equal numbers, all painted black, are ranged upon the first and fourth steps. Round four of them wreaths are hung. A fifth wreath lies twisted and broken at the foot of the monument. A red ribbon is knotted about the upper part of the shaft, and there are traces of another below it. The top of the mound is strewn with green branches. Upon the right is a woman dressed in a heavy Doric chiton, bare-headed and bare-footed, holding with both hands a wicker tray containing fresh green wreaths and red sashes with which she is about to renew the faded decorations of the tomb. Her right foot rests upon the plinth of the monument, and she stoops forward to set down her burden. Facing her upon the left stands a young man, a superb and dignified figure, wearing a light brown mantle with fringed white border, fastened on the right shoulder with a circular red-enamelled brooch. At his neck is slung a broad-brimmed light-blue hat. The fingers of his right hand rest lightly on his hip, his left holds a seven-foot spear which passes over his left shoulder. The weight of his body is thrown upon his advanced left foot and his gaze intently fixed upon the woman before him.
In the field above the woman’s head are a lekythos, a mirror and a broad ribbon, such as frequently hang upon the wall in pictures representing
kb ee A τ ν᾿ ----..-
» 31:2... UMN NUNN SSS τιν τ τὸς --ς
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOI. 171
indoor-scenes. That painters continued to draw them floating in space in the background of their tomb-scenes can only be accounted for by the force of habit.
Another feature which needs explanation is the row of five circles in the face of the lowest step. The fact that they are filled with dark colour, as is the hollow crown of the petasos on the young man’s shoulder, suggests that they represent round holes sunk in the marble. They appear on two other lekythoi of the Athens collection, 1958, where there are four in the lowest step of the stele, and 1960, where nine or ten are shown on the projecting plinth of a tumulus. On the latter, sketched in Fig. 1, the mound has the oval outline which has been explained above as a compromise between elevation and plan. In two cases out of three these exceptional features, the oval mound and the circles on the plinth, are found together, and it is not un- reasonable to attribute both to one cause—the draughtsman’s ignorance or neglect of perspective. The darkened circles are really holes sunk in the horizontal, not the vertical, surface of the plinth, and correspond to actual remains on the base of more than one monument in the Kerameikos. Thus before the sculptured grave-stone of Korallion! there are five holes, three and a half inches in diameter, which are shown by the stumps of marble alabastra remaining in two of them to have been sockets for the reception of permanent marble substitutes for the clay vases of unguents, which it was customary to leave as offerings on the steps of the tomb. It is a pathetic touch in some of the vase-pictures that the mourners coming to the tomb find a lekythos, their former offering, overturned and broken.? It was natural to devise some means ofrfixing the frail vessels to the plinth. It would almost seem as if those seen in Plate II. were planted in shallow sockets, for other- wise the weight of the hanging wreaths would certainly drag them down. The pictures on our lekythoi, dating from the middle of the fifth century, may record the first introduction of the device. The subsequent substitution of marble unguent-vessels for those of clay foreshadows the declining taste of a later period, when the forms of loutrophoros or lekythos were laboriously translated into marble, and the wreaths and sashes which it had been the office of pious hands to renew month by month were carved or painted once for all upon the gravestone.
The sculptured pediment of the stele—for the white palmette seen in relief against a dark background can be nothing else—is another detail which the painter has copied from actual monuments. It reappears, treated in the same manner, the ‘reserved’ palmette supported by the same band of delicate egg-pattern, only on two other lekythoi, one of which has just been cited in connection with the vase-sockets on the plinth. They have the same heavy black outlines and enough general resemblance, despite differences of drawing, to warrant us in believing that they proceeded from the same work-shop,
1 Conze, Gr. Grabreliefs. Taf. xeviii. No. No. 120; Athens, No. 1982. On a red-figured 411 and plan on p. 95. loutrophoros, Ath. Mitth. xvi. Taf. 8.
Ξ On lekythoi, Burlington Club Catalogue,
172 R. C. BOSANQUET.
though not from the same hand, as the subject of Plate VI. It is worth while to describe them, for they contain new elements of some importance.
Athens 1958. From Eretria. Ht. 0°37 m. Broad stele with vase- sockets in step and sculptured pediment as on Plate II. The inscription on the shaft is indicated by five rows of short strokes—a detail which is probably unique. Froin the right a girl approaches bearing a tray of fruit and other offerings; her short hair may denote a slave. Facing her stands a woman clad in loose-sleeved chiton and long mantle. In one hand is a sash; with the other she raises her mantle to her face in a gesture expressive of grief., A lekythos hangs in the field.
Athens 1959. From Eretria. Ht. 0°36 m. Stele with sculptured anthemion ‘reserved’ on a semi-circular background. On the left isa woman holding a tray of offerings in her left hand and a lekythos in her right. On the steps of the monument sits a young man, his back turned to- the approaching mourner, wearing a conical hat, red cloak and long boots; his legs are crossed and his right hand holds a spear.
ἘΠ 2:
Here we find an attempt not only to reproduce the actual details of the monuments which the potter bad under his eyes whenever he passed through the city-gate, but to breathe into the picture, faintly because almost for the first time, the emotion of the sorrowful groups which he saw gathered about them. The note of pathos, struck in the one case by the. mourner’s gesture, in the other by the pensive figure seated on the steps of the tomb, is wholly absent from the ‘ Hygiainon series, the glaze-outline lekythoi! of the finest style
1 The ‘glaze-outline lekythoi of the finest XXVIn, Burlington Club Catalogue No. 56, style’ form a homogencous ciass distinct from Bonner Studien, Taf. xi. xii. One of the finest though contemporary with the group discussed οἵ them bears the name Ὑγιαίνων xadds. For in this paper. The published examples are: convenience I shall refer to them as the ‘Hy- White Athenian Vases, Plates I1.-V. and giainon series.’ See J.H.S. xvi. pp 175, 176
" 5 » ᾿ . 7 . - - » - - " " - =
( Ι
at
΄ς“σι
..Η.8. VOL. XIX. (1899).
PL. Ill.
LEKYTHOS IN THE BERLIN MUSEUM,
‘ ‘or 0 Ὁ πὶ 24 “wy δ,"
δ δ, 6 \ ἔφ el
ω ν tre Li .
| are C Opp ) ; | sta οὶ μι pie 1 aby i PA 7: by ehirait pie
yf ie i
ον \ τὰ
i eZ Ι᾿ b . i | ς by w ς: Y ΠῚ -- 4 ᾿ 5 , tien alee Seen Ne omen d ὶ . Ν᾿ is 44 Ρ "
ΤΙ ν
τ
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOI. 173
§ 2.
The lekythoi represented on Plate III. and Fig. 3 are a pair which, like the pair just described, exhibit an unmistakable resemblance to one another, and at the same time a distinct affinity to the vase figured on Plate II. One formed part of the Eretrian spoils of 1889, and is now in the museum at Athens ; one side of it is shown in Fig. 3, drawn by Mr. Anderson from a photograph. The other, fashioned by the same hands, buried perhaps in a neighbouring grave, but carried far from its fellow by the hazard of the market, was acquired in 1893 for the Antiquarium in Berlin; its design is here reproduced from a skilful monochrome drawing made by Herr Liibke. I take this opportunity of thanking Dr. Winter for his kindness in permitting it to be published, and for the care with which he has verified the accuracy of the drawing.
Berlin, Antiquarium, Jnv. 3291. Arch. Anzeiger, 1895, p. 41, No. 51. Ht. 0°36 m. or 14 inches. Height of design 0°17 m. or 6} inches. The reproduction on Plate III. is reduced by one-fifth. The three palmettes on the shoulder (Fig. 2) are drawn in dull grey and arranged in a fashion peculiar to this vase and its companion at Athens. (The normal arrangement on lekythoi of the ‘glaze outline’ class is shown in Fig. 5. Compare vol. xvi. p. 174 seqgg. of this journal.) The meander, the outlines of the main design and the filling of the women’s hair, are executed in glossy black glaze-paint, thinning into yellow-brown. .The framing-lines of the meander, though not the meander itself, seem to have been drawn before the main design.
In the centre of the picture is a stele, raised on three steps, terminating in a pediment, and decorated with ribbons and a wreath. On the right
stands a woman, clad in a Dorie chiton, holding a lekythos and a ribbon in
her hand. Facing her is a slave-girl with snub nose, thick lips and short curly hair, wearing a simple sleeveless chiton and carrying on her head a stool, resting upon a pad or cushion, and in her right hand a ribbon and an alabastron.
The gay colouring has faded almost into nothing. The red or blue of the ribbons and the green of the wreath that encircled the monument have vanished so completely that these details, which were not drawn in outline, are now only recognisable as brighter patches on the grey-white ground ; Dr. Winter las had the contours indicated in dotted lines. There are traces of vermilion on the pad upon the maid’s head. On the women’s dresses not a vestige of colour remains, but an idea of their original appearance may be gained from a better-preserved, though less interesting, picture by the same hand.
Athens, National Museum, 1932. Δελτίον, 1889, p. 98, 2. Ht. 0°35 m. or 133 inches. Shoulder-palmettes drawn in dull-grey, meander and main design in glossy black, precisely like those of the vase just described. Similar stele, decked with ribbons from which the colour has faded, leaving only the tassels, drawn in dull grey. On the right stands a boy (Fig. 3) with
174 R. C. BOSANQUET.
a red petasos slung at his neck and a chlamys thrown over his left arm, holding a spear in his left hand. Opposite to him is a woman dressed in a dark-red (almost claret-coloured) Dorie chiton with apoptygma, the folds of
~~
τὰ >
which are drawn in white, and holding with both hands a wicker-tray from which a number of ribbons hang down. As to the meaning of the Berlin picture there need be no doubt. At
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOI. 175
first sight the stool carried by the maid might be taken for one of the offeritigs which are to be left at the grave, but this would be a mistake. It is true that a beautiful contemporary painting, on one of the Prokesch-Osten lekythoi at Vienna, represents a similar stool and a tall wool-basket standing upon the flat top of a stele, and it might be argued that these are certainly offerings to the dead like the lyre and casket which occur elsewhere in the same position! On the other hand they at once recall a familiar type of grave-relief on which the house-wife is portrayed with her work-basket beside her chair. When we remember that two of the early representations of tomb-sculpture make the same error of putting the figures on the top instead of the face of the stele,? it becomes probable that the diphros and kalathos are not real offerings, but abbreviated symbols of a sculptured relief. And this explanation is in keeping with the date and school of the Vienna vase, which is one of the ‘ Hygiainon class. A later and more imaginative school tried to give expression to the idea that a mystical com- munion with the dead might be attained by periodical gifts of such things as pleased him in life, and represented the mourners as bringing a profusion of gifts, armour and musical instruments for men, caskets and fans and mirrors for women, pet birds and toys for a child, as well as materials for the feast held at the tomb, honey-cakes no doubt, though these are not recognis- able, grapes, melons, and pomegranates. And as the number and variety of the offerings increases, so the figure of the dead,—whom the offerings of his kinsfolk and the feast of which he partook recalled to a passing semblance of life, as the draught of blood did the ghosts in Homer’s underworld,—comes to take a more prominent place in the picture. But on the vases of the ‘Hygiainon class’ the visit to the tomb is always treated in a ‘matter-of-fact spirit, and the offerings in the hands of mourners are few and simple, nothing more than the wreaths, ribbons, and unguent-vessels required for the decoration of the stele. The difference of treatment is probably due to the idiosyn- crasies of the painters rather than to any change in the character of the cult. The painters—or painter—of the ‘Hygiainon class’ were academic and con- servative, more concerned with the technical perfection of their drawing than with its meaning or sentiment. Happily there are other contemporary lekythoi, such as the three which I have associated in this paper and another group to be mentioned presently, which give us far more lively and instructive pictures, though they seldom attain the same delicacy and certainty of line. The diphvos, then, is brought not as an offering to the dead but for use at the tomb. Such stools were the commonest pieces of furniture in the women’s apartments, and were used now as a seat, now as a table. In those domestic scenes which represent the women of the family preparing for a visit to the tomb, a stool supports the wicker tray of offerings, and in several tomb-scenes it serves the same purpose. Thus the slave-girl with the stool
1 Berlin Jnv. 3262 = Arch. Anzeiger, 1893, Sculptured Tombs, p. 18. Also Bonner Studien, p. 92, No. 55. Taf. x., where I suspect that the sculpture is 2 ἘΦ, ’Apx. 1886, mu. IV. = P. Gardner, — really a relief, not a statuette.
176 R. C. BOSANQUET.
on her head—for so it was always carried, as many ancient representations and a joke in Aristophanes tell us—comes quite naturally into the picture, not very hard to draw, of a great Athenian family proceeding on a periodical visit to the grave of one of its members. It is no accident that the figure on Plate II. recalls so vividly the stool-bearers of the Parthenon frieze. In more than one respect the family party setting out to perform this solemn religious duty must have resembled a sacrificial procession. Just as the arrangement of the customary offerings in the wicker-tray was a serious matter requiring the supervision and approval of the mistress, the lekythoi and alabastra laid aslant among wreaths and woollen fillets, the sashes hanging down at either side, so the journey to the cemetery must have been governed by traditional rules. There was the father with mantle and staff, the sons in knightly equipment of chlamys, petasos and lance, and the ladies of the house who were so seldom seen in the streets, the mother partly veiled, her daughters carrying the more fragile offerings, and behind them a train of maid-servants balancing each a burden on her head, kanephoroi with wicker-trays,! diphro- phoroi with stools, hydriaphoroi with jars of water for the washing of the stele.” Other pictures show the succeeding stage of the ceremony. The tray is set upon the stool beside the tomb, and its carefully-arranged contents are unpacked.? The shaft and steps of the monument are washed clean with water from the hydria and a libation is poured out on the ground before it. The stele is anointed with fragrant oil and decked with garlands and gaily coloured ribbons. Lastly, the vases used in the ceremony are ranged, as in Pl. IL, upon the steps of the tomb in accordance with an ancient superstition which forbade the bringing of them back to the house.
And what are we to make of the studied contrast between the features of the slave and of her aristocratic mistress ? Curiously enough we meet with an antithesis of the same kind in connection with the sacrificial processions of which, as I have shown, the family visit to the tomb was a repetition in miniature, The kanephoroi on these occasions were delicately-nurtured girls who seldom stirred abroad, and, when such an one fulfilled the obligation of her birth by carrying the tray of offerings ina public procession, the fatigue of the journey was mitigated by the presence of attendants drawn from the metic class, an umbrella-bearer (cx.adnpopos) to shield her from the sun, and a stool-bearer (διφροφόρος)," carrying a seat in case she should wish to rest. The significance of the homage to the ruling race that was thus exacted from the resident aliens was enhanced by the contrast between their representa-
* Berlin Jnv. 3171, and 3245 = Arch. Ashanti. ‘King Prempeh is said to take his Anzeiger, 1893, p. 92, No. 54. exile very complacently. He is a regular at- * Athens 1760 = Heydemann, Gr. Vasen- tendant at the English church at Frectown, and
bilder, xii. 12. every Sunday, accompanied by his umbrella-
3 Athens 1982, Brit. Mus. Ὁ. 65 = W.A.V. ΕἸ»
* An unpublished lekythos at Carlsruhe.
5 Stool and umbrella are stil] the insignia of
royalty in West Africa, as is shown by the following paragraph about the ex-king of
bearer and his stool-hearer, may be seen walking through the streets to the Cathedral. On most occasions his wives and attendants accompany him. The stool and umbrella are always in- cluded in the procession.’—Scoltsman,* June 9 1897.
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOT. 177
tives. The kanephoros was elaborately attired, as we learn from several allusions in Aristophanes, wore her mother’s jewelry and had her face painted to the degree of whiteness that was thought becoming in these ἐσκιατραφημέναι. As she headed the procession she was the cynosure of all eyes, and the darker skin of the diphrophoros, to whom etiquette seems to have denied the use of cosmetics, was an effective foil to her snowy complexion. Such seems to have been the point of a scene in the Heelesiazusae, where a man marshals his kitchen furniture in a mock procession.! The farded kanephoros who marches first is impersonated by the floury sieve, the diphro- phoros by the kettle— black enough, in all conscience.’ Bearing this in mind we can the better appreciate the contrast between the lady and the maid of Plate III., though here it is expressed in feature rather than com- plexion. The slave is not necessarily a negress. ‘ Merkwiirdig, says Dr. Furtwiingler, ‘ist der sehr fein und charakteristisch ausgefiihrte Barbaren- typus der Sklavin (dicke Nase und Lippen); doch scheint keine Negerin gemeint, sondern sonst eine Barbarin.’ And the very similar profile of a maid- servant on a small lekythos at Cambridge, No. 188, whose flesh is painted white, points to the same conclusion. On the other hand one must compare the snub-nose and thick lips of an Ethiopian stool-bearer on the well- known Andromeda hydria in the British Museum,? and the profile of a little negro page who is seen trudging behind an old man on a vase in the Copen- hagen collection.’ The latter design was perhaps borrowed from a polychrome painting, in which the contrast between the blackamoor and his white-haired master would be much more effective than it is in ‘ red-figured’ technique. The contrast is happily brought out in the spirited thou ghmuch-faded picture on a lekythos at Vienna, which shows a young man coming down to the shore, where Charon’s boat is waiting, carrying a pet bird on his wrist, and attended by a negro slave carrying a tame hare and a bird-cage. Here the slave's face is painted black and thrown into relief by a turban, perhaps originally scarlet, wound about his head. A commentary on these scenes is to be found in the fact that Theophrastus makes his Man of Petty Ambition take care that his attendant is a negro. So Beckford, travelling in Spain, noted that it was ‘the high ton to be surrounded by African implings, the more hideous the more prized.’
1 Aristophanes, Eccl. 730-736. Cf. Acharn. 242, 258; Lys. 1188 ff. ; Aves 1550, and the lines of Hermippus quoted by the scholiast on this passage. The assumption that the diphrophoroi were aliens rests on analogy, not on direct evi- dence. We learn from other sources that aliens
ist (durch Aristophanes) nur fiir die Schirmtrag- erinnen bezeugt,’ Meisterwerke, p. 186. He is referring to Aves, 1549 ff. But the passage in the Ecclesiazusae implies that the diphrophoros walked behind the kanephoros, and it is cer- tainly significant that they are mentioned to-
performed the σκιαδηφορία, σκαφηφορία, and bdpiapopia. Furtwiingler even doubts whether the diphrophoroi were attendants of the kane- phoroi: ‘Die Scholien schliessen falschlich dass sie hinter den Kanephoren folgten ; dies
Bes VON ΣΙΣ,
gether in two other passages.
2 Archaeologia, xxxvi. Pl. 6.
3 Ussing, To Graeske Vaser, Copenhagen, 1866, Pl. 1.
4 Theophrastus, Char. 7.
178 R. C. BOSANQUET. § 3.
Considered together the three vases give a fairly complete idea of the painter’s method and ability. The disappearance of the colour from the Berlin picture has exposed the lines of the original sketch, impressed with a dry point on the still soft clay. As their presence in the Plate would have been confusing, Dr. Winter has kindly hada second drawing prepared in which they are indicated by the fainter broader lines (Fig. 4). It will be seen that the painter has adhered very closely to his original intention— which is not surprising, for apart from their studied profiles the two women
listiats a Ἴ- = " ee τ ) C ee a | =p anaes “t) ΤΟΝ τινές Ϊ Sas Vp Peer ὑρξὴ ᾿ ! + ! ! il el | ΕΙ ΕΞ AY at ‘ ~ τς | ἢ τ ΠΕΡ eal ἐπ Ϊ ae be Nae ἢ \ Re aged El iT Wn ak fe ee 11] ἊΣ Ms 4 ot | i / 7 { i al \4 εἰ { } Realy i | | he \ ἢ Ἢ Lede He eee ale Ϊ ᾿ { ' | licen J ij be J | Skee .»..--
if ἘΠῚ τ τ᾿
Fie 4.
are mere lay-figures. The close resemblance of the boy in Fig. 3 to the woman on the right, the mechanical repetition seen in the attitude, in the high shoulders, the arms, the misshapen left foot, are proofs that he was treating a familiar theme. The woman who faces the ephebus of Fig. 3, not reproduced here for want of an adequate photograph, stands in the same stiff pose, but her arms are cleverly foreshortened and the folds of the heavy Doric chiton are drawn with considerable decision. Indications, in fact, are not wanting to suggest that the painter’s real skill and knowledge were in advance of his perfunctory every-day execution ; and the fortunate preserva- tion of one finished work of the same school—our Plate II—makes it possible to prove it. If the stelai on the two Plates are compared it will be
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOT. 179
seen that the meaningless row of short strokes below the pediment of the one is a conventional abbreviation of the delicate egg-ornament on the other, and that the little curl at either angle really represents a graceful volute. Then compare the fect of the clumsily built ephebus of Fig. 3 with those of his fellow in the brown chlamys; the ugly symbol which stands for the left foot of the former becomes intelligible at once. And what is true of the details is true, despite a certain heaviness of touch, of this great Eretrian lekythos as a whole. Its spacious monumental style, its temperate use of colour, the knowledge of the human form and the study of complex drapery which it implies, reveal to us a conscientious craftsman whose art was not learned only in the pottery, one capable of something better than painting lekythoi for the dead.
Fic. 5.
δ 4.
The series of glaze-outline lekythoi which group themselves round the Hygiainon lekythos in the British Museum have been mentioned more than once in the preceding pages. It will be convenient to append a list of them It will be seen that in style, subject and ornament, they are directly descended from the series with three-line inscriptions which I discussed in volume X VI of this Jowrnal, and that two vases which ended that list form the natural introduction to this.!| They are uniformly characterised by great perfection of
cation that the youths thus honoured by the potters were persons of good standing. It is a decree of Elis conferring proxenia on a Diphilos son of Melanopos of Athens, and cannot be dated precisely, but the editors in-
1 Another link is furnished by ἃ leky- thos at Cassel (Arch. Anzeiger, 1898, p. 192, No. 9) inscribed A] ®] A[o s| KAAO [s],
seated woman holding toilet-vase, and youth
wrapped in mantle, a group much like those enumerated above, but connected by the in- scription with the four vases of the white-flesh series which mention Diphilos son of Melan- opos. An inscription found at Olympia (Di Insehriften, 30, ef. 797) supplies a fresh indi-
cline to accept the identification with the D. son of M. named on the vases, and perhaps also with the D. who commanded a fleet in 414 (Thue. vii. 34) and with the M. whose son Juaches held a command in 427 (Thue. iii. 86).
x Ὁ)
180 R. C. BOSANQUET.
form and accessory ornament and by a consistent beauty and firmness of line that is unsurpassed in the whole history of Greek vase-painting. The excellent photogravures in Messrs. A. H. Smith and Murray’s White Athenian Vases make a fuller description unnecessary.
The shoulder-palmettes have the form represented in Fig. 5 (with one exception, I below, for which see J.//.S. XVI. p. 175). The meander-band above the main design is almost equally stereotyped, consisting of groups of three units, alternately reversed and divided by cross-squares. The glaze-paint ranges from clear yellow te black. The colours used are several shades of red, blue (traces only), and pale yellow. In the following lists the figure on the left of the design is always mentioned first.
I,—SceEneEs OF ORDINARY LIFE.
A. Oxford, 266, from Gela. P. Gardner, Catalogue, Pl. 20. Ht. °35. AAKIM. AHE ΚΑΛΟΣ ΑἸΙΣΤΤΥΛΙΔΟ Two women with lyres, one seated, one standing. B. Acerra, Spinelli collection, from Suessula. im. Mitth. 1887, Taf. xii. 5. Ht. “35. A=I0MEI/i// KAAOS AAKIMA+/// Seated mistress and maid; the former held a wreath or other object, which has dis- appeared. C. British Museum, D. 53, from Athens. W.A.V. Pl. 4. Ht. 99.
Seated mistress and maid ; the former is making a wreath, the latter has ready a string with which to tie the ends.
D. British Museum D. 48, from Athens. W.A.V. Pl. 2. Ht. -35. HYFIAINON
KAAOS
Mistress hands rolled-up mantle to maid.
E. Vienna 1032, from cemetery near Hymettus. Ht. 30. A replica of the preceding. Found with a companion-vase, representing mourners at a tomb ; see Μ below.
F. Bonn (Athens, probably from Eretria). Bonner Studien, Taf. xi. Hit. .-42.
Maid holds rolled-up mantle, while her mistress fustens her yirdle. G. Former van Branteghem collection. Burlington Club Catalogue 56.
Youth and old man in conversation.
H. British Museum D. 51, from Cyprus. JW.A.V. Pl. 3. Ht. .39 Woman hands helmet to bearded man, armed with sword and spear. H2. British Museum 1). 55, from Eretria. W.A.V. Pl. 258. Ht. “30 Woman and youth in conversation. I. Athens 1818, from Eretria. Bonner Studien, Taf. xii. Ht. about “40. Seated woman, and young man armed with shield and spear and holding helmet in extended right hand.
J. Athens 1856. Boy on horseback galloping to right, two spears in his hand.
K. Athens 1823, from Eretria. Bt. a) Two women setting out to the tomb. One holds a plemochoe, the other an alabastron in a net.
Found with a companion-vase, representing mourners at a tomb ; see L below.
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOT. 181
II.—TomB-SceNnEs.
In each case there are two figures, placed one at each side of a stele. The dress of the men varies. The women, with two exceptions (P, S), wear mantle and Ionic chiton. L. Athens 1821, from Eretria. Ht. “31.
Women (shoes) and youth (chlamys, petasos, high boots, spear). Found with K above.
M. Vienna 1035, from cemetery near Hymettos. Ht, “31. Woman and bearded man (mantle, staff). Found with E above.
N. Oxford, from South Attica. Ht. -35. Woman and youth (mantle).
O. Athens 1838. Youth (chiton and spear) and woman.
[P. Athens 1822, from Eretria. Ht. “35. Youth (naked, strigil in r. hand) and woman (sakkos on head, Doric chiton)}.
Q. British Museum D 54, from Eretria. W.A.V. Pl. 5. Ht. -33. Youth (chlamys, petasos, spear) and youth (mantle, and bag containing strigil ?).
R. South Kensington, Salting Collection. Ht. about -33. Youth (naked, mantle on shoulder) and youth (chlamys, petasos, sword and spear).
S. Boston 449. Two women, one without mantle.
T. Cassel. Arch. Anzeiger, 1898, p. 192, No. 10. Ht. “25.
T'wo women. One carries toilet-vase, lekythos and alabastron, the other alabastron and casket. Parts of the picture are open to suspicion—the lekythos held by one woman, the folds
of the other’s chiton, and parts, perhaps the whole, of the stele. The original design may have been a scene of preparation like K.
In several of these pictures a thick woollen fillet, white with darker bands at intervals, is seen hanging round the foot of the stele (L, M, Q, R, S—see White Athenian Vases, Pl. 5), while a second, tied into a kind of wreath, is sometimes laid against the lowest step (L,P,R,S). Stiff fillets of the same kind are seen in the basket of offerings which the maid on the Lichas vase (Brit. Mus. 1). 50=J.H.S. XVI. Pl. VI.) brings to be approved by her mistress, but they do not appear on the later funeral lekythoi. Another characteristic is the toilet-vase or plemochoe (K, L, M, N, 8S, ΤῸ), a tureen-like vase for carrying oil, provided internally with a flange to prevent spilling like that of a modern safety ink-stand. This and the other vases (alabastron K, N, T) are always carried by a woman, while, with the doubtful exception of the bag in Q, no offering appears in the hand of a man. The strigil held by the naked youth of P is, like the spear or staff carried by the other male figures, a part of his personal equipment.
Of the series as a whole it may be said that the drawing is consistently painstaking, generally correct, and sometimes very beautiful. The faces, always in strict profile, and the hands, which are often too small, are ex- quisitely drawn, but there is little variety of attitude or expression, and in the funeral scenes no trace of emotion. The authorship of the whole series may safely be ascribed to a very small number—perhaps not more than two—of closely associated workers.
182 R. C. BOSANQUET. § 5.
We meet with a very different spirit in a group of glaze-outline Iekythoi which must now be described. Here imaginative power takes the place of technical perfection. Instead of highly specialised dexterity applied within a circumscribed field, we find a versatile and poetical art which revives and
IEG Gr
recasts old types and creates or borrows new ones. Most interesting of all is the re-appearance of a tendency, already noticed in the picture reproduced in Plate III., to portray and contrast individual characteristics.
In the preceding series the shoulder-palmettes were executed in the same yellowish- black as the main design. Here they are drawn in dull black or grey. The meander and main design are drawn in clear golden-yellow glaze-paint, the former being continuous, not broken by cross-squares.
a Berlin, Inv. 3160. Arch. Anzeiger v. p. 89. Ht. ‘36. Charon (red cap and shirt) in boat, and woman (blue mantle drawn about her head). Behind Charon a clump of rushes, from which the colour has faded. 8. Athens 1761 (not from Eretria). Bearded soldier (conical helmet, cuirass, red chlamys, red-lined shield, spear), and woman in blue mantle, at either side of stele.
y- British Museum D. 58. W.A.V. Pl. 11. Ht. “48. Two winged genii, Death and Sleep, lay the corpse of a young soldier at the foot of a siele, ὃ. Bonn. Bonner Studien, Taf. x. Ht. “41.
Woman (dress repainted ?) holding tray, and bearded man (mantle and staff) at either side of a stele on which is seen a statuette (or more probably a relief) of a youny athlete.
e. Former Paton collection. Burlington Club Catalogue 56. Ht. ‘41.
Naked youth (red chlumys on arm, sword and sword-belt, two spears) and woman holding toilet-vase, ut either side of stele.
The following belong to the same school, but seem to be by different hands. ¢. British Museum D. 67. Catalogue iii. Pl. 27. Ht. ‘27.
Woman holding tray, and bald, elderly man with hand clasping brow in gesture of
grief, at either side of stele.
SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOT. 183
n- Athens 1993, from Eretria. Ht. 33. _ Youth with hand raised to brow in gesture of grief, and bearded man, at either side of stele. 6, British Museuin, D.60, WAV. Ph 6. Ht.:°31:
Two youths and a doy hunting a hare on vocky ground before a stele.
Fria. 7.
Nowhere is the tendency of this new school better shown than in its treatment of the figures of Charon (Fig. 7) and of Sleep and Death. An earlier representation of Charon (Fig. 6) makes him a repulsive being with a coarse animal face But here the ferryman is a real personage, sketched in the likeness of some barbarian, slave or sailor, whose high skull and retreating forehead, straight hair and sparse bristly beard, had caught the painter’s eye and stayed in his memory. His parted lips, though they do not necessarily imply speech, give the face an expression of kindly interest in the half-veiled woman who comes to meet him. There is again an anti- thesis of the beautiful and the ugly, the Hellen and the barbarian. A great tuft of bulrushes, green no doubt originally, is another new feature in the picture, the forerunner of many later indications of natural scenery.
Sleep and Death on the fine lekythos in the British Museum are works of the same hand.” The uncouth figure of Death with lank hair framing his face, and mysterious plumage clothing his body, stands in deliberate
? From a photograph of the well-known * The somewhat pointed nose, which detracts lekythos at Munich, published by Stackelberg, from the resemblance of this figure to the Graber, Taf. 47, and by Benndorf, Gir, τὸ. Sic. Charon at Berlin, is due to the hand of a re- Vasenbilder, Taf. 27, 1. storer, Mr. Cecil Smith tells me.
184 SOME EARLY FUNERAL LEKYTHOT.
contrast to his brother Sleep, whose smooth limbs have the ruddy hue of life and health.
Yet another instance of the representation of individual traits is the foreign archer (Fig. 8) who appears on an Athenian Iekythos of style some- what akin to the seven just enumerated, though different from them in form and ornament. Clad in the leather helmet and tightly-fitting uniform of the τοξόται, a quiver slung at his side, he stands before a tomb, facing a figure of quite ordinary type, a youth wrapped in a mantle. The straight hair, parted lips, and peculiar drawing of the eye, recall the heads of Charon and of Thanatos.
ἢ. C. BosaNQueEt.
RICHARD CLAY ANI) SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY,
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS.
1.—TuHeE CAMPAIGN OF MARATHON.
It may seem bold to re-open the question (or questions) of the campaign of Marathon so soon after the publication of the monumental chapters of Busolt, of Hauvette, of Macan.! But the labours of these scholars at onee invite and facilitate farther discussion. They focus many scattered arguments, contribute new suggestions, put the humbler student abreast of recent re- searches, and show him where his own conclusions differ from accepted views. How much I owe to them will be obvious without particular references.
The theory here put forward, although independently reached, is not altogether new—perhaps no theory of Marathon could be—but I was not aware, until it was written, how closely certain of its main features had been anticipated by Busolt in a work published twenty years ago (Die Lakedai- monier pp. 355-369). That eminent historian has, however, since then twice changed his views, so that it may be useful to recall his readers to what I still consider to be his best solution of the problem. Perhaps the discussions of the interval have reinforced it in some respects. On one important point I find myself in agreement with Professor J. B. Bury’s article on the Battle of Marathon in the Classical Review, March 1596, and even where we disagree, we must often have asked much the same questions.
What was the aim of the Persian expedition, the commission of Datis and Artaphrenes? Was it to punish the Athenians and Eretrians for their share in the burning of Sardis? Was it to restore Hippias to his tyranny as a Persian vassal? Was it a deliberate move in that ‘forward’ policy which had already carried the empire to the frontier of Thessaly and now threatened to swallow up the Greek peninsula? Support can be drawn from Herodotus, and elsewhere, for each and all of these views. They are not mutually exclusive, but probably the two former are too narrow, and the last too wide. Whatever was the scope and purpose of the mission of the heralds—a question which bristles with difticulties—we shall probably be safe in limiting the im- mediate object of this particular campaign to the subjugation of the free Ionians. And here arises the inevitable suspicion that to Persian eyes, and
1 Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, Bd. 11.252, Appendix X. 1895. Hauvette, Hérodote, 1894. Macan, * Carystus, like Virgil’s Mantua, was unfor- Herodotus, Books 1V., V., ΥἹ., 1895, especially _ tunate in its neighbourhood.
H.S.—VOL. XIX. oO
186 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
possibly in veritable fact, although we cannot expect our authorities to admit or recognize it, the expedition was merely the completion of the ‘ pacification ’ of Ionia. Artaphrenes must have regarded Athens as a revolted subject, and he had reason.! Is it impossible that the Persian empire may once have formally extended across the Aegean and included Athens and Eretria? But apart from all dangerous speculations, we are probably justified on any hypothesis in assuming that the proximate aim of the expedition was the reduction of the Ionians of Europe. This was the pressing need, for the Persian government must have seen that the Ionians in Asia would never be pacified so long as their brethren across the watcr were independent. And this was surely a sufficient task for one campaign. .ithens was the goal and the limit of the expedition.
Why, then, after the surrender of Carystus, did not Datis and Artaphrenes steer direct for the bay of Phalerum? Why, if they preferred to land at Marathon, did they sail straight past it to Hretria? Was it simply a methodic system of conquest that deflected them? Having once touched Euboea, did they feel bound to complete the subjugation of the island before moving any farther westwards, just as they had deviated from their course to secure Naxos and Paros on their flank? Had Eretrian (and Chalcidian ?) exiles, perhaps Gongylus, something to say in the matter? Did the superstitions ¢ Hippias, who had once before returned from Eretria, here shape the Persian strategy ? Was there not yet another, more cogent, reason? LEretria was an easier prey than Athens, smaller, less capable of resistance, and (if we may trust Herodotus) already betrayed. The Persian leaders wished to bring to bear on waverers and recalcitrants in Athens the moral effect of the fate of Eretria.
Eretria taken, the next object of attack was Athens. The Persians, Herodotus tells us, after waiting a few days sailed for Attica, κατέργοντές τε πολλὸν καὶ δοκέοντες ταὐτὰ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ποιήσειν τὰ Kal τοὺς ᾿Ερετριέας ἐποίησαν. These words, whatever their exact meaning, are obviously added for rhetorical effect, to point the contrast between expectation and performance, perhaps also between Athens and Eretria. At best they can express no more than an inference from the general situation, and have no historical weight. The attempt to extract from them a plan of campaign seems to me illegitimate and futile. In their most natural interpretation they would, mean that the Persians expected to burn Athens and enslave the population. To this interpretation I would adhere, although the guidance of Hippias is sufficient refutation of the statement.
Whatever the Persians expected, their objective was Athens. Why then do they take so extraordinary a course to get there? Why burden them- selves with a toilsome march of some five and twenty miles through the enemy's country, when their fleet might have put them at once within striking distance of the city? Herodotus tells us that Marathon recommended
1 Herodotus, v. 73.
, 1
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 187
quite near to Eretria. We need not press the superlatives, or make Herodotus responsible for the assertion that no place in Attica was better suited or nearer—enough that Marathon possessed both these advantages in a very high degree. But can they be said to have been advantages? What use do the Persians make of their cavalry? Was not the plain of Athens much better suited for its action? How can nearness to Eretria be an advantage, when it implies a corresponding remoteness from Athens? One advantage the Persian cavalry did enjoy at Marathon—pasturage. But if that were an inducement, they must have contemplated a prolonged stay, and Herodotus recognizes no such intention. His reasons seem to be mere inference, to account for the fact that they did land at Marathon, and possibly influenced by memories of Pisistratus’ landing and the Pisistratid reliance on cavalry.
It is scarcely credible that the Persians were afraid of the Athenians, that they doubted their own power to force a landing on the shore of the Saronic gulf. There can have been no insuperable difficulty in effecting a disembarkation at some point on so extensive a coast from so numerous a fleet. The advantage of an unopposed landing may have counted for some- thing, but it can not have been the sole reason for putting in at Marathon.
Modern historians have added two more reasons, to which too much importance has been allowed. These reasons have a certain plausibility, some real relevancy, but they do not in themselves amount to an adequate cause. In the first place it is urged that the Pisistratidae had strong local influence in the neighbourhood of Marathon. Was it so specially strong just there? Philaidae, the home of the Pisistratid. family, lay farther south, about half way between Marathon and Sunium. But Marathon was in the Diacria, the country of the Pisistratid faction? On the contrary it seems to have formed part of the Paralic ¢rittys of the tribe Aeantis.. It remains true, however, that the Diacria was not accessible by sea, and Marathon was the most convenient port for it as awhole. The second reason assigned is the superstition or instinct of Hippias, which led him to follow the omen or precedent of his former return from Eretria vid Marathon. But the circumstances were very different. To land at Marathon was the obvious and even necessary course for Pisistratus, but Hippias had neither the same need nor the same prospect of success by that route. Pisistratus had no over- whelming fleet and formidable army to back him ; Hippias had both. Pisistratus was looked upon as a mere adventurer, and his landing was at first ignored ; Hippias led an invading host which could not be concealed or disregarded.
11 assume the identity of the Diacria with ἡ μεσόγειος χώρα of the Aristotelian ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία. Their identity seems to be clearly implied, and to be historically necessary. It is not inconsistent with NHesychius’ rough de- scription: ἡ χώρα Araxpia, 7 ἀπὸ Πάρνηθος ἕως Βραυρῶνος. The Diacria would be a horse-shoe shaped district round the three land sides of
the central plain, The name was obviously given from the point of view of Athens; it signifies the country beyond the hills, ¢.¢. the ridges of Parnes, Pentelicus, and Hymettus. The only precise and positive definition of the three divisions, the Plain, the Shore, and the Trans- or Ultra-montane, is’ given by the dis- tribution of the triltyes.
02
188 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
Pisistratus quietly collected his adhercuts, matured his plans, and moved upon Athens. Surely Hippias was not so simple as to imagine that that history would repeat itself, that the Athenians had forgotten that lesson !
Ts it not much more likely that he calculated on their remembering it, and made a feint of following in his father’s steps with the deliberate purpose of misleading them? Probably Miltiades’ decree, to go forth and meet the invader, was already carried, and known to Hippias. Certainly, with the example of Eretria before their eyes, with the consciousness of treachery in their midst, the Athenian patriots were not likely to elect to stand a siege. At all events Hippias made no movement towards Athens. The Persians must have reached Marathon at least twelve hours, more probably eighteen or twenty-four, before the Athenians. The polemarch and his staff could not have guessed where the landing would take place. The news that the enemy’s fleet had put into Marathon had to reach them, they had to assemble their army, and march out. If the Persians landed at day- break, the Athenians would deserve great credit if they arrived at sunset. The Persian generals had quite time enough to send an advanced guard to occupy the passes. They apparently waited patiently for the Athenians to come up. There is ποὺ a hint that they intended to march on Athens. Why should they, when they might have sailed? Once more, why should they have landed at Marathon at all? Why, but to bring the Athenians there? As Mr. Bury puts it, ‘the purpose clearly was to lure the Athenian forces to Marathon.’
But why lure the Athenian forces to Marathon? Was it in order to fight them there? Was it the object of the Persian generals to bring about a battle in the open, on ground favourable to themselves, and so finish the campaign at a blow, and ‘avoid a wearisome siege’?! Athens, denuded of the best and loyalest part of her defenders, was not likely to offer any serious resistance. She wonld capitulate and receive back Hippias. Did the Persians in fact choose the plain of Marathon for their battle-field, and practically challenge the Athenians to fight them there? Was it, in Mr. Macan’s words, ‘to have been a case of the spider and the fly’ ?
No doubt a pitched battle was one way, perhaps the quickest way, of finishing the campaign. Yet I cannot persuade myself that this inter- pretation of the Persian strategy is very plausible. In the first place, it does not give any point to the choice of Marathon of all places. Marathon was rather a remote corner of Attica to select, and was not by any means an ideal site for the Persian tactics. If Hippias and his friends were convinced that the Athenians would accept their challenge, they might have found much better battle-fields much nearer to Athens. But, secondly, is it credible that the Persians expected the Athenian commander, or com- manders, to risk a pitched battle against their own greatly superior forces on their own ground? Herodotus may be drawing on imagination (his own or
* “Of the Acropolis,’ adds Mr. Bury. But Iam not yet convinced that Athens was without walls.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 189
another’s) when he depicts their confidence on leaving Eretria, and their astonishment at the temerity of the Athenian charge. But surely his inference, although dramatic in motive, is justified by all probability. We have no trustworthy record of the Persian land force, but on a very low computation it must have outnumbered the Athenian by something like two to one,! and the cavalry only increased the disparity. A pitched battle on open ground must have appeared to the Persians highly improbable. Thirdly, was it even the most desirable solution? We need not suppose that even Datis and Artaphrenes positively lusted for a big slaughter, which must fall on both sides, and Hippias, in the interests of his future despotism, had every motive to adhere to the traditional clemency of his family’s policy. If Hippias could be reinstated without the pitched battle, we may reasonably assume that this was the preferable alternative. Lastly, the Persian leaders must very soon have discovered that the Athenians did not intend to accept their challenge. If their sole object in landing at Marathon had been to fight there, we should have expected them, when the enemy declined the trial, either to take the offensive against his position (which, although a strong one, was open to attack from two sides af once), or else to sail away and renew the attempt on some other field. Instead of adopting either of these courses, they wait on at Marathon, day after day, apparently in complete tranquillity !?
If Hippias’ purpose in luring the Athenians to Marathon was not to fight them there, what else can it have been? Obviously it must have been to get them well away from Athens, This answer, by the way, does full justice to the remoteness of Marathon. But why get them away from
Athens? Presumably that he might gain possession of the city in their absence. How was this object to be effected ?
In the first place the Athenian army had to be detained at Marathon. Plainly it could not withdraw unmolested so long as the Persians were there in sufficient foree. So long as the whole Persian army remained at Marathon the Athenians were not likely either to attack or to attempt to make off. They had no obvious motive to do either, and both would involve grave risk to their army and to the state. But if the Persians moved off towards Athens, whether by land or by sea, they at once gave the Athenians both a motive and an opportunity for attacking their rearguard, and also set them
1 The Athenians, with the Plataeans, and probably a few thousand light-armed ‘cles or “δοῦλοι,᾽ may have numbered about 15,000. Herodotus gives the Persians 600 ships besides the horse-transports. Busolt allows 50,000 as a probable estimate for their army. Perhaps we may reckon the Persian loss at Marathon (6,400) at about one-third of the troops engaged, for the wings were not pursued, whereas the centre must have been almost annihilated. This calculation would put the combatants at about 20,000. If half the army was engaged
(see below), the whole foree would be about 40,000. Even 30,000 might be enough for our theory. Attempts to reduce the number of the Persians are generally based on the assumption that their whole army fought at Marathon.
2 From the movements of Philippides and the Spartans it appears that the Athenians must have faced the Persians at Marathon for at least seven days. They would reach Marathon on the 8th of the (lunar) month at the latest, and the battle was fought on the 16th at the earliest.
190 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
free to return to defend or save their city. If they went by sea, the em- barkation of their last divisions was difficult, and the Athenians would reach Athens by road before they could arrive there round Cape Sunium. If they went by land (i.e. by the coast road, which alone was open to them), they had to be prepared for an attack in rear or flank from the Athenian position in the valley of Avlona, and the Athenians would reach Athens either on their heels by the same road, or simultaneously by the hill road.
But here the Persian superiority of force comes into account. Half or two-thirds of the army might stay at Marathon to guard the Athenians there, the other half or third might be sent to Athens, and alone be suffi- cient to deal with the garrison. The Athenians on the other hand could not afford to divide their army. They needed their whole force to meet either half of the enemy.
We may reasonably conclude that this was the plan which the Persian leaders had projected. One of the two generals was to stay at Marathon, the other, doubtless with Hippias, was to lead his division to Athens! The Athenians might attack the division left behind, or might attempt to escape by the upper road. But no doubt the force which was to be left was held sufficient to give a good account of them if they ventured out of their fastness whether to advance or retreat. In the latter case it would only be necessary to delay their march by harassing attacks until the other division was in position. But both Hippias and Miltiades must have known perfectly well that if the Athenians went back otherwise than victorious the fate of their city was sealed. ‘
Clearly the crisis of the campaign was bound to come when the two Persian divisions parted company. The Athenians must act then, and act quickly. But the initiative lay with the Persians. It was their action which determined that of the Athenians. But what determined thes? in other words, why was the crisis delayed? The answer to this question brings us in view of certain considerations, which we have so far left out of sight, but which really governed the whole scheme of the campaign.
There is abundant evidence that Athens was undermined by intrigue and conspiracy, and that Hippias had a secret understanding with a powerful party in the city. He could reckon not only on his own family connections and some old adherents, but also on the Alemaeonidae, into whose party most of his former political followers had been absorbed by the seductive concessions of Cleisthenes. The Alemaeonidae had driven out Hippias, just as they had driven out his father before him. But just as they had once also restored Pisistratus, so they might likewise bring back Hippias. Herodotus’ apology
1 Probably Datis was to stay and Artaphrenes to go. In the first place Artaphrenes was the higher in rank, and would naturally undertake the more responsible and glorious task of recciv- ing the submission of Athens. Secondly Pau- sanias seems to imply that Artaphrenes was in command of the cavalry (see below).
Thirdly
the prominence of Datis in the tradition indi- cates that it was he, and not Artaphrenes, who was vanquished at Marathon. The Parian Chronicle names only Artaphrenes, but probably as srpreme commander-in-chief of the expedi- tion,
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 191
for them is very damning. Qui s’ excuse, s’ accuse. Nobody else seems ever to have been blamed for the raising of the shield. Nobody's views are better represented in Herodotus. Can we doubt that he gives us their own defence ? It reappears in the mouth of Alcibiades at Sparta (Thue. vi. 89). What is the value of that plea of ‘not guilty’? It conveniently ignores the Alcmaeonid relations with the tyrants Cleisthenes of Sicyon and Pisistratus, and with the barbarians, the kings of Lydia and of Persia. Who was responsible for the alliance with Persia, the earth and water given to Artaphrenes at Sardis? When was that submission repudiated? Who recalled the twenty ships from Ionia, and punished the plain speaking of Phrynichus? It can hardly be denied that the Alemaeonidae in their struggles with the Eupatrids of the Plain leaned to Persia, while their rivals relied on Sparta, and perhaps formally enrolled Athens in the Spartan alliance. When Cleomenes expelled the Pisistratidae, he doubtless imagined that he was setting up an oligarchy, but he soon discovered his mistake, and turned from Cleisthenes to Isagoras. As then Cleisthenes opposed a Persian alliance to Isagoras and Cleomenes, so now on the eve of Marathon we find the Alemaeonidae and Persia leagued against Miltiades and the Spartans. It was not without reason that Aristophanes and those who felt with him looked back on the battle of Marathon as a victory, not only of Athens over the Mede, but also of aristocracy over democracy. It is strange that the Medism of the Alemaeonidae has ever been doubted. It is confirmed by the dark words of Pindar, by the ostracism of Megacles son of Hippocrates ; and can we be sure that their connection Xanthippus and their ally Aristides were utterly ἄπωθεν τῆς tupavvidos? At all events Themistocles, looking’ before and after, recalls them on most favourable terms διὰ τὴν Ἐέρξου στρατείαν, Aristides from Acgina, Xanthippus from—where? Was it some- where outside Geraestus and Scyllaeum ?
There was a good opportunity for Hippias. Miltiades had come back to Athens, and been recognized as the champion of the aristocratic and anti- Persian party. There had been a trial of strength. ‘His enemies’ had accused him for ‘his tyranny in the Chersonese.’ He had won, they had lost ; he was in power, they were not. He had the support of Sparta. What could they expect but expulsion, and the undoing of the political work of Cleisthenes? Was it not better to come to terms with Hippias and make a formal submission to the Great King? We must not judge their conduct by the later Greek standard. Neither tyranny nor Medism meant as yet all that they meant to Herodotus. The age of the tyrants was scarcely over. The memories of the ‘ principate’ of Pisistratus were not odious to the δῆμος, for whom he had been the executor of Solon’s reforms. Greek cities lived and throve under the easy yoke of the King. The Ionic revolt was the work of the aristocracies of merchant princes, not of the populace. The feeling against Medism and Barbarism was largely the creation of the wars that were yet to be fought, and the literature that was yet to be written.
These considerations may help to explain much in the history of the campaign. The understanding between the Alemaconidac and the Persians
192 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
is expressly attested, all the better because Herodotus is reluctant to admit it. Given its full weight, it clears up the strategy on both sides. Let Miltiades be got out of the way, and his rivals would bring about a revolu- tion. Let them have time and opportunity to work their plans, and they would admit Hippias to the city, without bloodshed, as soon as he presented himself. When all was prepared the signal would flash forth to the Persian tents. On the other part we may recognise the prudence of Miltiades. Conscious of the treachery within the walls, with the example of Eretria before his eyes, could he venture to stand a siege? Could he hesitate to march to meet the invader, to press for a battle? Ἢν μέν νυν μὴ συμ- βάλωμεν ἐλπομαί τινα στάσιν μεγάλην διασείσειν ἐμπεσοῦσαν τὰ ᾿Αθηναίων φρονήματα ὥστε μηδίσαι': ἢν δὲ συμβάλωμεν πρίν τι καὶ σαθρὸν ᾿Αθηναίων μετεξετέροισι ἐγγενέσθαι, θεῶν τὰ ἴσα νεμόντων οἷοί τε εἰμὲν περιγενέσθαι τῇ συμβολῇ. But in attacking a superior force ‘the half is better than the whole.’ Miltiades doubtless knew what was going on, and foresaw what would happen. The traitors would not declare themselves before the Persians appeared. The opportunity for attack was bound to come when the enemy’s forces separated, but the day and the hour would be determined, not by, but for the Athenians. The battle must be fought, and they must be ready for it. Meanwhile they had time to consider their plan of attack, and every day that passed was a gain, for it brought nearer the full moon that would set the Spartans free. So the waiting game suited both sides best. The Athenian general awaited the separation of the Persian forces, the Persians awaited the signal.
Two criticisms will have occurred to every reader. In the first place, Herodotus says not a word of a division of the Persian forces, but simply lets the day of Miltiades’ prytany bring on the battle. The delay is thus ex- plained, and the occasion of the engagement determined, merely by the rotation of precedence among the generals. This account is open to grave objections, and has been set aside by almost all recent historians. Can we believe that Miltiades, after so earnestly insisting on the necessity of fighting, postponed the battle on no other grounds than a point of etiquette? Can we believe that the dawn of a certain day was in itself a sufficient reason for so momentous and responsible an action? Was there no strategical motive to determine the sudden change from defence to offence? Can we, lastly, believe that Herodotus has rightly represented the official position of Miltiades? Is there not serious anachronism in his conception of the relation between the generals and the Polemarch ? and may not the rotation of the presidency be at least erroneously interpreted? There seems in fact to be some lack of lucidity, if not positive mystification, in Herodotus’ account, The suspicion naturally arises that some essential features of the story have been suppressed, and then afterthought, perhaps only half con- scious, has striven to cover the gap by spreading out other facts, by substi- tuting conjectural motives, by reconstructing, and by readjusting the historical data to the impression produced by the mutilation, Mr. Macan has vindicated the claims of the neglected Callimachus. We would not dispute the pre-
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 193
ponderant importance of Miltiades, but surely there is an evident wish to find for him some constitutional position to legitimize his real authority. The suggestion lies near at hand that the prytany of Miltiades has proved equally useful to cover the omission of the true reason for the attack, the division of the Persian forces. Herodotus obviously has no clear idea of the strategy at all. Our hypothesis has been framed to explain the difficulties in his narrative, and interpret better what he does tell us. Granting our general conception of the campaign, it may safely be said that if any feature was more likely than another to drop out of the Athenian tradition, it was pre- cisely the division of the Persian army. A vestige of it may perhaps be detected in the numbers given by Nepos. But the national vanity was not likely to insist upon the point. Patriotism and Alemaeonid influence would combine to omit or veil it. May not the obscurity of Herodotus be due mainly to this reticence in his sources? It is at all events clear that he has not supplied us with any adequate reason for the Athenian attack. It is also extremely improbable that the Athenian commander attacked the whole Persian army in the open plain. If he was so rash, why did he not attack sooner ? if he waited so long, why did he not wait longer? It was his obvious policy to delay until the Spartans came to his aid. We want some pressing motive or some good opportunity to account for the attack. We find both in the division of the Persian forces preparatory to a move on Athens.
The second criticism that will have suggested itself is this. We have supposed that the Persians were waiting for the signal from their friends in Athens, and the Athenians were waiting for the Persians to move. But according to the express statement of Herodotus the shield was raised when the Persians were already in their ships, that is to say, as Herodotus believes! after the battle was over and the vanquished barbarians were re-embarked. Either, therefore, the Athenians did not wait for the division of the Persian forces to deliver their attack, or the Persians did not wait for the signal to divide their forces. This is a valid objection, but we may cheerfully accept the second alternative if we can show good reason why the Persians should have so far departed from the programme as to anticipate the signal. It might be conjectured that they had notice from Athens that the conspiracy was nearly ripe for execution and they must ‘stand by’ ready for immediate action. But it is much more likely that the plot hung fire, and the Persian leaders, fearing the imminent arrival of the Spartans, determined to make their attempt on the city without delay. What their partizans were about, or what caused the delay, of course we do not know. There would be influential persons to win over, officers and guards
was aboard and ready to 5811. To Herodotus, who had no notion of any division, they could only mean ‘after the battle and the embarka-
1 It is perhaps possible that Herodotus was misled or misunderstood his information. The
‘signal might be put after the embarkation of half the Persian army for Phalerum (assuming that that was the plan contemplated). To Herodotus’ informant the words ἐοῦσι ἤδη ἐν
τῇσι νηυσὶ might have meant ‘when that half
tion of the survivors.’ But this refinement is not necessary and makes no difference to the alternatives,
194 J. ARTHUR ΚΒ. MUNRO,
to seduce, important posts to occupy, and no doubt Miltiades’ friends were not passive in their opposition. But at all events the expected advent of the Spartans set a limit to the possibility of delay, and supplies an adequate answer to the objection. Adopting this solution, we may say that the landing at Marathon, the delay there, the division of the Persian forees, and the signal of the shield, are all to be explained by the understanding between the Persians and the Alemaeonid party at Athens, but that the order of the last two items in the programme was in fact reversed by the military necessity of anticipating the arrival of the Spartans, If the Spartans went straight to Athens, they would prevent the surrender of the city, if they were diverted to Marathon, they would redress the balance of force between the Athenian army and the Persian contingent to be left there.
If, then, the Persians did divide their forces into two brigades, one to stay at Marathon and the other to go to Athens, by what route did they intend to send the latter, by land or sea? The hostile armies confronted one another for at least a week. Obviously the whole Persian foree must have been disembarked, especially the cavalry.!| But whereas the Athenian position seems to be fairly established in the valley of Avlona, we have no certain evidence of the position of the Persians. Herodotus does not mention a camp, although on other occasions he is careful on this point. Probably there was none. Pausanias was shown the ‘stone mangers of the horses of Artaphernes, and marks of his tent on the rocks.’ They were ὑπὲρ τὴν λίμνην, possibly (it has been suggested) at a point on Stavrokoraki above the village of Kato Suli. It is thereabouts, near the spring Macaria and the great marsh, that water and fodder seem to be best and most abundant. The Charadra would form a natural entrenchment, and the promontory of Kynosura a breakwater for the ships riding at anchor. But while those who know the ground generally encamp the Persians in this neighbourhood, it is too hastily assumed that the whole Persian army was stationed north of the Charadra, A position to the south of it, between the Charadra and the little marsh, was obviously better for guarding the Athenians. Probably from the first advent of the enemy, certainly in pre- paration for any move on Athens, the Persians must have occupied the southern part of the plain, which commanded the coast road. They must have done so, if only to detain the Athenians, much more if they proposed to send part of their own forces to Athens. We cannot suppose that the one brigade would have sailed away and left the other cooped up beyond the Charadra, and cut off by the position of the Athenians from the use of the land communications with Athens. If the land route were preferred, the necessity was doubled, for the Athenian position had also to be masked in order to secure the right flank of the marching column? On either hypo- thesis the occupation of the southern part of the plain is necessary, and the
' The cavalry may after all have had a good — autumn. deal to do with the choice of Marathon as a 2 This point has not escaped Mr, Macan’s landing point. It is one of the few places in reviewer in the Athenaewm, Dec, 21st, 1895, Attica where there is pasture to be found in the — and Mr. Bury.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 195
occurrence of the battle where the tumulus fixes it sufficiently explained. But the hypothesis of the land march involves us in difficulties which are avoided by the other. If the brigade destined for Athens got safely through the pass, what became of it afterwards? how was it re-embarked? why did not it, rather than the fleet, make a dash for the city? If the Athenians delivered their attack while it was filing past, why do not the cavalry appear in the battle? why was the loss so small on both sides? how was the Persian embarkation effected ? is it likely that the Athenians attacked so long as the two brigades were both still on the plain? So acutely have these difficulties been felt by some historians, that, while clinging to the idea of the march by land, they have supposed that the cavalry (as Curtius suggested), and possibly some of the infantry, were embarked already, and prepared to accompany the march on shipboard (so far as the routes lay together). But obviously, if any part of the Persian army was to go by land, it would have been the cavalry. The road to Athens presents no difficulty to cavalry. Pisistratus took his Eretrian chivalry with him. It is easier to ride to Athens than to walk, it is harder to embark cavalry than infantry. Mr. Bury cannot be allowed to smuggle the cavalry on board under cover of the remark that ‘on the march to Athens it would have been a useless encumbrance. We cannot accept both the embarkation of the cavalry and the march. But inasmuch as the embarkation of the cavalry is one of the most plausible suggestions ever made about the battle, and not without positive evidence,! this incompatibility constitutes yet another objection to the hypothesis of the march by land.
If, on the contrary, we suppose that the brigade for Athens, including the cavalry, was already embarked and under way when the Athenians assumed the offensive, we avoid all the most serious difficulties. The motive and opportunity for the Athenian attack become plain and adequate, the victory less surprising, the absence of cavalry natural, the losses better pro- portioned, and the embarkation of the Persians easier. The cavalry may well have been already shipped off for service in the plain of Athens. Hippias would remember that cavalry was sometimes useful against the Spartans (Hdt. v. 63). It had at all events been of no service at Marathon, and could neither get at the Athenians nor pursue them over the hills. We may also surmise that the fodder of the plain was by this time exhausted. If a reason for the choice of the sea route is needed, beyond its ease and security, one may be found in the political sympathies of Phalerum, the stronghold of Alcmaeonid influence. The Persians were sure of finding a friendly base of operations close to the city. This consideration was all the more important in their uncertainty as to the success of the conspiracy.
Once the Persians were divided, half of them safely stowed away on the ships and under sail for Phalerum, the opportunity for the Athenian attack had come. The charge must have been carefully meditated. Whatever may have been the pace of it, we may probably accept the view which sees in the
1 Mr. Macan very justly vindicates the value of Suidas on the χωρισμὸς of the cavalry.
196 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
Athenian formation something more than a makeshift to spread out an inferior number so as to equal the length of the Persian line of battle! As usual it is rather the soldier’s than the general’s account which has survived in the tradition. Nevertheless the victory was not instantaneous, there was a stubborn struggle, χρόνος ἐγίνετο πολλός. As to the duration denoted by πολλός opinions differ. Probably most men would find an hour's hand to hand tussle ample, and the small Athenian loss points to a short estimate. The time might be measured in minutes and still be long under the con- ditions. But it is likely that there was some breathing space between the rout of the Persian wings and the crushing of their centre. The wings made good their escape unpursued. Few of the centre, which had advanced ‘inland’ after the Athenians, can have got on board. The fact that no more than seven ships were taken may only mean that the seamen did not wait long for the fugitives. It was at this point that according to Herodotus the belated signal of the shield was raised.
The remainder of the Persian fleet made off after the squadron which had already ex hypothesi sailed. The Athenians returned to Athens ‘as fast as their feet could carry them,’ at all events in plenty of time to witness the futile demonstration of the enemy off Phalerum. There could be no question of betrayal now. Even without the return of the army and the arrival of the Spartans, the victory must have entirely changed the tone of the populace and the aspect of the situation. Miltiades had won again.
In our view the battle of Marathon was not ‘primarily a general’s battle’ because it was even more primarily a statesman’s battle. Miltiades may or may not have had the handling of the army in the field, but the contest was between him and Hippias, rather than between Callimachus and Datis and Artaphrenes. So far his pre-eminence in the tradition seems to be justified.
It may be useful to recapitulate the main points in our interpretation of the campaign. The expedition of Datis and Artaphrenes was formally the last step in the suppression of the Ionic revolt, although it was also far more than that. The subjugation of the islands was systematically carried through, but there was a special motive for taking Eretria before Athens. The political situation at Athens was an acute crisis in a long standing struggle, and presented a very favourable opportunity to Hippias. The plan of campaign was governed by an arrangement between Hippias and the Alemaeonidae. The purpose of the landing at Marathon was to remove Miltiades and the bulk of the armed garrison from Athens, and keep them out of the way while the coup αἰ δαί was prepared. Part of the Persian force was to be shipped to Phalerum, and admitted to Athens when the revolution was proclaimed. Obstacles must have been encountered by the conspirators the plot hung fire. At last the impending arrival of the Spartans forced the Persians to make the attempt before the signal. The Athenian commander
* The Persians, be it noted by the way, array. They were not taken off their guard. appear to have been quite ready and in orderly
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERSIAN WARS. 197
delivered his attack as soon as the Persian forces were sufficiently separated. The victory at Marathon frustrated the invasion as much by its moral effect at Athens as by its military consequences. Miltiades was justly regarded as the hero of the campaign.
The theory here put forward does not contradict any well accredited fact in the evidence, nor invoke imaginary causes. It explains on one consistent hypothesis the landing at Marathon, the delay there, the Athenian attack, the absence of the Persian cavalry, the embarkation of the vanquished, the signal of the shield, and the prominence of Miltiades,
J. ARTHUR R. Munro.
A NEW VASE OF THE DIPYLON CLASS.
[Prats VIII.)
.
Among the vases of the Dipylon class the most striking examples are those on which we see represented funeral ceremonies—a hearse or a bier with bands of mourners. And in fact the whole of the subjects on these vases seem to refer directly or indirectly to deceased persons. The chariots may illustrate some feature of the obsequies or may indicate the status of the deceased, ὙΠῸ as to the ships, which are not infrequent, they also may represent status or occupation. So it is argued, and at all events the picture on these vases appears always to be of the nature of genre, not of legend.
In publishing a new lebes of the Dipyion kind (Pl. VIII), recently acquired by the Museum, I may note that its provenance (near Thebes in Boeotia), makes against the view of Helbig! and others that the ships on those vases are meant to show that the deceased persons on whose tombs the vases were placed belonged to the order of Attic ναύκραροι. We may assume that the purpose of the vase-painter in those primitive times was to pro- duce to the best of his ability an impressive picture of a funeral ceremony as he saw it on occasions of special grandeur and to sell his vase to any buyer, whatever his status or occupation.
But where in funeral ceremonies do the ships come in? I suppose at the games held in honour of the deceased, such as those of the Aeneid (V. 114-235) which began with a race of ships. It is not likely that Virgil had invented so striking a feature of the occasion without good data, and very possibly the statement of Dio Chrysostom 2 that the Argo had won the ship- race at the Isthmian games represents what may have been a common usage in early times, though little or no mention of it has survived in Greek
es
1 Athen. Mittheil. 1893, p. 152, it is argued that the ships on these vases may be compared to the horse on Athenian reliefs as indicating the status ofa man. This view, originally sug- gested by Wilamowitz, was expanded by Helbig in the Mémoires de l Acad. des Inscript. xxxvi. 116 partie (1898). Previously the ships on the Dipylon vases had been fully discussed by Kroker in the Jahrbuch, 1886, but more from the point of view of construction and date. As regards ships from Boeotia, Helbig (Joc. cit. p. 15, note 1) recognizes a ship of the Dipylon
type on a bronze diadem from a tomb at Thebes, but the finest example of the kind is the ship on a bronze fibula from near Thebes, lately ac- quired by the British Museum (Catalogue of Bronzs, Fig. 85). I may add that at Tipha, a coast town of Boeotia (Pausanias, ix. 32, 3) the people boasted of their skill in sea-matters, trac- ing their name to Tiphys, the steersman of the Argo,
2 Ed. Reiske, ii. p. 107. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ ἅμιλλα καὶ ᾿Αργὼ ἐνίκα. I have to thank Mr. Cecil Torr for this and several other references,
(
ἀλλ Δ =
mes ἃ ἀλΑ ΛΑ ἈΝᾺ i
Ke ia ‘aia yaa
< :
PYY' eas
IN yee ai
εἶν τ;
r
τς
A NEW VASE OF THE DIPYLON CLASS. 199
literature. At all events I cannot help thinking that the funeral rites which Menelaos stopped at Sunium to pay to the remains of his pilot Phrontis’ would have appropriately included a race of ships and may in fact have been the legendary origin of the ἅμιλλαι νεῶν held there in historical times.’
It has been supposed, as already said, that the chariots which occur on the Dipylon vases had either been part of the funeral procession or were meant to illustrate the social position of a deceased person. But they may equally indicate the races held at his tomb, and this is the more probable when we see set out on one of these vases a row of tripods such as were given as prizes in the chariot race at the funeral games of Patroclos.’ [0 is true that the chariots on the Dipylon vases are not represented crowding together at full speed as in a race, but what was easy enough in the art of later times, was impossible in the primitive period of these vase-painters. Besides, the painters were free to choose the moment before the actual race, and that may be what they have done.
On our Jcbes the chariots are very slight with high antyx and have all the appearance of racing bigae. The yoke is identical in form with that of two chariots on a Dipylon vase. The driver wears the feminine dress char- acteristic of a charioteer in the races, and if that is the case, then we have here interesting evidence of the high antiquity of the custom. But more remarkable perhaps is the horseman who follows the chariots. He appears to be riding sideways, as frequently happens on archaic Etruscan bronzes, but is perhaps rather in the act of turning round to leap down from the horse. The one leg being rigid and the other bent suggest the latter alternative, and that would apparently be in accord with the custom of Homeric times when horsemanship seems to have consisted in skilfully mounting and dismounting (κελητέζειν) rather than in a firm seat. The way in which the rider holds the reins is also suggestive of turning to leap down. It will be seen that he has more reins than he needs for one horse, but probably the painter, accustomed to the reins of a biga, had not yet learned how to render the simpler contrivance of a riding horse. It is said that the horse-race, as we understand it, was not introduced in the games of Olympia till the 33rd Olympiad. Nor is there any horsemanship at the funeral games of Patroclos. But the acrobatic method of riding shown on our vase, though it may not have been in use at splendid obsequies in Homeric times, may have come into favour shortly thereafter for such occasions. An equestrian performance of that sort could hardly be more appropriate anywhere than
1 Odysscy, iii, 285, ὄφρ᾽ ἕταρον θάπτοι καὶ ἐπὶ
μὲν ἁμιλλώμενος ἐπὶ Σουνίῳ. The ship-races of κτέρεα κτερίσειεν, Which Pausanias (x. 25, 2)
the Panathenaic games were held at the Piraeus,
interprets, ἵνα μνήματος καὶ ὅσα ἐπὶ νεκροῖς ἄλλα ἀξιώσειε τὸν Φρόντιν. In Odyssey, xi. 75 the shade of Elpenor implores Ulysses to raise a mound for him by the sea-shore, and to place on it an oar to show for the coming time what manner of man he had been,
2 Lysias, Apol. Ando. 4, νενίκηκα δὲ τριήρει
Plutarch, Themistocles, 32, and fragment of in- scription, C.I.A. ii. 965, frag. b.
3 Mon. dell’ Inst, ix. Pl. 39, Fig. 2.
4 Annali dell’ Inst. 1872, Tav. d’ Agg. 1, Fig. 2. In the one the driver is nude; im the other he wears a helmet and a shield of the Boeotian type.
200 A. 8S. MURRAY.
amid the display of funeral games. As an indication of the status of the deceased, it would be more curious than dignified.
The ship is the first complete instance of a bireme, so far as I know, on the Dipylon vases. There are however one or two fragments of biremes,and curiously enough they also show only the oars of the lower bank touching the water. The oars of the upper bank are but partly visible as if they were to be understood as being on the further side of the ship, a view which the painter was perfectly entitled to adopt so as to avoid the confusion of two sets of oars crossing each other. But this has naturally raised some small doubt as to whether the upper row, as we are calling it, is not simply the rowers on the further side of a galley of one bank, represented in the poor perspective of primitive times. But one of the fragments! just referred to, appears to be conclusive on that point because there the lower bank of rowers are visible each through a square opening in the ship's side while those of the upper bank have nothing of the kind. Had these latter been merely the rowers on the further side of one bank, they would necessarily have been framed in like the others. Besides I do not see how the elaborate construction of our ship can be explained other- wise than as that of a bireme with two banks of oars.
The rowers are bent at the oars but the place of the steersman is still empty. The steersman is in the act of stepping on board and grasping the wrist ἢ of a woman who holds out away from him what appears to be a wreath. But obviously there is no room in the ship for a steersman of such gigantic proportions. Therefore the scene must not be taken too literally. The vase- painter fortunately had a large space at his disposal behind the stern of the ship and he took advantage of this space to give more impressiveness to his two principal figures. As a group these two figures may be called a prototype of the parting scenes on the Athenian stelae of later times, and this element of melancholy is just what is wanted to give the key to the whole composition. That is to say, the male figure is stepping on board to steer his ship in a race and to win the crown held up by the woman, thus anticipating the honours that in due time would be done to himself.
At first sight one may be tempted to think that the scene is legendary, such, for example, as Theseus leaving Ariadne ; for there is no doubt that these vases are to a certain extent co-eval with the legend-making age, since the subject of Heracles slaying the hydra occurs on a bronze fibula found near Thebes with vases of this class. But the old Heroes did not act as their own steersmen, and their ships had space enough for others than rowers on the decks as we see from the ship of Theseus on the Frangois vase. The way in which our ship is packed with rowers is itself suggestive of a race. The hull is very shallow. At the bow there is beside the ram a sharp pro- jecting point, which would increase the power of attack in case of war. I do not remember that instrument on any of the other Dipylon ships. Usually
1 Found on the Acropolis. A similar frag- 2 Cf. Journ. Hellen. Stud., 1898, p. 183 for ment is in the possession of Dr. Sturge, asI this method of ‘ shaking hands.’ learn from Mr. Cecil Torr.
A NEW VASE OF THE DIPYLON CLASS. 201
the ornament rising from the prow of these ships ends in a sort of branch. But in this case it is more like a serpent, which reminds me of a fragment of Hipponax where he tells a painter ‘not to paint on the many-oared side
of a trireme a serpent running from the prow towards the steersman.’ ἢ
In one or two instances the Dipylon ships appear to be engaged in war, men on the deck attacking men on land ; or a fight is implied by dead men on the ship and in the sea. Of course if these instances are to determine the character of the whole series of these ships as exclusively militant my theory that some of them at least represent funeral races will not hold good. But in those days many persons must have lost their lives in fighting of an irregular kind, for whom no funeral games were held. The most they could expect was some memorial on or in their tomb to show, like the oar of Elpenor, in what service they had perished. ‘Typical illustrations of fighting from ship- deck on a vase would meet the case. In historical times the Polemarchus held an agon epitaphios for those who had fallen in war, making offerings also to the shades of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Aristotle Ath. Polit. 58), and possibly those official games applied equally to war by sea and by land. The ἅμιλλαν at Sunium may have been of that kind, irregular and intermittent in occurrence, or like those at Piraeus, held at fixed periods. In the Dipylon times, however, an agon epitaphios would hardly have been an official affair but rather a spontaneous honour to a great man. I therefore readily admit that the mere occasion of death, as in naval warfare, may have been figured on the Dipylon vases, just as in later times it appears in a typical manner on the stele of Dexileos. But observe that the one definite and conspicuous fact on these vases is the presence of funeral ceremonies, such as were held at the death of rich and prominent citizens. To bring into line with that fact as many as possible of the less obvious illustrations on the other vases or fragments of vases seems to me a safe principle to follow, and that is the reason why, in this instance, 1 have propounded a funeral ship-race as the explanation of most of the ships on these vases.
A. S. Murray.
' Bergk, Poet. Lyr. Gr. 4th ed., p. 478, ἀηκέτι γράψῃς ὄφιν tprhpevs ἐν πολυζύγῳ τοίχῳ ἀπ᾿ ἐμβόλου φεύγοντα πρὸς κυβερνήτην. H.S.—VOL. XIX. P
A NEW xandos-VASE.
THE vase here published is a red-figure lekythos, found at Eretria and recently acquired by the British Museum. It has the ordinary honeysuckle pattern as decoration on the shoulder. Between two rows of maeander on the body of the vase is the picture, which occupies only one side.
The subject is a young woman hurrying out of a door, which she leaves open behind her. There is no indication on the vase of what, or of whom she is in pursuit, but the outstretched hands would seem to imply that the desired object is not far distant. In front of her, and almost as if issuing from her lips, is the name ᾿Αλκμέων, and below this the word καλός.
There is no artist’s signature, but the type of figure, the head-dress, the drooping of the hair over the temples, and the rendering of the drapery recall the style of Brygos, whose career began somewhere before 480 B.C. according to Hartwig (Meisterschalen, p. 308). Only one other vase is known so far, inscribed with this name (Klein, Vasen mit Lieblings-inschriften, 2nd edition, p. 129), but it does not appear to have been figured anywhere. We have therefore no means of comparing the style of the two. It is described as a vase ὦ colonnetie of Attic fabric, on one side two youths riding a race, on the other, three youths running in a foot-race.
If we are to seek for the originals of the καλός or lovers’ names among the Athenian aristocracy, it would not be easy to find a name better known than that of our vase. From the time when the Archon Megakles, son of Alkmaeon, and his followers gained for the whole family the name of accursed, by their sacrilegious and treacherous murder of the Kylonian conspirators, the Alkmaeonidae were foremost in all the disturbances of the troubled times down to the fall of the Peisistratidae and the reform of the Athenian constitu- tion by Kleisthenes.
Though the name Alkmaeon itself only appears once on the vases, other well-known names of the family are to be met with, e.g., Enthymides and Philtias have the name Megakles, which some would identify with the uncle of Perikles and grandfather of Alkibiades, and on a red- and black-figure amphora at Munich is the name Hippokrates, which might be the father of the above Megakles and brother of Kleisthenes. Another family name is Euryptole- mus. But the only historically important Alkmaeon we know of lived long before the period of our vase. Curiously enough the passage in the Odyssey, (xv. 248) which speaks of the pursuit of Kleitos by Eos, connects Kleitos in descent with the legendary Alkmaeon, and this is the more singular since the figure on our vase might well be an Eos without wings, so obviously has her
A NEW x«ados-VASE 903
action been suggested by that of Kos in the groups where she i represented in pursuit of Kephalos. It would be quite in accordance with the spirit. of the fifth century to take a subject from the recion of legend, and audlapt it to every-day life.
The position of the name in front of the figure recalls a Charnide: amphora in the British Museum (E 291), where the blind Phineus ealls out MOT, raising both hands at the same time. On that analogy our figure
Ἢ ae af μετ
LEKYTHOS FROM ERETRIA.
would be calling out Alkmacon, in which case the vase would be another of those very rare instances, where the subject appears to have a direct connexion with the name inscribed. An example is the Oxford vase on which is represented a Persian horseman with the inscription Μιλτιάδης καλός. Even if the rider be an Amazon, as some suppose, such a figure would also serve in connexion with the name of Miltiades}to recall the battle of Marathon
Δ
204 A NEW καλός-Ν ASE.
If the figure is an Eos of daily life hurrying to write upon the wall of the Kerameikos the name of a lover (Lucian. Dial. Meret. 4 and 10), the door which she has just quitted would have its analogy in the portal of the heavens, the πύλαι Νυκτός te καὶ "ματος, whence Eos may be supposed to issue as does Hemera (Hesiod Theog. 750, ἡ δὲ θύραζε ἔρχεται. Cf. Diels, Parmenides, p. 50).
IsaABEL ἃ. DICKSON.
DELPHIKA.—(4) THE ERINYES. (2) THE OMPHALOS.
THE material of the following paper falls conveniently under two headings, but the arguments respecting each are intimately connected, and cannot fairly be appreciated apart. It may be well, therefore, at the outset, to summarise briefly the conclusions at which I have arrived.
1. The Erinyes at Delphi and elsewhere are primarily local ancestral ghosts. The conception of Homer, and in part of the tragedians, of the Erinyes as abstract, detached ministers of divine vengeance is comparatively late, and belongs rather to literature than to popular faith.
2. The ghosts of important persons are conceived of as locally influential after death, and, being potent for good or evil, present a sort of neutral fond. In this neutral aspect they are Κῆρες, Μοῖραι, Τύχαι.
3. This neutral fond of Kijpes, Μοῖραι, Τύχαι, etc., is probably from the first conceived of in its dual aspect. The ghosts are pleased or angry, white or black, Eumenides or Erinyes—probably from the first the malignant aspect is somewhat uppermost.
4. Among a people who bury their dead, ghosts are necessarily con- ceived of as demons of the earth, dwelling below the earth with only occasional emergence, and especially potent in all matters concerning the fertility and sterility of the earth. Hence the ritual for the dead and for chthonic divinities is practically identical.
5. With the first dawn of anthropomorphism appears the notion that the earth is the mother, and the earth genii tend to be conceived of as her daughters. This notion is helped out by the fact that in primitive com- munities, agriculture, and thence the ritual attendant on it, is largely in the hands of women. Hence the sex of the Erinyes—a monstrous anomaly when they are regarded as avengers of blood—is naturally determined.
6. The form in which these earth genii, these local ghosts, were primarily conceived as embodied was, among the primitive inhabitants of Italy and Greece, that of snakes; the woman-huntress, winged or wingless, of the tragedians was a later, complex development.
7. The female snake-Erinys is intimately connected with the Delphic legend of the Python, and survives elsewhere in the worship of female divinities, e.g., Athene and Demeter ; it is part of a wide-spread snake-cultus, whose last emergence is seen in the heretical sect of the Ophites.
8. The primitive haunt and sanctuary of the Erinyes was the omphalos.
206 JANE E. HARRISON.
Ὁ. The omphalos was primarily a grave surmounted by a fetich stone, the centre of a cultus of ghosts and carth gent, whose worship, in later, anthropomorphic days, developed into that of Gaia, Kronos and other kindred divinities,
10. By Homer's time this old cult of ghost and fetich, of Gaia-Kronos, had been overlaid by the incoming, dominant cult of Zeus and Apollo! The result was manifold; the real meaning of the ghost-Erinyes was eclipsed, though never wholly lost, the malignant side over-emphasised, the conception delocalised, and with this delocalisation the snake form and connection with the grave-omphalos almost wholly obscured.
Il. In the Chocphorvi of Aeschylus, dealing as it does with the ritual of the grave, there is necessarily a literary resurgence of primitive conceptions. In the Humenides the conflict of new and old is embodied, and so skilful is the illusion, that it was possible in a play acted at Athens to represent the Krinyes as immigrant strangers of hideous and unknown form, unrecognised by the local Delphic priestess. By a still more remarkable inversion of fact, it was possible to convince an Athenian audience that these Erinyes of the literary imagination were transformed into the local Semnae, these local Semmac being, infact, the very order of beings from whom the literary Erinyes themselves sprang.
ἘΠ Τὰ BRINVES:
Tneertus Geniumne loci famulumne parentis disse putet.—VERG. Aen. v. 95.
It will be obvious to any one conversant with the subject that in two of the steps of my argument I lay no claim to originality. In his romarkable Dissertations on the Humenides (2ud edition, English, 1853, p. 155) ©. Ὁ. Miiller states distinctly that the Erinyes ‘were neither more hor loss than a particular form of the great goddesses who rule the earth and the lower world and send up the blessings of the year, namely Demeter aud Cora’ This doctrine, with some modification and amplification, is substantially that of my Clause 5.
[ owe a still more important and fundamental debt to Dr. Erwin Rohde. The main theory of his book, Psyche, I believe to be mistaken ; it is none the less full of priccless incidental suggestion. He says of the Erinyes (Psyche, p. 247) ‘ Nur philosophisch-dichterisch Retlexion hat sie zu Helfern alles Rechtes in Himmel wud aut Erden umgebildet. Im Cultus und begrenzten Glauben der cinzcluen Stadt bleiben sie Beistiinde der Seelen Ermordeter. . . . Und sieht man genau hin, so schimmert noch durch die getriibte Ueberlicferung
' In the matter of the stratification of eults, jects called Mycenean ?’ (J. M.S. xvi. 76), has aud especially of the racial affinity of Zeus, been further developed in his professorial lec- Apollo and Artemis, Towe much mythological tures at Cambridge, which I have had the light te the views, published and unpublished, — privilege of attending, and will, it is hoped, of Prot. Ridgeway. His position, sketched out — shortly be stated in full in his forthcoming in the article ‘What people produced the ob- — work on prehistoric Grecce.
DELPHIKA. 207
eine Spur davon durch, dass die Erinys eines Ermordeten nichts anderes war als seine eigene ziirnende, sich selbst ihre Rache holende Seele, die erst in spiterer Umbildung zu einem den Zorn der Seele vertretenden Hollengeist geworden ist.’ This view Dr. Rohde himself confirms and amplifies in his ‘ Paralipomena’ (Rhein. Mus. 1895, p. 22), Dieterich (Nekwia, p. 55) confirms it, and Otto Crusius (Roscher, Zev. ii. 1163) in his article ‘ Keren’ says ‘ Die Kijpes ᾿Ερινύες sind die ziirnenden Seelen.’ In fact, no serious mythologist ! now controverts this position.
This fundamental truth, that the Erinyes are angry souls, would doubtless have been recognised long ago but for a certain topsy-turvydom of method which has, until quite recent years, infected all mythological research. ‘In the Homeric poems we find ourselves at the starting-point of all that has given Greece her place in the world, of Greek history, of Greek art, of Greek philosophy, theology and myth. The statement, true of the one item omitted—literature, is profoundly false of all the rest; the spade has revealed to us strata underlying the civilization out of which the Homeric poems sprang. For theology and myth, our only concern here, Homer represents a complex adjustment and achievement, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a hint of origines. But in England, where scholarship is mainly literary, the doctrine that Homer is the beginning of the Greek world is likely to die hard. Its death may possibly be eased and hastened by the story of the Erinyes.
With respect, then, to the first three clauses ot my argument, I may refer to the articles by Rohde and Crusius; they have collected ample and more than ample evidence to prove that the functions and ritual of the dead and of the beings variously called Potniae, Semnae, Eumenides, Erinyes, Praxidikae, Maniae, &c., were originally and fundamentally identical. One or two points, however, in connection with this require to be further elucidated or emphasised.
First, as regards the number of the Erinyes. usually in the plural—e.g. Od. xi. 280, μητρὸς ᾿Ερινύες. If we keep to the idea of ghosts, we must translate the ‘angry ghosts of a mother.’ Each mother had of course originally only one ghost, but in Homer's late con- ception the individual ghosts, each one of which only avenged himself, have been abstracted into a sort of body corporate of avengers, all of whom pursued each offender. The final step of the abstraction is to make of the Erinys a sort of personified conscience, but all this is remote from the manner of primitive thought. It is interesting to see that the tragedians, who are often far more local and primitive than Homer, frequently employ the singular and realise that each dead man has his own separate Erinys.
In Homer they appear
wolke.’
11 cannot include in this category the author of the article ‘Erinys’ in Roscher’s Lexicon. According to him the attributes and functions of the Erinys are to be derived from the ‘in Blitz und Donner sich entladende Gewitter-
They are μέλαιναι and they carry things away, therefore they are ‘das Bild der ungestiim dabeifahrenden dunklen Wetter- wolke’—by parity of reasoning they might be black cats.
208 JANE E. HARRISON.
iw μοῖρα βαρυδότειρα poyepa πότνιά τ’ Οἰδίπου σκιὰ, μέλαιν᾽ ᾿Ερινὺς, ἦ μεγασθενής τις εἷ.---ΛΈΒΟΗ, Sept. ν. 975.
Here the Erinys is surely in apposition to the Οἰδύπου σκιά, the εἴδωλον of the dead man. The passage is an instructive contaminalw of two radically different conceptions, the Homeric phantom shadow idea and the powerful local ancestral ghost. The notion of the single Erinys also lurks in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. Aeschylus, of course, has a chorus of Eumenides, the θαυμαστὸς λόχος, and he doubtless conceived of them as indefinitely and Homerically plural, but they are roused from their sleep by Clytemnestra, the one real Erinys.
Another point remains to be emphasised. It is easy enough even to the modern mind to realise that the Erinys was primarily the angry ghost, and a ghost is never so angry as when he has been murdered. The counterface of the picture is less obvious, 7.¢. the idea that the ghost of the dead man when content is a power that makes for fertility, the chief good to primitive man. The farmer of ancient days had to reckon with his dead ancestors, and was scrupulous to obey the precept de mortwis nil nisi bene. Hippocrates (περὶ ἐνυπνίων 11. p. 14) tells us that if anyone saw the dead in a dream dressed in white, and giving something, it was a good omen, ἀπὸ yap τῶν ἀποθανόντων ai τροφαὶ καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ σπέρματα γίνονται. It is this, the good, white side of the ghosts that was suppressed in the Homeric Erinys, but which re- emerged at once when they, the Erinyes of Aeschylus, were allowed to become their real selves, 7.6. the Semnae, potent alike for fertility and sterility. To the priestess in the Ewmenides they appear μέλαιναι δ᾽ ἐς τὸ πᾶν βδελύκ- tpo7rot, but Athene knows better; she knows that they are practically Moirae, with control over all human weal and woe.
πάντα yap αὗται Ta κατ᾽’ ἀνθρώπους ἔλαχον διέπειν.--- ΛΈΒΟΗ. Hum. 930.
Primitive daemons, it may be observed in passing, are apt to be gods of all work, later they differentiate off into black and white, friendly and hostile, and finally develop a complete departmentalism.
One salient instance of the primitive dual character of the Erinyes is of special value because it is connected with a definite ritual practice. Just seven furlongs out of Megalopolis on the Messene road there was a sanctuary, Pausanias (viii. 34, 3) said, of certain goddesses (θεῶν ἱερόν). Pausanias himself is evidently not sure who and what they are. ‘And they call both tle goddesses themselves and the district round the sanctuary by the name of Maniae’ (Madnesses)—he suggests however that the name may be a “ title of the Eumenides’; (δοκεῖν δέ μοι θεῶν τῶν Εὐμενίδων ἐστὶν ἐπίκλησις)-- ‘and they say that here Orestes went mad after the murder of his mother.’ He then describes a monument called the monument of Daktylos or Finger. To this I shall return later under the heading ‘Ompbalos. ‘Here too,’ Pausanias says, ‘ there is a sanctuary to the Eumenides—they say that when
DELPHIKA. 209
these goddesses were going to drive Orestes out of his senses they appeared to him black, but when he had bitten off his finger they appeared again to him as white, and he became sane at the sight, and thus ταῖς μὲν ἐνήγισεν ἀποτρέπων TO μήνιμα αὐτῶν, ταῖς δὲ ἔθυσε ταῖς λευκαῖς. We have no convenient word to render the difference between ἐνήγισεν and ἔθυσε but the distinction is important ; ἐναγίζω is said of the ritual of dead heroes, and of chthonic divinities, the sacrifice is offered on or poured into the ground, it goes down—Ovw strictly is confined to the ritual of the Olympian gods, the sacrifice is burnt, it goes wp. Here the old ghosts have divided off into Maniae (i.c. obviously Erinyes-Furies) and Eumenides, and the Eumenides side has got Olympianised. This is made the clearer by the last and most remarkable statement of Pausanias, ‘Along with these (i.e. ταῖς λευκαῖς) it is customary to sacrifice (θύειν) to the Charites,’ 1.6. practically the white side of the ghosts; the Eumenides are the same as the Charites, the givers of all increase. To cxamine in detail the cult of the Charites would take us too far; it may at first be something of a shock to find that the Charites are practically only the white beneficent side of the Erinyes, but this passes when we remember that at Orchomenos, the most ancient seat of their worship, where their images were mere crude stones, they were worshipped at night, and like all chthonic divinities with the offering of the honey cake. They were also a sort of Moirae; the lucky throw at dice was called Χάριτες.
The connection of the Moirae with the ghost Erinyes we have already noted. Here again cultus came in to strengthen the argument by analogy of ritual between the Moirae, Semnae and Eumenides. Pausanias mentions at Titane (ii. 11 4), ‘a grove of evergreen oaks and a temple of the goddesses whom the Athenians call venerable (Semnae) and the Sicyonians name Eumenides (kindly). On one day every year they celebrate a festival in their honour at which they sacrifice a sheep with young, and pour libations of honey mixed with water and use flowers instead of wreaths.’ The sheep with young clearly points to the goddesses of fertility and the absence of wreaths is curiously paralleled in the cult of the Charites at Paros. Apollo- dorus p. 3, 15, 7, after telling the story of Minos and Androgeos, says ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ δεῦρο χωρὶς αὐλῶν καὶ στεφάνων ἐν Ἰ]άρῳ θύουσι ταῖς Χάρισι. At Titane Pausanias goes on to tell us they perform the like ceremonies (ἐοικότα δρῶσιν) at the altar of the Fates—it stands in the grove under the open sky. In this important passage we have the Semnae identified with the Eumenides and their ritual with that of the Moirae. This identity of ritual is paralleled by identity of function. When Prometheus is asked who guides the rudder of Fate he answers (Aesch. Prom. 515).
Μοῖραι τρίμορφοι μνήμονές τ᾽ ’ Epivies. Nay more in the Eumenides they are the παλαιγενεῖς Μοῖραι (Hum. 172). Just in the same way the Κῆρες, the souls, are fates, and as such essentially διχθάδιαι as in Hes. Theog. 217. καὶ Μοίρας καὶ Kijpas éyelveto νηλεοποίνους, Κλωθώ τε Λάχεσίν τε καὶ Ατροπον, αἵτε: βροτοῖσι γεινομένοισι διδοῦσιν ἔχειν ἀγαθόν τε κακόν TE
210 JANE E. HARRISON.
though with Hesiod, never too optimistic in his view, the Κῆρες incline to the black side (v. 211).
Νὺξ δ᾽ ἔτεκε στυγερόν te Mopov καὶ Κῆρα μέλαιναν.
The idea of a ghost, a double, a fate shadowing a man in his life and powerful to affect his descendants after death is common to many primitive peoples. It depends on the temper of the people whether the ghost is regarded as benevolent or malignant, white or black. The West African tribes according to Miss Kingsley have their Eumenides. ‘In almost all West African districts’ (West African Studies, p. 132) ‘is a class of spirits called “the well-disposed ones” and this class is clearly differentiated from “them” the generic term for non-human spirits. These well-disposed ones are ancestors, and they do what they can to benefit their particular village or family Fetish, who is not a human spirit nor an ancestor. But the things given to ancestors are gifts not in the proper sense of the word sacrifices, for the well-disposed ones are not gods, even of the rank of a Sasabonsum or an Omburiri ’—here we seem to catch a god arrested in the process of making. The Erinyes of the West African are not angry ancestors, but the ghosts of enemies who are regarded as malevolent—‘ To insult or neglect’ the ‘ well- disposed ones,’ is rude and disreputable, but it will not bring on e.y. an outbreak of small pox. African missionaries have found that the nearest equivalent to the word God in our Scriptures is the word ‘ Mulungu’ the general native term for spirit. The spirit of the deceased man is called his Mulungu and all the offerings of the living are presented to such spirits of the dead. ‘It is here that we find the great centre of the native religion. The spirits of the dead are the gods of the living’ (Duff MacDonald, Africana, 1882, vol. I. p. 59). As regards the black and white Maniae Mr. Frazer says in his commentary (citing Callaway), ‘The Zulus believe that there are black spirits (Itongos) and white spirits; the black spirits cause disease and suffering, but the white spirits are beneficent. The Yakuts think that bad men after death become dark ghosts, but good men become bright ones.’ (Paus. viii. 34, 3, Com.)
I have long thought that in the white beneficent aspect of the Eumenides lies the explanation of the much disputed ‘white maidens.’ When the Gauls were approaching Delphi the oracle vouchsafed to the anxious inhabitants ran as follows: ‘I and the white maidens will care for these things.’
> A ’ lal \ lal fe ἐμοὶ μελήσει ταῦτα Kal λευκαῖς KOpats.
It is generally*held that the white maidens are Artemis and Athene, but this view only rests on the opinion of Diodorus (xxii. 9. 5). Surely it is far more probable that in a moment of extreme peril there should be a resurgence of the ancient deities of the place, deities half forgotten perhaps by the educated supreme always in the hearts of the vulgar. At Delphi there was no need and anyhow it was safer not to name the ἀνώνυμοι θεαί.
Badness and blackness are synonymous. To-day we talk of a black story,
DELPHIKA 211
and the black man of the chimney still survives. Callimachos in his charming fashion tells us how Olympian mothers, when one of the baby goddesses was naughty, would call for a Cyclops to come, and Hermes blacked himself with coal and played the hobgoblin.
ὃ δὲ δώματος ἐκ μυχάτοιο ἔρχεται ᾿ρμείης σποδιῇ κεχριμένος αἰθῇ. αὐτίκα τὴν κούρην μορμύσσεται--("'αἰζίηι. Dian. 68.
There is a splendid instance of the hero-bogey gone black in Pausanias vi. 6.4. ‘O “Hpws as he appeared in his picture was χρόαν τε δεινῶς μέλας καὶ τὸ εἶδος δ᾽ ἅπαν ἐς Ta μάλιστα φοβερὸς, λύκου δὲ ἀμπίσχετο δέρμα ἐσθῆτα. This goes along with the growing feeling that dead heroes were apt to be hostile and their graves must be passed with precautions of silence lest they should be annoyed and show it. Hesych. sw) voc. κρείττονας says: τοὺς ἥρωας οὕτω λέγουσιν, δοκοῦσι δὲ κακωτικοί τινες εἶναι. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ παριόντες τὰ ἡρῴα σιγὴν ἔχουσι μή τε βλαβῶσι. καὶ οἱ θεοὶ δέ. Αἰσχύλος Aitvaia(c)s.
At this point a word is necessary as to the etymology of the word Erinyes ; after what has been said it can scarcely be doubted that the account in Pausanias is correct. In discussing the Thelpusa cult of Demeter Erinys- Lusia (vill. 25. 4)—to which I shall return later—he says ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ ἐπικλήσεις TH θεῷ γεγόνασι, τοῦ μηνίματος μὲν ἕνεκα Epis, ὅτι τὸ θυμῷ χρῆσθαι καλοῦσιν ἐρινύειν οἱ ᾿Αρκάδες. The contrast between the Erinys and Lusia of the Thelpusian cult is preciscly the same as that between the Black and White Maniac of Megalopolis. Whatever be the precise etymology of Erinyes we are evidently in that primitive stage of things when the names of spirits and daemons are not names proper but attributive epithets. We are very near the West African to whom the spirits are ‘them,’ and ‘them’ may be kindly (Kumenides), angry (Erinyes), venerable (Semnae), grace- giving (Charites), awful (Potniae), mad ones (Maniac), vengeful (Praxidikae). We have not yet reached the point where personality is clearly outlined. Our imagination is so possessed by figures like the Olympian gods, sharply defined, real, actual, personal, that it is only by considerable mental effort that we realise the fact—all important for the study of mythology—that there are no gods at all, no objective facts; that what we are investigating are only con- ceptions of the human mind constantly shifting with every human mind that conceives them. Art which makes the image, literature crystallising attributes and functions, arrest and fix this shifting kaleidoscope. Until the coming of art and literature, and to some extent after, πάντα pet. There is no greater bar to the understanding of mythology than our modern habit of clear analytic thought; the first necessity is that by an imaginative effort we should think back the πολλά we have so sharply divided into the haze of the primitive ἕν.
If the first step in the making of a god is the attribution of human quality, the attribution of sex will not tarry long. Mother-Earth is a conception too wide-spread to need comment. Father-Land is a late and monstrous patriarchalism. The Cretans, often true to primitive tradition,
212 JANE E. HARRISON.
still said μητρίς, when the rest of Grecce said πατρίς (ἡ δὲ πατρίς καὶ μητρὶς ὡς Κρῆτες καλοῦσι. Plut. an seni sit ger. resp. xvii.). It isto M@ Γᾷ that the Danaides appeal in their supreme peril. This point need not be laboured, but it is worth noting that the sex of the carth and of divinities connected with tlic earth, like the Eumenides, must have been confirmed by, if it did not originate in, the connection between women and agriculture in primitive days. Mr, Payne in his History of the New World (vol. ii. p. 7 and 8), observes that formerly women were the only industrial class; men were engaged in hunting, fishing, fighting. “Agriculture,” he says, “was originally based on the servitude of women. Primitive man refuses to interfere in agriculture; he thinks it magically dependent for success on woman and connected with child-bearing. ‘When the women plant maize, said the Indian to Gumilla, ‘the stalk produces two or three ears. Why? Because women know how to produce children. They only know how to plant the corn so as to ensure its germinating. Then let them plant it; they know more than we know’.” Thus it is easy to sec how the Eumenides-Erinyes, spirits of fertility or sterility, came to be regarded as daughters of mother earth, whereas it is hard to conceive of any state of society so matriarchalised as to make its avengers of blood of the female sex. Aeschylus, who is anxious not to allow the fertility aspect of the Eumenides to appear prematurely, makes them, when formally questioned by Athene, say they are daughters of Night,
ἡμεῖς yap ἐσμεν Νυκτὸς αἰανῆς τέκνα (Eum. 416),
but Hesiod (Zheog. 184) long before made them daughters of Earth. Sophocles compromises; with him they are [Γῆς τε καὶ Σκότου κόραι. (Oed. Col. 40.)
I have noted already the dualism of black and white, curse and blessing ; it is curious to see how this other anthropomorphic dualism of mother and daughter fits in with it. When it comes to dividing up functions between mother and daughter, the daughter gets the stern side, the maiden is naturally a little farowche. This Aeschylus turns to admirable polemical account in his κατάπτυστοι κόραι.
At this point the full significance of C. O. Miiller’s statement becomes apparent, 1.6. that the Erinyes were neither more nor less than a particular form of the great goddesses who rule the earth and the lower world, 1.6. Demeter and Kore. This statement inverted would be, to my mind, a just presentment of the order of development. Demeter and Kore, mother and maid, are perfectly anthropomorphised, idealised forms of those vague apparitions, the earth and the spirits of the earth. In this connection it must never be forgotten that Demeter herself is also Erinys, also Melaina, the earth goddess, as well as the earth spirits has the black as well as white aspect, though in later days the dark side of the functions went over to Kore. I do not dwell on the cult of Demeter Erinys, for its importance has been abundantly emphasised by all writers from C. O. Miiller downwards. And not only were the Erinyes forms of Demeter, but the dead, Plutarch says, were in old days
en
DELPHIKA. 213
called by the Athenians Demeter’s people, καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς ᾿Αθηναῖοι Δημητρείους ὠνόμαζον τὸ παλαιόν (Plut. de fac. in orb. lun., 28, p. 943).
In order clearly to establish the double black and white aspect of the earth spirits, | have passed rather prematurely on to their complete authropo- morphic development, and must go back to the proposition of the 6th clause, .6. that the form in which these local geniti were at first embodied was that of snakes,
This snake form brings together the views of C. O. Miiller and Rohde ; it is a connecting link between ancestral ghosts and earth genii, and it is strange that neither of these writers perceived what would have been his strongest argument.
To say that in their primary form the Erinyes were thought of as embodied in snakes may seem at first sight so startling that it may be well to call attention at the outset to the fact that the idea is no wise foreign to the tragedians.
When Clytemnestra hears the snoring of the Furies how does she
name them ? Ὕπνος πόνος τε κύριοι συνωμόται
Δεινῆς δρακαίνης ἐξεκήρανων μένος.
Travail and sleep, chartered conspirators, Have spent the fell rage of the dragoness (v. 126).
Of course it is possible to say that she uses the term δράκαινα ‘ poetically ἡ for a monster, but the fact remains that she calls the chorus a dragoness, when she might quite naturally have called them hounds, as indeed in the next lines She frankly proceeds to do. It would really have been more ‘ poetical’ to preserve the metaphor intact. The passage does not stand alone. To Euripides also a Fury is a δράκαινα.
Πυλάδη δέδορκας τήνδε ; τήνδε δ᾽ οὐχ ὁρᾷς “Aidov δράκαιναν, ὥς με βούλεται κτανεῖν δειναῖ ὀχίδναις εἰς ἐμ’ ἐστομωμένη ; (Iph. Taur. 286 f.)
Here it may perhaps be urged that the conception is borrowed from Aeschylus, but the stage buries of Aeschylus were certainly not δράκαιναι and also the
᾿Αἰδου δράκαινα confuses the effect of the δειναὶ ἐχίδναὶ that follow. In the
Orestes also (v. 256) the Furies are δρακοντώδεις κόραι and it is surely putting a strain on language to say this means they have snakes in their hands orhair. But the crowning literary illustration on this point is Clytemnestra’s dream in the Choephoroit. Clytemuestra dreams that she gives birth to and suckles a snake. Dr. Verrall has pointed out (v. 39-41 and 925-927) that the snake was the regular symbol of things subterranean and especially of the grave, and he conjectures that the snake was presented to the minds of the audience by the ‘visible grave of Agamemnon, which would presumably be marked as a tomb in the usual way.’ This is most true and absolutely essential to the understanding of the play, in fact its keynote, but the snake
214 JANE E. HARRISON.
is more than the symbol of the dead, it is the vehicle of the Erinys, and the Erinys is Orestes, (v. 547) : 7 ἐκδρακοντωθεὶς δ᾽ ἐγὼ κτείνω νιν,
not merely ‘deadly as a serpent,’ but as ἃ ‘serpent Erinys.’ The meaning is obscured to us in two ways; conventionally and traditionally we have come to regard the Erinyes as the pursuers of Orestes, whereas here he, as Erinys, pursues. Moreover the Erinyes are naturally as we have seen female; here by command of the patriarchal Apollo comes the male Erinys. The Erinys was a snake and also as we have abundantly seen a Fate; it is only when the two notions are firmly grasped that the full meaning of Orestes’ words appear. Clytemnestra cries for mercy in vain (v. 925):
πατρὸς yap αἶσα τόνδε συρέξει μόρον. Nay, for my father’s fate hisses thy death.
The snake form of the Erinys comes out more clearly perhaps in art than in literature. Snakes of course, as the conventional decoration of either τύμβος or στήλη, abound on vase paintings; good examples are the τύμβος of Patroklos (Brit. Mus. Cat. B 239), and the στήλη in the funeral scene on the kantharos in the Bibliothéque Nationale (Miliet-Giraudon, 38). Both στήλη and τύμβος are painted white, the snake being black; the white is probably in a sense prophylactic to warn the passer-by that the place was taboo. More instructive for our purpose are the instances in which a live snake or snakes issue out of the τύμβος to protect it from desecration or to receive offerings made by the survivors. On a white lekythos at Athens (Jahrbuch, 1891, Taf. 4) we have a case in point. From a white grave tumulus, a βωμοειδὴς τάφος, issue forth two large angry-looking snakes ; they are about to pursue a youth who flies away in fright. He has no doubt accidentally or intentionally violated the tomb, and they are the avenging Erinyes. In a case like this we might share the doubt of Aeneas, but in the next instance the Erinys’ aspect is beyond doubt.
On a Tyrrhenian amphora in the Bourguignon Coll., Orvieto, Fig. 1 (Jahrbuch, 1893, p. 93), we have a curious and very interesting representation of the slaying of Polyxena. Lying absolutely over the very tomb of Achilles is the body of Polyxena, her blood just shed on the altar-tomb by Neoptolemos; the tomb is ὀμφαλοειδής, and even has the covering network of fillets. To this point I shall return later; for the present the important point is, that out of the τύμβος arises a great live snake. Obviously the idea is that the ghost of Achilles in snake form rises up, an Erinys, asking and receiving the atoning blood. But even in this vase there is the incipient confusion, or rather blending of ideas, for Neoptolemos flies affrighted—the snake is the offended genius loci as well as the satisfied hero-ghost. Here is indeed mythology in the making, the notion shifts and flickers. Either the snake is the actual vehicle of the ghost of the dead man, 7s the dead man; or he is the guardian, the familiar spirit of the dead man, the famulus as in the account of Scipio’s grave (Plin. N.H. xvi. 85): subest specus, in quo manes
DELPHIKA., 215
ejus custodire draco traditur ; or he is merely the earth daemon: nullus locus sine genio est qui per anguem plerumque ostenditur (Serv, ad. Verg. Aen. v. 85). The snake is IAs παῖς, native child of the earth as opposed to the horse, the enemy and stranger ; so was the portent explained that appeared to Croesus (Herod i. 78). Of these conceptions the genius loci is most familiar to us, appearing constantly as it does in Latin poets, but the idea of the serpent as the vehicle of the hero is thoroughly Greek, and belongs to the stratum of of παλαιοί obscured to us by Homer—ot παλαιοὶ μάλιστα τῶν ζῴων tov δράκοντα τοῖς ἥρωσι συνῳκείωσαν (Plut. Cleom. 39). When the people saw the great snake winding round the impaled body of Cleomenes they knew that he was a hero, Again, the scholiast on the Plutus of Aristo- phanes (v. 733) says κοινῶς μὲν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἥρωσι δράκοντες παρετέθεντο ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τῷ ᾿Ασκληπιῴ. Perhaps, most instructive of all is the expres-
Fic. 1.—PArr oF DESIGN FROM BoURGUIGNON AMPHORA.
sion Photius records, the ‘speckled hero’ (Photius, Lex. s.v.) ἥρως ποικίλος --διὰ τὸ τοὺς ὄφεις ποικίλους ὄντας ἥρωας καλεῖσθαι.
As in the case of the ghost-EKrinyes, so here we are not without savage analogies. At Blantyre, in Kast Central Africa, ‘a spirit often appears as a serpent. When a man kills a serpent thus belonging to a spirit he goes and makes an apology to the offended god, saying “ please, I did not know it was your serpent.”’ Here the serpent is perhaps rather the familiar of the god, but if a dead man wants to frighten his wife he is apt to present himself in the form of a serpent. Ghost and god are not far asunder (Africana, Duff- MacDonald, 1882, Vol. I. p. 063). Again (p. 161), it is noted of the Gallas, an African tribe, that they have no idols, but revere sacred objects and animals, serpents especially being sacred. One variety of snake they regard as having been the mother of the human family.
216 JANE E. HARRISON.
M. Henry Jumod, in his interesting account of the Barongas (Les Barongas, p. 396), notes that among this people the snake is regarded as a sort of incarnation of an ancestor, and is somewhat dreaded, but never worshipped. A native, pursuing a snake that had got into the kitchen of a missionary station, accidentally set the building on fire. ΑἸ] the neighbours exclaimed that the fire was due to the snake, and the snake was the chiko- nembo or ghost of a man who was buried close at hand, and who had come out of the earth to avenge himself. M. Jumod adds cautiously : ‘Que les reptiles du bois sacré et les petits serpents bleus soient envisagés comme des incarnations temporaines des chiko nembo c’est probable. . . . De cette con- statation 4 la supposition que ces animaux sont des messagers ou des incarna- tions transitoires des Dieux il n’y a qu'un pas. Mais jamais ils n’ont pas songé ἃ adorer un serpent.’ This is clear from the fact that a free thinker among them will occasionally kill a serpent because he is bored by the too frequent reappearance of his ancestor, and as he kills it will say, ‘Come, now, we have had enough of you.’
It is only necessary to recall the frequent mythological appearance of the hero as snake, e.g. Erichthonios and Kychreus, and perhaps most noticeable of all the case of Sosipolis, the child who turned into a snake (P. vi. 20, 213). Sosipolis had a sanctuary where the snake disappeared into the ground— he also had the offering of the honey-cake and water for libation, the λουτρόν and the νερτέροις μειλίγματα. To the modern Greek peasant his child till baptized is a δρακοῦλα, and no doubt in danger of disappearing in that form ; the line between animal and human is no wise clearly drawn. As every one knows, the Erinyes in their conventional art-form from the fifth century B.c. downwards are represented as maidens brandishing snakes in their hands. It was this fact that gave me the clue to the primary snake form of the Erinyes. A god or goddess is apt to hold in his hand or keep by his side the animal form he has outgrown.
But it may fairly be asked, can the connecting link in the chain be shown? We have the complete anthropomorphic form and we have the snake form ; can the transition stage be shown, the customary halfway house of half- human, half-animal form? Erichthonios of course, the snake child, became half-snake, half-man. Cecrops appears on many a monument as the snake- tailed hero. Malevolent monsters like the Echidna, Typhon and the like are snake-tailed, so in late art are the earth-born giants. But all these are somewhat remote analogies. Have we any snake-tailed women genii of the earth, of fertility or sterility, that we can fairly adduce? A recently pub- lished vase (Bohlau, ‘Schlangenleibige Nymphen,’ Philolog. LVII. NF xi. 1) supplies the missing link. One side of the design is reproduced in Fig. 2.
As Dr. Bohlau has pointed out, the two sides of the vase are definitely con-
11 venture to differ from Dr. Béhlau on one smal] but important detail. The object carried on the right arm of one of the snake-nymphs is, I believe, not a shield but a basket of the shape ordinarily in use among the Greeks for
ee
agricultural purposes. On a vase published by Salzmann (Necropole, Pl. 54, Figs 2 and 3) a sower who follows a team of oxen ploughing holds on his arm a basket precisely similar. It evidently holds the seed he is scattering.
DELPHIKA. 217 trasted. On the one side we have the destroyers of the vine, the goats, on the other its nurturers, snake-bodied nymphs, veritable Eumenides. The vase is specially important because our modern minds, haunted by the tradition of the malevolent ‘old serpent,’ have some difficulty in realizing the snake as the good genius. These kindly grape-gathering, flute-playing, snake-nymphs give us a picture of peace and plenty and beneficence not easily forgotten, they are veritable snake-Charites, a cup might fitly be reserved for them at the banquet; they are δρακοντώδεις κόραι meet to be daughters of Ophion and Eurynome, the fish-tailed goddess whose sanctuary in Phigaleia was ἅγιον ἐκ παλαιοῦ ! (Paus. viii. 41. 6, Hes. Theoy. 908).
Own daughters to the δρακοντώδεις κόραι of the vase are the kindly EKumenides of the well-known Argos relief (Afitth. d. Inst. Ath. iv. 176, Roscher,
Fic, 2.,—SERPENT-BODIED NYMPHS. (Philologus, N.F, xi.)
Lex. 1330). In the one hand they hold flowers, in the other snakes—there is ‘nothing terrible’ in their aspect ; they are gracious to the man and woman who approach as suppliants—the snake is not the weapon of terror but merely the symbol, as the flowers are, of the fertility of the earth. It was only when the meaning of the snake was obscured that it became a terror.
The Argos Eumenides relief belongs to the well-known type or the trinity of female goddesses which have long presented a somewhat confused problem to archaeologists. Familiar examples of this type are the Thasos relief where on one side are Apollo and three Nymphs, on the other Hermes
1 For a remarkable parallel to Eurynome see Mr. E. J. Payne (History of the New World, vol. i. p. 453). The female Dagon or Oceanus of the New World was the goddess of a lake worshipped as mamacota or mother - water, because she furnished the nation with fish for
H.S.—VOL. XIX,
food. She had the body of a fish surmounted by a rude human head. Her worship could only be abolished by the substitution of an image of the Virgin. At no great distance was worshipped also another embodiment of the lake, a figure enwreathed by serpents.
Q
218 JANE E. HARRISON,
and three Charites (Rayet, Monuments de l Art Antique; Bas-reliefs de Thasos). But for the inscription Charites and Nymphs would be indistinguish- able. In the Megara relief, at Berlin (Mythology and Mon. of Athens, p. 546, Fig. 8.), Hermes leads three dancing women in the cave of Pan; discussion is endless as to whether they are Nymphs, Charites, Cecropidae or Horae. Where there is no inscription, the question is best left unresolved. All are the same at bottom, 1.6. they are three κόραι. Nymph is nothing but marriageable maiden, and Charites is but one of the many κληδόνες ἐπώνυμοι: ἑκάστην THY ἡλικίαν αὐτῶν συνώνυμον ποιήσασθαι θεῷ Kai καλέσαι τὴν μὲν ἄγαμον Κόρην, τὴν δὲ πρὸς ἄνδρα δεδομένην Νύμφην, τὴν δὲ τέκνα yevvn- σαμένην Μητέρα, τὴν δὲ παῖδα ἐκ παίδων ἐπιδοῦσαν κατὰ τὴν Δωρικὴν διάλεκτον Μαῖαν: ᾧ σύμφωνον εἶναι τὸ καὶ τοὺς χρησμοὺς ἐν Δωδώνῃ καὶ Δελφοῖς δηλοῦσθαι διὰ γυναικός (lambl. Vit. Pyth. 56). The passage is notable not for the purpose of evidencing, as Pythagoras intended, the piety of woman, but as showing that attention is already drawn to the anthropomorphic habit of reflecting, in the names of the gods, the various human relationships of their worship- pers; at bottom these Horae, Nymphae, Charites, Eumenides are nothing but Kopac maidens. In this connection the relief given in Fig. 3 from the collection Tyszkiewicz is instructive. The in- scription runs: Σωτίας Kopas—with ἀνέθηκε wunderstood—Sotias dedicated the Κόραι. We have the three familiar maidens with fruit and flowers, as yet Fie 3.—Vorive Resizer, Cou. Tyszkrewicz, unadorned by any κληδόνες ἐπώνυμοι {ἘἘΘΠΠΒΕΣΕΤ ΤΥ) —we have as it were the root idea from which the anthropomorphic form of Charites, Horae, Cecropidaec, Nymphae, EKumenides, Semnae sprang. In discussing the origin of the myth of the Judgment of Paris I long ago tried to show (J.H.S. 1886, p. 217) that the rival goddesses Hera, Athene, and Aphrodite were only the three Charites or gift-givers at strife—they are the vague κόραι completely differentiated and departmentalized, but art represents them frequently without distinctive attributes (see J.H.S, oc. cit. Plate LXX.).
It may well be asked: why the trinity? If plurality began in Mother and Daughter, Demeter and Kore, why not mere duality? I am not sure that I can answer the question. Something was due no doubt to the artistic convenience of three ; three makes a good group. The number was not canonical in early days, witness the constant discussion about the number of the Horae; possibly also when the Mother and Daughter had become
DELPHIKA 219
thoroughly two there was a natural tendency to give to the new-made couple a mother, and thus create a trinity. It is curious that in the ancient Greek world the male trinity is wholly absent. Possibly also the seasons, first two and then three, added strength to ,
the notion, I would make a final sugges- ΑΞ - tion. In the curious Bocotian relief vase, ἘᾺ \ | "Apy. Ed. 1892, wiv. 9, we have the great Karth mother, the πότνια θηρῶν, figured with two women supporters, one at either side. It does not seem necessary to suppose they are di nixi. This looks like the origin of the trinity, which must have been origin- ally not 3 but 1- 2.
We have now to return to the Argos relief. We have reached the anthropomor- phic form of the Erinys; the snake remains, but only as an attribute, held in the hand. This is perhaps the best place in which to note some other elements that contributed : to the formation of the art type of the γὼ, 4.—Drsten rrom Prorupsts Erinys. VASE.
The first element to be noted is the εἴδωλον. The primitive inhabitant of Greece, whom for convenience sake we call Pelasgian, buried his dead and thought of the dead hero as a snake- genius dwelling in the ground. The Achaean of Homer burned his dead and believed that nothing remained except the dim and strengthless ghost, the ἔιδωλον. The εἴδωλον was a little winged fluttering thing—a feeble σκεὰ of the living man. The two forms are admiyably seen and contaminated in the design of an archaic prothesis vase, Fig. 4 (Ath. Mitth., xvi. 379); in a erave tumulus are seen a large curled snake, and above him four fluttering εἴδωλα. Similar little winged figures are figured on the remarkable lekythos in the Jena Museum (Schadow, Line Attische Grablekythos, Jena, i897), where the winged souls, or κῆρες, are issuing from and returning to a large sepulchral pithos. This winged type
Fic. 5.—From B.F. AMPHORA, 4 ; ‘ (Passerins, Pict. Etrusc. iii. 297). of the soul, this Homeric εἴδωλον,
contributed, I have no doubt, to supply the Erinyes with wings. Further, when the Homeric imagination had transformed the Erinys from an angry ghost into a messenger of justice,
1 y ‘ay ΘΙ, πη" >
wings were doubly necessary. A winged form was not far to seek. The 9 Q 2
220 JANE E. HARRISON.
Gorgon type was ready to hand, and suited admirably the bogey nature of the angry ghost. Such a form we have in Fig. 5 from a_black- figured amphora in the Museo Gregoriano of the Vatican. The instance is the more instructive, as the artist does not entirely trust the Erinys type he has adopted. That his meaning may not miscarry he adds the original Evrinys, i.e. the snake.
In the later Erinys form, 1.6. the typical ‘ Fury’ of Hades in short chiton and hunting boots, another element enters of unmistakable import, 1.6. the art-type of the goddess Artemis—the -huntress par eacellence. As soon as the Erinyes develop out of ghosts into avengers the element of pursuit comes in, they lose their double aspect and become all vindictive ; they are no longer δράκαιναι but κύνες.
” , fol / 2 Ψ ὄναρ διώκεις θῆρα, κλαγγάνεις δ᾽ ἅπερ 4 / » t Naa J \ , κύων μέριμναν οὔποτ᾽ ἐκλιπὼν πόνου (Hum. 131).
In late vases which depict the scene of Orestes and the Erinyes, 6.5. the krater of the Louvre (Baumeister, Denkméiler, 11. Fig. 1314) the dress of the Erinyes and that of Artemis is identical, save that Artemis carries her bow and quiver and two lances. This vase, it may be noted, is interesting also from the fact that one of the Erinyes is actually rising out of the ground, only visible from the breast upwards, just like the figure of Gaia. The final form of the Fury on
ΕΝ ΤῊΝ Lower Italy Hades-vases is (Rosenberg) Die Hrinyen:) simply that of a malevolent Artemis.
The red-figured vase in Fig. 6 is of importance in respect to the question of art type. It is figured by Rosenberg (Die Hrinyen, frontispiece) and interpreted by him as an Erinys. I incline to think, from the amplitude of the drapery, that the figure more likely represents a Maenad. The doubt is more instructive than any certainty. Maenads in mythology and Erinyes are only differentiations of the same fundamental idea. In fact the Maenads are Maniae, earth-born ministrants of Ge, and they hold her snakes, and like the Maniae in later days they are addressed as dogs.
Μαινάδα θυιάδα φοιβάδα λυσσάδα. (Timoth. Frg. 1.)
ἴτε, θοαὶ λύσσης κύνες, ἴτ᾽ εἰς ὄρος. (Eurip. Bacch. 975.)
I return to the snake-form. The snake-Erinys is only one aspect of ἃ cultus of earth divinities once widespread in primitive Greece. Half a century ago Gerhard, with an insight extraordinary for his time, divined that practically nearly all the women goddesses of Greece are but modi-
DELPHIKA. 221
fications of one primitive goddess—Mother Earth.! He says (Ueber Metroon und Croeticrmutter, 1849, p. 103): ‘Nicht nur fiir Dia Dione, fiir Tlithyia und Theia, Themis und Artemis, Tyche und Praxidike, Chryse und Basileia, sondern auch fiir Demeter und Kora, Aphrodite und Hestia, Hera und Athene lisst, wenn wir nicht irren, diese Behauptung bis zu dem Grad sich durchfiihren, dass wir in allen diesen Gétterinen nur wechselnde Namen und Auffassungen einer und desselben hellenisirten der Giia gleichgeltenden Erd- und Schopfungsgotten zu erkennen haben. . . . Von iiberwiegendster Anwendung ist zur Seite der Géttermutter das Schlangen-symbol, es findet sich fast allen den Gottinen beigesellt die wir als 6rtlich wechselnde Aus- driicke jener urspriinglichen Gottereinheit erkannten, namentlich der thes- salischen und italischen Here, der kekropischen Pallas, der eleusinischen Demeter.’ It is strange that a conception so fertile, so illuminating, should have lain barren so long, obscured and paralysed by half a century of sun and moon myths. I only push Gerhard’s argument a step further when I urge that the snake was not merely the symbol of the primitive earth daemon, but her actual supposed vehicle. Athene the maiden of Athens is but the anthropomorphised οἰκουρὸς ὄφις who dwelt beneath her shield, she is the μοῖρα of her city, and in the city’s extremity she refuses to eat her honey-cake. Cecrops the serpent king is caught half-way in his trans- formation. We are so accustomed to the lifeless attributive snake of e.g. the chryselephantine Athene that we forget the live snake of the Acropolis. The design on a lekythos (Benndorf, Gr. and Sic. Vas. 51,1; Roscher, Lea. ii. 979) recalls the live snake in drastic fashion. Kassandra takes refuge at the xoanon of Athene. Athene is represented in the usual (Promachos) fashion, on her shield a snake. But not only has she a painted snake on her shield, a great live snake—a veritable KErinys—darts forth from her altar with open jaws to attack Ajax. In like manner, when Philoctetes profanes the sanctuary of Chryse, the vase-painter (Baumeister, Fig. 1479) represents the snake that has bitten him returning complacently to the altar at the feet of the goddess. It is no accidental snake bite, it is the Erinys of the goddess—it is the goddess again, the οἰκουρὸς ὄφις.
\ A Lal Τὺ ” > ͵ / σὺ yap νοσεῖς τόδ᾽ ἄλγος ἐκ θείας τύχης Χρύσης πελασθεὶς φύλακος ὃς τὸν ἀκαλυφῆ σηκὸν φυλάσσει κρύφιος οἰκουρῶν ὄφις.
(SopH. Philoct. 1325).
The: two snakes who slew the sons of Laocoon were assuredly the Erinyes sent forth by Athene—not originally by Apollo. When they had done their work they disappeared below the earth, ἄμφω ἀιστώθησαν ὑπὸ χθόνα (Q. Smyrn. 12, 480). They were important snakes with special names
1 Since I wrote the above an interesting re- seribed Γᾷ Πανταρέτα Καινεὺς Πειθούνειος. It is presentation of the Earth Mother has come to now in the museum at Constantinople. Joubin, light at Zarkos (Thessaly). It isa female bust Lev. Arch, xxxiv. 329, Pl. XII. with long heavy hair, and the pedestal is in-
222 JANE E. HARRISON.
of their own, Porkis and Chariboia, as the scholiast on Lycophron tells us (ad Alew. 347). In like manner the snakes who attempt to slay the infant Heracles are the vehicles of Hera.
Again in the case of Demeter. She became so highly humanized that the snake at Eleusis is well nigh forgotten, at least as an object of cultus. But a ceremony in which the snake glided into the bosom of the initiated, Was an integral part of the mysteries (δεέλκεται τοῦ κόλπου τῶν τελουμένων). On «a Roman relicf in the Uffizi (Overbeck, Kunst. Myth. Taf. xvi. 2) near the fivure of the seated Demeter a sekos is represented, from which emerges a luge snake, and on one of the Campana reliefs representing a cultus scene at Kleusis a worshipper is represented caressing the snake in the bosom of Demeter (op. cit. xvi. 10). Of course, as anthropomorphism prevailed, the snake became merely the ἀμφίπολος of the goddess. Strabo (393) says, ἀφ᾽ ov δὲ καὶ Kuxpeldns ὄφις ὅν φησιν «Ἡσίοδος τραφέντα ὑπὸ Kuypéws ἐξελα- θῆναι, ὑποδέξασθαι δὲ αὐτὸν τὴν Δήμητρα εἰς ᾿λευσῖνα καὶ γενέσθαι ταύτης ἀμφίπολον. Aclian, in his De Natura Animalium (xi. 2), gives us an important, and, for our purpose, most interesting account of snake worship in Kpirus. The passage is so instructive it must be cited in full. “Θύουσι δὲ Kal ἄλλως οἱ ᾿ἢ πειρῶται τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι Kal αὐτοὶ Kal πᾶν ὅσον τῶν ξένων ἐπίδημόν ἐστι, καὶ τούτῳ ἤδη τὴν μεγίστην ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι μιᾶς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἔτους σεμνήν τε καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ. "ἔστι δὲ ἄνετον τῷ θεῷ ἄλσος, καὶ ἔχει κύκλῳ περίβολον, καὶ ἔνδον εἰσὶ δράκοντες, τοῦ θεοῦ ἄθυρμα οὗτοί γε. ‘HL τοίνυν ἱέρεια γυμνὴ παρθένος πάρεισι μόνη καὶ τροφὴν τοῖς δρώκουσι κομίζει. Λέγονται δὲ ἄρα ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ππειρωτῶν ἔκγονοι τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς [Πύθωνος εἶναι. "Kav μὲν οὖν οὗτοι παρελθοῦσαν τὴν ἱέρειαν προσηνῶς θεάσωνται καὶ τὰς τροφὰς προθύμως λάβωσιν εὐθενίαν τε ὑποδηλοῦν ὁμολογοῦνται καὶ ἔτος ἄνοσον, ἐὰν δὲ ἐκπλήξωσι μὲν αὐτὴν, μὴ λάβωσι δὲ ὅσω ὀρέγει μειλίγματα, τἀναντία τῶν προειρημένων μαντεύονται. Here we have a sacred snake, not slain as at Delphi, but taken on peaceably as the ἄθυρμα of Apollo. The snake has a maiden for ἃ priestess, the omen is by food, as in the case of the οἰκουρὸς ὄφις of Athene Partnenos. Most interesting of all, for the moment, is the fact that the nation of Epirus recognized the kinship between their own sacred snake .and that at Delphi. So that here we have suggested exactly what the argument most wants, 7c. the snake form of the Erinys, the earth goddess at Delphi. The truth has long been disguised by the fact, that, probably at the coming of Apollo, the Delphic snake changed from female to male, possibly that Apollo might have a foeman more ‘worthy of his steel,’ but the ὄφις γῆς παῖς, the ancient mantic serpent, Gaia’s vehicle, would doubtless at the outset be female. The Homeric hymn (v. 300) has δράκαινα, Muripides (ph. 7. 1245) has ποικιλόνωτος οἰνωπὸς δράκων. The snake was doubtless, as in Epirus, the actual original oracle-giver, later it became merely the guardian. Apollodorus (i. 4, 1, 2) says, ὡς δὲ ὁ φρουρῶν τὸ μαντεῖον {Πύθων ὄφις ἐκώλυεν αὐτον (Απόλλωνα) παρελθεῖν ἐπὶ TO χάσμα,
DELPHIKA. 223 τοῦτον ἀνελὼν TO μαντεῖον παραλαμβάνει, and Pausanias (x. 6, 6) says of the Python ἐπὶ τῷ μαντείῳ φύλακα ὑπὸ [ἧς τετάχθαι.
The existence of snake-worship is further most clearly shown by festival of the Stepterion (or Septerion).!. Mr. Frazer (Pausanias iii. p. 55) has clearly shown that the legend of the purification of Apollo for the slaying of the Python and the ceremony out of which it arose ‘carry us back to the days of primitive Greek savagery when the killing of certain animals was supposed to need expiation and the slayer was deemed unclean until he had performed some purificatory or expiatory rite.’ He cites a striking parallel among modern savages. In Dahomey if a man has killed a fetish snake he is shut up in a hut of dry faggots thatched with grass; to this fire is set, and the culprit must escape as best he may to running water. It seems to me probable that not only the occasional accidental murder of a sacred snake would be atoned for but, as the Septerion festival was a regular one, the priest who slew a snake for sacrifice might, as in the case of the Bouphonia, have to atone for this legalised murder. We have no actual record of a snake-sacrifice at Delphi, but in the Orphic Lithika, a treatise abounding in records of ancient custom and ritual, there is a curious and detailed account of the sacrifice of snakes for mantic purposes. A mantic stone is melted and snakes are allured by its smell, the snake that comes nearest to the fire is seized by three boys in white vestments and cut into nine portions (Orph. Lith. 687).
τοῦ δὲ διαμελεϊστὶ δαΐζειν ἐννέα μοίρας, r \ > / / ᾽ / τρεῖς μὲν ἐπικλήζειν πανδέρκεος ἠελίοιο, “ 3.58 / ΄ > ΄ ‘ τρεῖς δ᾽ ἑτέρας γαίης ἐριβώλου λχλαοβοτείρης, a \ , / ? 4 τρεῖς δὲ θεοπροπίης πολυίδμονος ἀψεύστοιο"
the
where the portion for earth, and the mantic intent are germane to the cultus at Delphi.
It is important for our purpose to note that the myth of the slaying of the snake, which we are accustomed to think of as exclusively Delphic, was wide-spread in Greece. Wherever Apollo in the Achaean religion pre- vailed, there the serpent becomes a monster to be slain; the name varies, but the substance is the same. At Thebes we have Kadmos slaying the dragon who guards the well ; at Nemea, we have the guardian snake slain by the Seven. On the other hand, in places where Achaean influence never pre- dominated, eg. in Pelasgian Athens, the snake remains the tutelary divinity of the place. The Thebes and Haliartos legend is especially instructive because it brings the snake and the Erinys again into such close connection.
1 Mr. Frazer points out (ad loc.) that the {πὸ Stepterion was a festival of purification and
MSS. of Plutarch have uniformly the reading Stepterion, and that the form Septerion adopted by Mommsen and others occurs only in Hesy- chius (swb voc.). Hesychius explains the differ- ence as “κάθαρσις ExOvars.’ I believe Hesychius to be right as to the meaning, possibly wrong as to the form, and 1 hazard the conjecture that
expiation and as such connected with the enigmatic στέφη and orépew in Aesch. Choeph. 94, Soph. Ant. 431, Hl. 52, 458 (v. Dr. Verrall, ad Aesch. Chocph. 93). The explanation of the Stepterion as a Crown Festival rests only on Aclian.
224 JANE E. HARRISON.
When we ask the origin or the parentage of the snake that Kadmos slew the answer is clear: ἐγεγόνει ὁ δράκων ἐξ "Ἄρεως καὶ Τιλφώσσης 'Epivvos, (Schol. Soph. Ant. 126) child of Earth, earth-born daemon, for Ge and Erinys are only two forms of each other, ἐπειδήπερ ἐκ Ths καὶ “Apews ὁ δράκων ἦν (Dindorf, iti. 255,14). Tilphossa and Delphousa!? are obviousiy the same and to them we nee add the Arcadian Thelpusa, haunt of Demeter-Erinys. An ordeal-well guarded by a snake, haunted by a ghost-Erinys—these are the furniture of Gaia’s cult.
This snake-cultus was overlaid by Achaean Homeric conceptions of widely different origin and import, but though obscured it never died out. The ᾿Αγαθὸς Δαίμων never lost his snake form; it did not escape the commentators that he was practically the same as the Latin local snake-genius—gaudet tectis ut sunt ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες quos Latini Genios vocant (Serv. ad Verg. Geo. 111. 417). The Δαίμων ᾿Αγαθός was wor- shipped at Lebadea (P. ix. 39, 4) along with ᾿Αγαθὴ Τύχη. A man who would consult the ancient oracle of Trophonios had to dwell in the joint οἴκημα of the two divinities and there purify himself; after consulting the oracle he was brought back to the same sanctuary. Hesychius tells us that Agathe Tyche was both Nemesis and Themis. Nemesis and Themis are but by-forms of the Earth goddess. Both ᾿Αγαθὸς Δαίμων and ᾿Αγαθὴ Τύχη are primarily ghost-fates, ancestors appearing in snake form, only Erinyes under another aspect with the good-fate side more emphasized (v. Rohde, Psyche, p. 232 and Gerhard, Ueber Agathodaemon und Bona Dea). Tyche like Gaia develops into a matronly Kourotrophos type. The ‘cistophoroi’ coins of Asia Minor with their constantly recurring type of the snake issuing from the cista sufficiently prove the survival of snake-cultus in Asia Minor; the snakes of Asklepios were everywhere the actual vehicle of the god. Perhaps the most remarkable testimony to the tenacity of the cult is the existence in Christian days of the sect of the Ophites, lineal descendants of the Pelasgian snake worshippers of primitive times. We owe it to the rancour of the Christian fathers that an account of their singular and no doubt primitive ritual has come down to us. The account of Epiphanios is worth citing in full (Epiphan. Haeres. xxxvii.5): ἔχουσι yap φύσει ὄφιν τρέφοντες ἐν κίστῃ τινὶ ὃν πρὸς τὴν ὥραν τῶν αὐτῶν μυστηρίων τοῦ φωλεοῦ προσφέροντες καὶ στιβάζοντες ἐπὶ eA ἄρτους, προκαλοῦνται τὸν ὄφιν. ἀνοιχθέντος δὲ 2d φωλεοῦ πρόεισι,. «καὶ... .ὁ ὄφις.. ἄνεισιν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ ἐνειλεῖται τοῖς ἄρτοις καὶ ταύτην φασὶν εἶναι τελείαν θυσίαν. ὅθεν καὶ ὡς ἀπό τινος ἀκήκοα οὐ μόνον κλῶσι τοὺς ἄρτους ἐν οἷς ὁ αὐτὸς ὄφις εἰλήθη καὶ ἐπιδιδόασιν τοῖς λαμβάνουσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκαστος ἀσπάζεται τὸν ὄφιν ἐκ στόματος. That the doctrine of the Oplites was no new invention but directly traditional from ancient days is expressly stated by Hippolytus (v. 20, cited by Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 150 and
note); he says of a sect of Ophites ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ πᾶσα διδασκαλία τοῦ
1 Mr. R. A, Neil suggests to me that all these meaning grass and closely akin to the Sanskrit words may be adjectives of a well-known form darbha. Grassy in Greece would be a natural from a noun (lost in Greek as known to us) word for any well.
ae
Pd
DELPHIKA. 225
λόγου ἀπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν θεολύγων Μουσαίου καὶ Λίνου καὶ τοῦ τὰς τελετὰς μάλιστα καὶ τὰ μυστήρια καταδείξαντος ᾿Ορφέως. ὁ γὰρ περὶ τῆς μήτρας αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ ὄφεως λόγος καὶ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἁρμονία, διαρρήδην οὕτως ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς Baxytxois τοῦ ᾿Ορφέως. Orpheus was for the non- Achaean what Homer was for the Achacans, the name to which all poetical tradition was referred. If the doctrine of the Ophites was ancient, how much more their ritual.
Hippolytus mentions conjointly ὄφιες and ὀμφαλός. I have discussed the snake, the primitive form of the ghost-Erinys; it remains to consider her dwelling-place and sanctuary, the omphalos. I reserve to the end the dis- cussion of the attitude of Aeschylus towards the cult of which both ὄφις and ὀμφαλός are factors.
B—THE OMPHALOS.!
‘lapidem e sepulchro venerari pro deo. —Cic, pro Planc., 40, 95. τύμβος TE στήλη TE’ TO γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ Oavovtrwy.—Hom. JI. xvi. 457.
μηδὲ νεκρῶν ὡς φθιμένων χῶμα νομιζέσθω τύμβος σᾶς ἀλόχου, θεοῖσι δ᾽ ὁμοίως τιμᾶσθω.--- τσ. Ale. 995.
The Erinyes were primarily ghosts; the omphalos was their sanctuary, the grave they haunted. That in brief is the proposition before us.
It may be noted at the outset that the view here set forth of the omphalos is in accordance with ancient tradition. The omphalos was variously reputed to be the grave either of the Python or of Dionysos. Varro (de ling. Lat. vii. 17) says, ‘Delphis in aede ad latus est quiddam ut thesauri specie, quod Graeci vocant ὀμφαλόν, quem Pythonis aiunt tumulum.’ Hesychius s.v. To&/ov Bouvos says ἐκεῖ yap (ic. ἐν Δελφοῖς) ὁ δράκων κατε- τοξεύθη καὶ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς τῆς γῆς τάφος ἐστὶ τοῦ Πύθωνος. Tatian, «ἕν, Graecos (8. 251) holds that the omphalos is the tomb of Dionysos (ὁ δὲ ὀμφαλὸς τάφος ἐστὶ Διονύσου). The Dionysos view is practically a dupli- cation of the Python view and need not here concern us; if we were discussing the origin of Dionysos it would be easy to show that his familiar vehicle is the snake. The passage of Varro is important; he clearly regarded the ὀμφαλός not as a mere white stone but as a structure of the nature of a beehive tomb (thesaurus). The shape of such a tomb is described by Pausanias (ix. 38) λέθου μὲν εἴργασται, σχῆμα δὲ περιφερές ἐστιν αὐτῷ κορυφὴ δὲ οὐκ ἐς ἄγαν ὀξὺ ἀνηγμένη: τὸν δὲ ἀνωτάτω τῶν λίθων φασὶν ἁρμονίαν παντὶ εἶναι τῷ οἰκοδομήματι. Aristotle (de ἽΠιμπεῖ. vii. 20) says that the keystones
1 Reference to authorities on the omphalos will be found enumerated by Mr. Frazer in his Commentary to Pausanias, vol. vy. pp. 315-319, with an enumeration of the principal interpre- tations, and abundant citation of primitive parallels. To Ulrichs belongs the credit of having first discovered the connection between
the omphalos and Gaia (Ulrichs, Lteisen und Forschungen, i. p. 77). To the authorities enu- merated by Mr. Frazer I would only add Otto Gruppe’s ‘ Griechische Mythologie—Delphoi,’ p. 100 in Iwan von Miller's Handbuch Ba. V. ii., and the very learned and valuable article on Kronos by Dr. Max. Mayerin Roscher’s Lexicon,
226 JANE EF. HARRISON.
of these vault-like buildings were called ὀμφαλοί: οἱ ὀμφαλοὶ δὲ λεγόμενοι οἱ ἐν ταῖς ψάλισι λίθοι, οἱ μέσοι κείμενοι. This may be the clue to the obscure statement of Hippolytus referred to above (p. 224), 1.6. that the ὀμφαλός was said to be ἁρμονία; I shall return later to the probable etymology of the word.
If then the omphalos were a miniature beehive tomb, it would exactly accord in shape and appearance with the ordinary white grave-mound so frequently seen on vases.!_ Instances have already been cited, and are too familiar to need enumeration. The normal monument among a people who bury their dead is a mound of earth, χῶμα γῆς. This may be left plain or surmounted by a stele, a vase, or tripod. Various arrangements of stele and τύμβος are well seen in Benndorf’s Griechische wnd Sicilische Vasenbilder, Taf. xxiv. We have a τύμβος alone—just a grave-mound, to either side of which is a tree that would suffice to indicate the grove; we have a stele side by side with a τύμβος ; and we have both erected on a basis of three steps. If it is desired to make the τύμβος conspicuous, so that the survivors may avoid the taboo of contact, the τύμβος may be covered with white paint or stucco, which will serve the further purpose of preserving it from the weather. This λεύκωμα Was in use at Athens, as we know from the prescription of Solon (see Brueckner, infra) ; further, of recent years partial remains of these perishable tombs have come to light at Vurva (Jahrbuch, 1891, p. 197, A. Brueckner). These fragile structures might be copied in stone. If my conjecture is correct the later form of the omphalos, e.g. such a structure as has been found by the French excavators (Bulletin de Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 180), was probably a copy in stone. The omphalos seen by Pausanias he speaks of, not as a Gos, but as λίθου πεποιημένος. Another analogy between grave-mound and omphalos 1emains to be noted. In the curious and very important ‘Tyrrhenian’ amphora recently published by Mr. Walters in this Journal (Vol. xviii. 1898, Pl. XV.) we have the scene of the slaying of Polyxena on the grave of Achilles. That the actual grave is represented there can be, I think, no doubt. On all other representations of the same scene the slaughter of Polyxena isa sacrifice performed expressly on the tomb of Achilles (Overbeck, Gall. her, Bildw. 27,17), and in the present instance the vase- painter takes the greatest care that the blood of the victim should fall precisely on the tomb. The purport is clear; the Erinys of Achilles, the angry ghost within the tomb, is to be appeased. The mound then, though contrary to custom it is flattened at the top (see Mr. Walters, doc. cit.), is a τύμβος, but—and this is the interesting part—it is decorated with a diaper pattern like the well-known ‘ βωμός ᾿ omphalos of the Munich vase (Gerhard, A.V. 220 = Munich, 124).
Yet another point. The omphalos was, we know, regarded as an altar. The scholiast on Hum. 40 says idotca yap ᾿Ορέστην ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ.
! On some vase-paintings the omphalos is Bosanquet in the last number of the Hellenic figured as egg-shaped. At first sight this might Journal (xix. pl. 2) just such an egg-shaped seem fatal to the analogy of omphalosand τύμβυς, τύμβος is represented. but in a white lekythos published by Mr, R. C.
DELPHIKA. 227
Moreover its constant function as a mercy-seat stamps it as an altar; the vase in question shows us the τύμβος actually serving as βωμός. The βωμοειδὴς τάφος is the βωμός. Dr. Reichel, in his very interesting monograph on the Vorhellenische Géttercultur, tries to show that the primary notion of the
altar is found in the seat or throne. I agree with him that the seat came
oS
Fic. 7.—DkrsIGN From KoryLos IN Musto NAZIONALE, NAPLEs.
before the table, but both are late and anthropomorphic, the vague holy place or thing must have preceded them. That the ὀμφαλός was a seat or throne needs no demonstration. Apollo is constantly represented on vase- paintings and coins seated on the omphalos. Gaia was too primitive and aneikonic, too involved iz it to sit on it.
Fic. 8.—Kory.Los In Museo NAzIONALE, NAPLEs.
The three notions of altar, tomb and mercy-seat all merge in that of holy place, but apparently the tomb is the primary notion. A fourth must be added—that of μαντεῖον. The βωμοειδὴς τάφος as μαντεῖον is clearly shown on a vase published (Figs. 7 and 8) for the first time and now in the
228 JANE E. HARRISON.
Museum at Naples (Cat. 2458). The design is completely misunderstood by Heydemann in his description in the Naples Catalogue. He takes the central object for a ‘Felshéhle in der cin weisses Reh steht.’ It is I think clearly a tumulus with a coat of λεύκωμα, decorated on one side with a stag, on the other with a large snake. The technique of the vase calls for no special comment; it is of good black-figured style, with a liberal use of white in details. The scenes on obverse and reverse are substantially the same. In a grove represented by formal trees and foliage stands a grave-mound; to each side of it is seated a warrior, who turns towards the grave-mound, attentively watching it. On the obverse an eagle with a hare in its claws is perched on the mound; on the reverse an eagle holding a snake. Both devices represent well-known portents. The eagles black and white
βοσκόμενοι λαγίναν ἐρικύμονα φέρματι γένναν (AESCH. Ag. 110)
,» Zn 4
Fic. 9 —DrsigN rrom LEKYTHOS IN MusEo NAZIONALE, NAPLES.
are finely paralleled on the coins of Agrigentum (Head, Hist. Num. p. 105) and both Agrigentum and Elis bave also the single eagle devouring the hare. Here then we have two warriors watching for an omen at ἃ τύμβος. It may perhaps be urged that the omen only accidentally appears on the grave-mound, which would be a convenient place for the birds to perch, but the warriors have not the air of casual passers by, and certainly look as if they had taken up seats intended for systematic observation. It is tempting to see in the two warriors Agamemnon and Menelaos, and in the tomb decorated by the deer the grave of Iphigeneia; but this would be rather too bold a prolepsis even for a vase-painter. It does not,’ however, seem rash to conclude that a τύμβος was used as a μαντεῖον, though the omen in this case is an external one, Primitive man is not particular as to how he gets his omens; he might come to a tomb to hear a voice or see a snake, but if he saw a strange bird or anything significant like the eagle and the hare, that would suffice. The history of the oracle at Delphi reveals many forms of omen-taking. The
DELPHIKA. 229
tomb then, like the omphalos, could be regarded not only as an altar and a mercy-seat, but also as a μαντεῖον ; the μαντεῖον aspect of the omphalos at Delphi needs no emphasizing,
Another vase hitherto unpublished and also in the Naples Museum adds a new feature to the τύμβος- ὀμφαλός theory. The vasein question, a black-figured lekythos (Figs. 9 and 10), was acquired by the Museum in 1880 and therefore does not appear in Heydemann’s catalogue.' Its inventory number is 111609 ; its height 0°19 m. The neck and frieze round the top of the body are cream- coloured, the body red with black figures, the face, feet and arms of the female figure are white, also the ornament on the warrior’s helmet and a portion of the handle of his club, and the grave-mound, the crest on the shield, two broad stripes representing his sword- belt, and the end of the sword-sheath; the centre of the design is occupied by a white grave-mound surmounted by a black ‘baetyl.’ To the left, a male and female figure advance towards the grave- mound ; the man holds an uplifted sword, the woman stretches out her right hand with a gesture as if she intended rather to emphasize than to check the man’s act. To the left is a man with a shield on his left arm; his right hand is hidden, but from the position of the elbow he seems to hold a spear or sword, but not to hold it uplifted. Behind, a bearded man watches, leaning on his sword. The inscrip- tions are illegible and almost certainly unmeaning. The design may have some mythological intent; if so, I am unable to interpret it, nor is any special mythological interpretation necessary for my argu- ment.
This much is clear, that some ceremony is being enacted at a tomb between two men, and presumably the ceremony is of the nature of a pact ratified by an oath. It is quite consonant with Greek habits πο. 10.—LeKxyruos in of thought that oaths should be taken at the tomb usxo NaztonaLe, ΝΑΡ ΕΒ, of an ancestor, but J am unable to recall any definite instance. Prof. Ridgeway kindly reminds me that such was the regular practice among the Libyan tribe of the Nasamones. Herodotus iv. 172 notes their use of tombs for oaths and dream-oracles. ὋὉρκίοισι δὲ καὶ μαντικῇ χρέωνται τοιῇδε: ὀμνύουσι μὲν τοὺς Tapa σφίσι ἄνδρας δικαιοτάτους καὶ ἀρίστους λεγομένους γενέσθαι τούτους τῶν τύμβων ἁπτόμενοι. μαντεύονται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν προγόνων φοιτέοντες τὰ σήματα καὶ κατευξάμενοι ἐπικατακοι-
1 My grateful thanks are due to Signor Da Hutton who kindly superintended the necessary Petra, the Director of the Naples Museum, photographs. The drawing in Fig. 9 was made for his permission to publish this and the under considerable difficulties by Mr. Anderson. vase in Figs. 7, 8, and also to Miss Amy
230 JANE E. HARRISON.
μῶνται: τὸ δ᾽ ἂν ἴδη ἐν τῇ ὄψι ἐνύπνιον τούτῳ χρᾶται. Here the oath is by the laying hold of the tomb, and probably this is a more primitive form than the mere uplifting of the sword. It may be urged that as Herodotus specially notes the custom, it must have been foreign to Greek practice, but this argument will not hold, as he mentions the dream-oracle also and seems unaware that the dream-oracles of the heroes, Amphilochos, Amphiaraos and Asklepios, are cases exactly analogous. It will not be forgotten that the ancient oracles of Gaia at Delphi are of the order of dream-oracles sent by Night which Euripides by a probably wilful inversion represents as inmnova- tions. Long after the coming of Apollo men still like the Nasamones slept on the ground that they might hear earth’s voice.
Θέμιν δ᾽ ἐπεὶ yaiwv παῖς ἀπενάσσεν ὁ Λα- rn > ‘ / -τῴος ἀπὸ ζαθέων χρηστηρίων, νύχια \ ’ , ΄ 9... 3, Ul χθὼν ἐτεκνώσατο φάσματ᾽ ὀνείρων, οἱ πολέσιν μερόπων τά τε πρῶτα τά τ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἔμελλε τυχεῖν ef \ 2s ὕπνου κατὰ dvopepas ΄, ΝΜ , χαμεύνας ἔφραζον σκοτίου, ce 2129 , \ μαντεῖον δ᾽ ἀφείλετο τιμὰν Φοῖβον φθόνῳ θυγατρός. Tphig. in αι». 1260.
If the omphalos was indeed a tomb the parallel is complete.
Although I am unable to point to a definite instance in which an oath was taken at a grave, still it is well known that oaths were taken by local heroes and it seems not improbable that such would be taken at the actual grave. E.g.by Sosipolis,who was an ἐπιχώριος δαίμων appearing in serpent form, oaths were taken on most important occasions ἐπὶ μεγίστοις (Paus. vi. 20. 2) ; oaths by ancestors are frequent, c.g. μάρτυρας δὲ θεοὺς τούς τε ὁρκίους τότε γενομένους ποιούμενοι Kal τοὺς ὑμετέρους πατρῴους καὶ ἡμετέρους ἐγχωρίους. In a well-known relief in Paris (Roscher, Lexikon, Heros, p. 2499) we have a representation of hero-worship. The hero Theseus stands above a low βωμός, or ἐσχάρα with flat top just like that referred on p. 226. Sosippos, the dedicator of the relief, approaches him with hand uplifted in prayer. Here the hero Theseus must be represented at his own βωμοειδὴς τάφος. The curious altar discovered in the Heroon at Olympia must have been a similar structure. It is rightly explained by Curtius (Die Altare von Olympia 21 ff. Taf. I.) as the ἐσχάρα of the heroes. It is a low mound of earth about 0°37 metres high, the top covered with tiles and the sides covered over with layers of a sort of λεύκωμα. These have been constantly
2 Since I wrote the above Dr. Verrall has phoroi on the tomb of Agamemnon (Choeph, v. kindly drawn my attention to the imprecation 105) αἰδουμένη σοι βωμὸν ὡς τύμβον πατρὸς made by the leader of the Chorus in the Choe. λέξω, x.7.A.
DELPHIKA. 231
renewed, and on each successive layer the inscription HPQOP occurs. There are over 13 of these inscribed layers. Prof. Curtius quotes the Scholiast on Eur. Phoen, 274-284—€ayapa ἔνθα σφαγιάξουσι τοῖς κάτω, μὴ ἔχουσα ὕψος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὖσα. Τη contrast to βωμοὶ ἐκ λίθων ὑψωμένοι they are βωμοὶ ἰσόπεδοι ὀυδ᾽ ἐκ λίθων πεποιημένοι. The erecting of such a γήϊνος βωμός was expressly prescribed down to late times at certain magical ceremonies (Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 170). The Erinyes as we have seen are only the ghosts (welling in tombs; they are specially the avengers of the violated oath and of oaths which were taken at tombs; this would lend them a new fitness. We are too apt to think of an oath as a special judicial ceremony but loosely con- nected with religion ; to primitive man it is only a specially sacred and important form of invocation. Like most ancient things it had its two sides, for better for worse; καὶ εὐορκοῦντι μέν μοι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ, ἐπιορκοῦντι δ' ἐξώλεια αὐτῷ TE καὶ γένει, so ended the oath of the Athenian Heliasts. If we may trust Aristotle, the oath was the eldest and most venerable of created things. Styx, the ordeal-water, was from the beginning ; "OQxeavov te yap καὶ Τηθὺν ἐποίησαν τῆς γενέσεως πατέρας καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τῶν θεῶν ὕδωρ, THY καλουμένην ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν Στύγα τῶν ποιητῶν. τιμιώτατον μὲν γὰρ τὸ πρεσβύτατον, ὅρκος δὲ τὸ τιμιώτατόν ἐστιν (Arist. Metaph.i. 3, 989. δ). Finally, the general sanctity of sepulchres throughout Greece is evidenced by an interesting passage in the Tusculan Disputations of Cicero, in which he argues with justice that most of the gods of Greece are but mortals translated. ‘Quid? Ino Cadmi filia nonne Leucothea nominata a Graecis Matuta habetur a nostris? quid? totum prope coelum, ne plures persequar, nonne humano genere completum est?’ Si vero scrutari vetera et ex his ea quae scriptores Graeci prodiderunt eruere coner, ipsi illi maiorum gentium dii qui habentur hine a vobis profecti in coelum reperientur. Quaere quorum demonstrantur sepulcra in Graecia; reminiscere (quoniam es initiatus) quae traduntur mysteriis, tum denique quam hoc late pateat intelliges, (Cic. Z’usc. Disputat. I. 13). Cicero is right, though he misses a step in the process; dead men went to the sky as gods finally, but they went as heroes to the lower world first, as chthonic powers, before they became Olympian.
We have then in the vase before us a scene of worship, invocation, or adjuration of a hero taking place at an omphalos-grave-mound. I reserve for the present the discussion of the baetyl stone that surmounts it. It may fairly be asked at this point, supposing the omphalos to be the tomb of a hero or heroine, have we at Delphi any evidence that there was a special hero cultus carried on? We know from the scholiast to Pind. Nem. vii. 68 that there was a general festival of heroes at which Apollo was supposed to be host, γένεται ἐν Δελφοῖς ἥρωσι ξένια ἐν οἷς δοκεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ξένια καλεῖν τοὺς ἥρωας, a curious mythological inversion, for undoubtedly the guests were there long before the host. But fortunately for our argument we know not only of a general guest-feast for heroes, but of a special festival of great moment, held every nine years and called Herois. Before passing to the exposi- tion of this festival, it may be noted that the word ἥρως seems originally to have had an adjectival meaning like Semnae, Kumenides, etc. and this survives
232 JANE E. HARRISON.
in the gloss of Hesychius fjpws- δυνατός ἰσχυρός γενναῖος σεμνός. Dead men, οὗ πρότεροι ἄνδρες, are regarded as κρείττονες, ἡρῶες, μεγάλοι, and gradually the cultus adjective changes to substantive, as in the case of Kore, Parthenos, Maia, and the like.
Pintarch in his priceless Quaestiones Graeeae (xii.) asks Tis ἡ παρὰ Δελφοῖς Xapira ; τρεῖς ἄγουσι Δελφοὶ ἐνναετηρέδας κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς, ὧν τὴν μὲν Στεπτήριον καλοῦσι τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Ηρωΐδα τὴν δὲ Χαρίλαν... Τῆς δὲ Ηρωΐδος τὰ πλεῖστα μυστικὸν ἔχει λόγον ὃν ἴσασιν αἱ Θυϊάδες ἐκ δὲ τῶν δρωμένων φανερῶς Σεμέλης ἄν τις ἀναγωγὴν εἰκάσειε. This is all our information about the festival but it is enough. Dr. Kretschmer has shown (Aus der Anomia, Ρ. 20) that Semele-Xayvvn is one of the countless Ge-Demeter earth- goddesses whose κάθοδος and ἄνοδος were celebrated throughout Greece in
Fic. 11.—AnopEs or THE EartH-Goppuss. (Krater at Berlin.)
most primitive fashion in the Thesmophoria. The κάθοδος is the yapsXa, the burying of the girl figure in the chasms or megara, the ἄνοδος or resurrection festival is the Herois. How that ἄνοδος, that resurrection was figured is seen clearly in a vase painting (Fig. 11) published and I venture to think wrongly explained by Dr. Robert in his Archiologische Mahrchen (PL 4, p. 196). Dr. Robert takes the picture to represent the birth of a spring nymph. But the figure half-rising from the earth can be none other than the earth-goddess, call her Gaia or Demeter or Kore or Pandora as you will. She rises up through the χῶμα γῆς, the omphalos, the grave-mound, which is coated with the usual stucco. We have in this vase painting exactly what we want, the transition from the dead heroine to the goddess, and from the earth mound itself to the anthropomorphic divinity. A festival of
DELPHIKA. 233
Herois rather than of heroes takes us back of course to matriarchai days and it was in matriarchal days that the cult of Gaia must have emerged and developed. Wherever inhumation was practised Gaia cultus and ghost cultus would be closely connected. In Asia Minor, where rock burial pre- vailed, naturally the symbol of the earth mother would be not a χῶμα γῆς, but a rough hewn rock or some sort of ἀργὸς λέθος. It is in Asia Minor apparently that the eikonic worship of the mother was developed. We see her image emerging from the block of stone on rock tombs (e.g. at Arslan — Kaia in Phrygia, as shown in Athen. Mittheilungen, 1898, Taf. ii.). And the conical stone of the mother is seen on coins of Perga gradually assuming some semblance of human form (Gerhard, Metroén, Taf. lix.). Where the tomb was simply a χῶμα γῆς the worship of Gaia seems longer to have remained aneikonic. The altar served for an eikon, as according to Porphyry (De Abst. τι. 56) was the case among certain Arabians, κατ᾽ ἔτος ἕκαστον ἔθυον παῖδα ὃν ὑπὸ βωμὸν ἔθαπτον, ᾧ χρῶνται ws ξοάνῳ.
The χῶμα γῆς as the sanctuary of the earth-goddess is not con- fined to the Greeks. Bastian (Loango, p. 88) gives an account of his visit to the oracle of Bimsi the mother of the Fetishes (Mama Mokissie). It was enclosed in a thicket difficult of access. Bimsi’s dwelling consisted of a pyramid of earth rising in somewhat arched form out of the earth beneath a small tree. Unfortunately the place was so sacred that the traveller was not allowed to approach quite near, but he could distinguish a small hut near the mound with a couch in it for Bimsi when she rose out of the earth to give her oracles. On the couch mats were spread ; in fact, it was a kind of lectisternium with the usual στρώματα. Bimsi gave oracles and instruction to kings on their coronation; when there was no king she was silent, which reminds us of the silence at Delphi when Apollo was away. When there was a drought or floods, ceremonies of atone- ment were performed at the sanctuary of Bimsi.
The oracular mound of Bimsi reminds us not only of the omphalos at Delphi,
O sancte Apollo qui umbilicum certum terrarum obsides Unde superstitiosa primum sacra evasit vox fera, Cic. de Div. ii. 56,
but also of another μαντεῖον, not called by the name of Ge, but belonging, I think, undoubtedly to her stratum of belief, I mean the ancient oracle of Trophonios, where the suppliant had to go actually down into the earth to obtain his response. ‘The shape of the structure,’ Pausanias says, ‘was like that of a baking pot, τοῦ δὲ οἰκοδομήματος τούτου τὸ σχῆμα εἴκασται κριβάνῳ (P. ix. 39, 10, v. Mr. Frazer ad loc.). The conclusion seems natural that we have here a structure like a small beehive tomb. The offering of the suppliant was a honey cake, as to the serpent heroes Sosipolis and Erichthonios: as noted before, it is probable that here "Ayan Τύχη is the hypostasis of Ge. 1.S.—VOL. XIX. R
234 JANE E. HARRISON.
It would carry me too far to examine all the various χώματα γῆς of Greece. I can only in passing note my conviction that the Τοξίου Bovvos (Hesych., sub. voc.) of Sioyon was taken over by Apollo from Ge, a parallel case to the taking over of the omphalos, and that the χῶμα γῆς on the summit of Mt. Lycaon (P. viii. 38, 7) had a like origin. It is remarkable that in front of the χῶμα γῆς were two eagles on pillars, which again remind us of the eagles of the omphalos. The grave-mound of Kallisto was a similar case, and a very instructive one. Below Krouni, in Arcadia, Pausanias (viii. 88, 8) saw the tomb (τάφος) of Kallisto. It was a χῶμα γῆς ὑψηλόν surrounded by trees, and on the top of the mound was a sanctuary of Artemis with the title of Kalliste; here veritably we watch the transformation of heroine into goddess. In remote America we have the like χώματα γῆς. Mr. Payne in his History of the New World (vol. 1. p. 465) notes the earth worship of the primitive inhabitants of Mexico: ‘Among the buildings and enclosures included in the great sacred precinct or quarter of the gods at Mexico, was a mound or group of mounds called Teotlapan, or place of the Divine Earth or Soil. It was a monument of the primitive religion of the Otomis, the aborigines of Anahuac. To the earth mother a pathetic prayer was addressed by the people of Callao,
Mother of all things, Let me (too) be thy child,
which reminds us of the prayer of the priestesses ab Dodona. Τῇ καρποὺς ἀνίει, διὸ κλήζετε μητέρα γαῖαν.
It is interesting, too, to learn again from Mr. Payne that as agriculture advances, the earth goddess developes into the maize goddess, Gaia into Demeter.
By the help of the vase painting reproduced in Fig. 12, I venture also to class the mound on which the Sphinx of Thebes sat as an ὀμφαλὸς γῆς, an oracular tomb-mound. The vase in question in the Vagnonville collection was first published by Prof. L. A. Milani in the Museo Topografico di Etruria (p. 69), and there briefly noted. It is further discussed in the first issue of the Studtie Materiali di Arch. Num (vol.i., Part 1, p. 64), by Sig. Augusto Mancini. Sig. Mancini holds that the mound on which the Sphinx is seated is the Sphingion or Phikion as it was variously called. Prof. Milani in the same issue (p. 71) rejects the Sphingion interpretation and maintains that the mound is a tumulus—‘Si tratti di un tumulo e propriamente di un tombe a tumulo non gia del solito monte Phikion ὁ Sphingion.” To my mind both interpreters are right; the mound is a Sphingion, it is also a τύμβος, for the Sphingion was a τύμβος, and the Sphinx herself is probably the oracular earth goddess with the vexatious habit of asking questions instead of answer- ing them. My view is, I think, confirmed by the curious and interesting vase (Heydemann, Naples Cat. 2840), discussed and brilliantly interpreted by Dr. Otto Crusius (Festschrift fiir J. Overbeck, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 102-108). In
DELPHTKA, 235
this design, parallel with the omphalos mound on which the Sphinx is seated, a snake uprears itself. I cannot agree with Dr. Crusius that the snake is a mere ‘ Raumausfiillung’—the snake is the symbol and vehicle of the earth oracle. Dr, Crusius adduces the snake behind the well in the Cyrene vase (4.2. 1881, Pl. XII. 1), but here again I believe the second snake is added simply because the well is snake-haunted. Euripides regarded the Sphinx as chthonic, τὰν ὁ κατὰ χθονὸς Aidas Καδμείοις ἐπιπέμπει.---ὐπι. Τλοον. 810.
Of course almost any monster might by the time of Euripides come from Hades, but I am by no means sure that the words are not a reminiscence of primitive tradition rather than ‘eine rein dichterische Umschreibung seines Wesens.’ The great Sphinx of the Naxians stood, it will be remembered, in
Fig. 12.—KRarrer IN THE VAGNONVILLE COLLECTION. (Milani, Museo Topograjfico, p. 69.)
the precinct of Gaia at Delphi (Frazer, Pausanios, x. 12), and if she was but another form of the oracular earth-goddess, her station there gains in significance. On the coins of Gergis in the Troad (Head, 7{|8έ. Num. p. 472) we have on the obverse the head of the famous Sibyl of the Troad, on the reverse the Sphinx her counterpart. That the head is the head of the Sibyl is distinctly stated by Stephanus Byzantinus. In Hesiod’s Theogony the Sphinx belongs to the earth-born brood, the race of Typhon, Echidna and the like (Hes. Zhcog. 326). In her nature she is near akin to the Kjpes—in fact she appears as a sort of personified death. She is also an Erinys. Haemon, according to one version of his story, had slain a kinsman and was obliged to take flight (Schol. ad Pind. Ol. ii. 14). According to another version he was slain by the Sphinx (Apollod. 3, 5, 8). What. par- ticular form a monster assumed is really a question of survival. In the remarkable Berlin vase, where the Sphinx is not inscribed Sphinx, but simply Κασσμία, ic. ‘the Kadmean one’ (Jahrbuch, 1890, Anzeiger, p. 119, Fig. 17), R 2
236 JANE,E HARRISON.
she is represented as a curious monster, but not with a lion’s body. That has passed to Oedipus, who stands before her as postulant. On the Oedipus vase published by Hartwig (Philolog. 1897, Taf. I.) the Sphinx again has no lion’s body—she is simply a lean nude woman with wings. To take another case: we think of Medusa as a woman, possibly winged, but of the customary Gorgon shape, but on a very archaic Boeotian vase in the Louvre (Bull. de Cor, Hell. 1898, Pl. V.) she appears as a Centaur, 1.6. with the tra- ditional Gorgon head, but a woman’s body draped, and the body and hind legs of a horse appended. The Sphinx got the body of a lion, the Erinys developed out of a snake into an Artemis, but, as we have seen on the Naples vase (p. 234), she, like the Erinys, keeps the snake as πρόπολος. I do not of course deny for a moment that there was a real mountain Φέκιον or Φέκειον. Mr. Frazer says that the rocky mountain (1,860 ft. high) which rises to the S.E. corner of the Copaic lake still bears the name of Phaga. Probably the Sphinx or Phix took her name from the mountain—not the mountain from the Sphinx; the mountain actually existed, the Sphinx presumably did not. What I suppose is this: on the top of Phikeion mountain was a χῶμα γῆς. As on the top of Mt. Lycaon, that χῶμα γῆς was a tomb such as is repre- sented on the vase-painting in Fig. 11, and it was haunted by a bogey, a Mormo, an Erinys, a Ker called Phix because she lived on Phikeion. When there was a pestilence it was not unnaturally supposed that the bogey came down and carried away the sons of the Thebans. The bogey was also probably oracular, the tomb ἃ μαντεῖον. T'rom answering questions to asking unanswerable ones is not far. As regards the lion shape I mav offer a sug- gestion. I do not think it necessary to go to Egypt for the idea, though possibly the art form was borrowed. Cithaeron was traditionally lion- haunted. Pausanias (i. 41, 4) tells the story of how Megareus offered his daughter in marriage to whoever would slay the lion of Cithaeron, who was ravaging the land and had slain even the king’s son. Alcathous slew the beast. It is possible that we do not require even the pestilence, that the Sphinx was a real lion who haunted a tomb, as wild beasts often do. That the tomb is an integral part of the story I am convinced both from the representations on vases and from the funeral character of the Sphinx.
I return to the vase-painting in Figs. 9 and 10. So far I have dealt only with the white τάφος βωμοειδής, marked by the hero-snake. It re- mains to complete the argument by considering the black baetyl stone that surmounts it.
That the black stone surmounting the grave mound is a baetyl or fetich stone utilised as a kind of rude stelé scarcely admits of question. The stone in colour and shape closely resembles the ‘Terpon’ stone found at Antibes which we know from its inscription to have been sacred to Aphrodite (Kaibel, Inscr. Gall. 2424). There was in antiquity and is now among savages a widespread tendency to worship stones of peculiar colour or shape. The natural aerolith was usually black and its sanctity was proved by its descend- ing from the sky. The whole question of the supposed niger lapis has just now become of immediate special interest owing to the discovery in the Forum of
DELPHIKA. 237
what has been alleged to be the black stone of Romulus (see especially C. Smith, Classical Review, Feb. 1899, p.87). This black stone of Romulus or Faustulus is of great importance to my argument because of its connection with the two lions and hence with the cult of the mother of the gods. Rhea-Cybele was of course only the more primitive Asiatic form of the EKarth-Mother, Gaia; lions were her natural sacred beasts as long as there were lions where she was wor- shipped, and they survived in Asia Minor long after they were practically extinct-in Greece proper. The black stone was the recognised vehicle or fetich of the mother god. When Pindar (Pyth. iii. 77) is ‘minded to pray to the Mother’ for his friend Hiero, it is because the Mother has special power to heal madness. There is a shrine of the Mother before his very door— ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεύξασθαι μὲν ἐγὼν ἐθέλω Ματρὶ, τὰν κοῦραι παρ᾽ ἐμὸν πρόθυρον...
and the Scholiast recounts the occasion of the founding of the shrine ; how there was a great thunder-storm, and a stone image of the mother of the gods fell at Pindar’s feet καὶ ψόφον ἱκανὸν καὶ φλόγα ἰδεῖν καταφερομένην. τὸν δὲ Πένδαρον ἐπαισθόμενον συνιδεῖν Μητρὸς θεῶν ἄγαλμα λίθινον τοῖς ποσὶν ἐπερχόμενον... πα when Pindar asked the oracle what was to be done, τὸν δὲ ἀνειπεῖν Μητρὸς Θεῶν ἱερὸν idpvcécOar...and the prayer of Pindar is thus explained: of δὲ ὅτε καθάρτριά ἐστι τῆς μανίας ἡ θεός. Pindar addresses the Mother not as Rhea, but simply as σεμνὰν θεόν, reminding us of the Semnae who are simply her duplications. The Pindar story is impor- tant because we are apt to think of the worship of the Mother of the Gods as imported, late and purely foreign. No doubt the primitive orgiastic Asiatic worship did come in again from without, but the Mother only came back to her own people who had halft-forgotten her.
The kathartic power of the Mother’s aerolithic stone is of great import- ance. The mother had power to drive men mad in her angry aspect as Erinys, she and her daughters the Maniae ; her stone had also power to cleanse them, for she was Lusia, There is a stone at Dunsany, co. Louth, called the Madman’s Stone, and lunatics are seated upon it to bring them to reason (Lady Wilde, Ancient Cures, Customs, etc. in Ireland, p. 70). If the stone was a large one you would sit on it, if a small one you would hold it in your hand ; the main thing was to get in contact with the divine vehicle. All the various functions of these stones, prophetic, kathartic, prophylactic, etc., are only various manifestations of its supernatural power. In primitive days a sacred stone is a god of all work. Thus we have the famous Jupiter lapis that was good to swear by,! there was the stone by which an oath was taken in
the Stoa Basileios (Dem. ὁ. Con. § 26) πρὸς τὸν λίθον" ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες,
1 For the discussion respecting the Jupiter apis and the Δία λίθον of Polybius, iii. 25, see Strachan Davidson, Selections from Polybius, Prolegomen. viii. Mr. Strachan Davidson ac- cepts the emendation δΔιάλιθον without hesita- tion; but see also C. Wunderer, ‘Die iilteste Eidesformel der Rémer (zu Polybius iii. 25, 6),’
Philolog. 1897, p. 189.
2 Altered from βωμός to λίθος on the authority of Harpocration by Dindorf and,Westermann, and now confirmed by Aristotle, Ath. Resp. 7 : οἱ δ᾽ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες ὄμνυντες πρὸς τῷ λίθῳ K.T.As Hesychius explains λίθος as βῶλος, βωμός καὶ βάσις.
238 JANE E. HARRISON.
there was the stone at Athens which had aspecial priest to carry it, the ἱερεὺς λιθοφόρος (C.I.A. iii. 240) whose seat remains in the Dionysiac theatre. There was the lapis Manalis reputed to be the gate of Orcus and open only on certain days that the Manes, the souls, might issue forth, a manifest grave stone (Preller, Jordan, p. 354). The often cited ‘ Bethel’ of Jacob is of interest because like the omphalos at Delphi it was connected with a dieam oracle. The enumeration of all the various wonder-stones even of classical antiquity would take us much too far. They are discussed in Pauly-Wissowa, 8.0. ἀργοὶ λίθοι and βαίτυλος, and for savage parallels I may refer to Mr. Frazer (Comment, Paus. x. 16, 3 and viii. 25, 4), At present I must confine myself to the more immediate analogies between the vase painting under discussion and the omphalos.
At the first glance, there will probably occur to any archaeologist the analogy of a curious monument mentioned by Pausanias. At Megalopolis in Messene, it will be remembered (p. 208), there was a sanctuary of the Maniae where, it was reported, Orestes went mad after his mother’s slaughter. The words that follow (Paus. viii. 34, 2) are so important that I prefer to quote them in the original : οὐ πόρρω δὲ τοῦ ἱεροῦ γῆς χῶμά ἐστιν ov μέγα, ἐπίθημα ἔχον λίθου πεποιημένον δάκτυλον, καὶ δὴ καὶ ὄνομα τῷ χώματί ἐστι Δακτύλου μνῆμα. Mr. Frazer translates ‘not far from the sanctuary is a smal! mound of earth surmounted by a finger made of stone—indeed the mound is named Finger’s tomb.’ I prefer to render the last sentence, ‘Indeed the mound is named Dactyl’s monument.’ Pausanias says the story went, that when the goddesses were driving Orestes out of his wits they appeared to him black ; after he had bitten off his finger, they seemed to him white. Mr, Frazer cites a number of interesting savage parallels where atonement is made by the cutting off of a finger or other limb. Spite of these instances I believe the story about the biting off of the finger to have been late and aetiological. The supposed finger was in all probability a kathartic baetyl known as Dactyl and sacred to the Mother. These baetyl stones were called in Crete Dactyls. Pliny (ΝΜ. xxxvii. 61) says ‘Idaei dactyli in Creta, ferreo colore humanum pollicem exprimunt’ and Porphyry confirms it in his curious account (Por- phyry vit. Pyth.17) of the purification of the Cretan mystic, Κρήτης δ᾽ ἐπιβὰς τοῖς Μόργου μύσταις προσήει ἑνὸς τῶν ᾿Ιδαίων Δακτύλων vd ὧν καὶ ἐκαθάρθη τῇ κεραυνίᾳ λίθῳ. Here there is an obvious fusion of sacrament and celebrant. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to note that the Dactyls are everywhere associated with the worship of the Mother. The Argonauts, when they land in Mysia and invoke the Mother, call also on the name of two Dactyls, viz. Cyllenus and Titias
οἱ μοῦνοι πολέων μοιραγέται ἠδὲ πάρεδροι Μητέρος ᾿Ιδαίης κεκλήαται, ὅσσοι ἔασι Δάκτυλοι ᾿Ιδαῖοι Kpnravées.—APOL. Rhod, i. 1127.
The name Cyllenus is possibly of some importance in connection with the Arcadian Dactyl monument. Immerwahr (Bonner Studien p. 188) has shown abundantly that primitive cults of the Mother abounded in Arcadia, and the
DELPHIKA. 239
legend of Kronos and the stone was not wanting. It seems to me clear that Orestes was purified by a mother-stone or Dactyl, and the sanctuary he came to for purification, here as at Delphi, was an omphalos surmounted by such a stone and must have looked very like the one represented on the vase painting. Peloponnesian antiquaries said, Pausanias remarks (viii. 34), that the adven- ture of Orestes with the Furies of Clytemnestra in Arcadia happened before the trial at the Areopagos. They were right; an adventure substantially the same would happen at any time in any part of Greece whenever a kinsman was slain and the guilty man came to a mother-stone to be purified. At Troezen (viii. 31, 4) and at Gythium (iii, 22, 1), were stones connected by legend with the purification of Orestes. I do not deny that their connection with Orestes may have been late and due to the prestige conferred on Orestes by Aeschylus, but these widespread purification stones bear witness to the prevalence of this bactyl worship and its kathartie associations.
It may fairly be urged at this point that the analogy between the vase- painting and the omphalos fails at one point. The omphalos was, according to my present theory, originally a χῶμα γῆς, covercd with λεύκωμα and finally copied in stone, but we have no evidence whatever that it was sur- mounted by a bactyl. The sanctuary on the vase-painting is more complex than the omphalos. It is a τύμβος te στήλη τε, the omphalos is merely a τύμβος. This is perfectly true, and I imagine a sacred baetyl was no wise necessary to a sanctuary of Gaia. The χῶμα γῆς was all that was essential. The story of Alemacon is very instructive on this head. Alemacon, the Arcadian hero (P. viii. 24, 8) is pursued by ‘the avenger of his mother,’ τὸν ᾿Εριφύλης adkaotopa—the Krinys has not become Erinyes,—and Alemacon can obtain no relief there or anywhere till he come to a picce of new unpolluted land uncovered since the murder, és ταύτην οἱ μόνην χώραν οὐ συνακολου- θήσειν, ἥτις ἐστὶ νεωτάτη καὶ ἡ θάλασσα τοῦ μητρῴου μιάσματος ἀνέφηνεν ὕστερον ἀυτήν. Here we have the real primitive view. ΑἸ] mother earth is polluted by the blood of a mother. There is no possible release from this physical fact, no atonement. A new earth is the only possible mercy seat. Later, no doubt, a special χῶμα γῆς became the sanctuary of Gaia Erinys, where she might be appeased, and that χῶμα γῆς was naturally the tomb of a murdered hero or heroine. If that τύμβος was to have a stelé, what better stelé could be chosen than a black aerolith, sacred also to the mother 2
It must be noted at this point that, though the aeroliths fell to earth and belonged to earth, and were vehicles of the earth-mother, they tended, as anthropomorphism advanced, to differentiate off towards the side of the male god. A stone, as soon as you think of your gods anthropomorphically, is not a good symbol of a woman, a χῶμα γῆς is. In many savage races, too, as the earth is a woman so the sky 15 ἃ man, and thus stones coming from the sky tend to be regarded as vehicles of the male god, and specially of Kronos. Photius (Vit. Zsid. Bibl. p. 1048) says, τῶν βαιτύλων ἄλλον ἄλλῳ ἀνακεῖσθαι θεῷ, Κρόνῳ, Διὶ, Ηλίῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις. Hesychius says, sub voce, βαίτυλος ἐκλήθη ὁ λίθος ὃν ἀντὶ Διὸς ὁ Κρόνος κατέπιεν, and the story was popularized in the proverbial saying, καὶ βαίτυλον ἂν κατέπιες
240 JANE E. HARRISON.
(Paroimiogr. 2, 468). Zeus doubtless took over the baetyls of the more primitive Kronos cult and Kronos has many features in common with Helios- Ouranos. Eusebius (Praep. Bu. 1. 10) makes Ouranos the inventor of baetyls. Ἔτι δέ φησιν ἐπενόησε θεὸς Οὐρανὸς βαιτύλια λίθους ἐμψύχους μηχανησάμενος. This association with Helios-Kronos-Ouranos points back to the most primitive stratum of Pelasgian mythology. Kronos is everywhere the representative of the old order τὰ Κρονικά. For the full understanding of the omphalos, this is, I think, of no small importance. On the omphalos there was, at least in historical times, no baetyl stelé, but at Delphi there was such a stone, and down to the time of Pausanias it was daily anointed with oil, and at every festival fresh wool was put about it (P. x. 24. 6). Pausanias does not say what sort of stone it was, he only says it was οὐ μέγας, but adds ἔτι δὲ καὶ δόξα ἐς αὐτὸν δοθῆναι Κρόνῳ τὸν λίθον ἀντὶ [τοῦ] παιδός" καὶ ws αὖθις ἤμεσεν αὐτὸν ὁ Κρόνος. This was no mere late δόξα, for the same tradition appears in Hesiod (Zheog. 493).
> / ’ > -“ ἐπιπλομένων δ᾽ ἐνιαυτῶν Γαίης ἐννεσίησι πολυφραδέεσσι δολωθεὶς ἃ , x > / , , > , 5 ὃν γόνον arp ἀνέηκε μέγας Kpovos ἀγκυλομήτης, Ν ve / / \ cn νικηθεὶς τέχνῃσι Bindi τε παιδὸς ἑοῖο. πρῶτον δ᾽ ἐξήμεσσε λίθον, πύματον καταπίνων'" x \ \ 4 \ ‘\ > ΄ τὸν μὲν Ζεὺς στήριξε κατὰ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης Πυθοῖ ἐν ἡγαθέη γυάλοις ὑπὸ Ἰ]αρνησοῖο σῆμ᾽ ἔμεν ἐξοπίσω θαῦμα θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσι.
The whole childish, savage myth is transparent enough; the sky, Ouranos or Kronos, disgorges (ἐξήμεσσε) the aerolith; before he disgorged it he must have swallowed it. The stone was wrapped up in woollen bands, like swaddling clothes, therefore it was a child. <A baetyl carefully swathed would present an appearance very like a stiff Italian bambino, and in the the relief of the Capitoline altar (Roscher, p. 1563, Fig. 14) Rhea is pre- senting to Kronos a swaddled stone which is a very good imitation of a baby. I think, further, that. the whole myth was helped out by the fact that the stone was probably oracular and supposed to speak. In the Lithika of the Psendo-Orpheus we have a curious and interesting account of a λέθος αὐδήεις given by Phoebus Apollo to Helenos. It could only be consulted after fasting and purification; it had to be washed in pure water and clothed in soft raiment like a child; sacrifice was offered to it asa god. If all was
rightly done, and then the sacred stone dandled in the arms, the stone would utter its voice
ὁππότε γάρ μιν πάγχυ κάμῃς ἐνὶ χείρεσι πάλλων, ἐξαπίνης ὄρσει νεογιλοῦ παιδὸς ἀυτήν, pains ἐν κόλπῳ κεκληγότος ἀμφὶ γάλακτι.--- Τίμα, 372. A few lines further down the stone is called the φοιβήτωρ λᾶας, which
brings us face to face with Phoebus Apollo. The double name savours of contaminatio. Liddell and Scott say that the epithet φοῖβος refers to the
DELPHIKA. 241
purity and radiant beauty of youth, which was always a chief attribute of Apollo, They reject the old notion that Phoebus was the sun god, but I am by no means sure that the φοιβήτωρ λᾶας was not a sun or at least an Ouranos stone. There are many indications that the name Phoebus belongs to the pre-Apolline stratum, the stratum of Gaia and Kronos-Ouranos. Thus Antimachus in Hesychius sub voc. has Taniéda Φοίβην, and Phoebe the Titaness is recognized by the Delphic priestess as prior to Apollo (Aesch. Hum. 4 f.).
ἐν δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ λάχει, θελούσης οὐδε πρὸς βίαν τινός, Τιτανὶς ἄλλη παῖς χθονὸς καθέζετο Φοίβη.
This exactly corresponds to the Taniéa Φοίβην and makes Phoebe a sort of Kore to Gaia Themis. If we may trust Plutarch (de Hi xx. 1) Phoebus meant καθαρὸς and ἀμίαντος; if so Phoebe is as it were the white side, the opposite to Melaina and Erinys. He goes on to make the interesting state- ment: Φοῖβον δὲ δή που τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἁγνὸν οἱ παλαιοὶ πᾶν ὠνόμαζον ws ἔτι Θεσσαλοὶ τοὺς ἱερέας ἐν ταῖς ἀποφράσιν ἡμέραις αὐτοὺς ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἔξω διατρίβοντας οἶμαι φοιβονομεῖσθαι. Οἱ παλαιοὶ were more likely to concern themselves with questions of taboo and ceremonial sanctity than with the ‘purity and radiant beauty of youth.’ Finally the use of the word φοιβάς by Euripides should be noted. He says (Hee. 827):
ἡ Φοιβὰς ἣν καλοῦσι Κασσάνδραν Φρύγες.
Kassandra was a priestess of Gaia Phoebe, hence her official name was ἡ Φοιβάς, like ἡ Πυθώ; and here I may quote again the invaluable line of Timotheos (Frg. 1.)
Μαινάδα θυιάδα φοιβάδα λυσσάδα.
Kassandra was prophetess at the @wpos-omphalos (Gerhard, A.V. 220) of Thymbrae, a shrine taken over by Apollo as he took Delphi. The frenzy of Kassandra against Apollo is more than the bitterness of maiden betrayed, it is wrath of the prophetess of the older order discredited, despoiled :
\ a > ΄ ΄, ᾽ ΄ Dass Kal νῦν ὁ μώντις μάντιν ἐκπράξας ἐμέ.
Finally to clinch the argument there is the φοῖθος, the dream-portent of the Choephoroi (v. 32) Topos yap φοῖβος ὀρθόθριξ
δόμων ὀνειρόμαντις
which Dr. Verrall (Choephor.ad v.32) upholds against the emendation φόθος͵ The dream portent is of the very essence of the cult of Phoebe and this dream portent is the ancestral Erinys, 7.6. in very truth δόμων ὀνειρόμαντις. To return to the φοιβήτωρ λᾶας, the Pseudo-Orphic writers no doubt thought it got its name from Apollo, but it seems at least probable that Phoebe or Phoebus, her male correlative, had a prophetic, kathartic stone long before. Whether it ever actually surmounted the omphalos it is of course impossible
242 JANE E. HARRISON.
to say; the στήριξε of Hesiod looks like a formal setting up. Anyhow the point I plead for is the close analogy and association of the Κρόνου λίθος and the Τῆς ὀμφαλός ; in the light of the vase-painting in Fig. 7, and the Δακτύλου μνῆμα, it seems to me at least possible that the two once formed one monument in the relation of τύμβος and στήλη.
Some slight additional probability is added to this view when we consider that the omphalos certainly was moved. If my theory is right it must have begun as an actual tomb somewhere in what is now the pre- cinct of Gaia near the Styx-Cassotis well and the rock of the Sibyl. In the time of Aeschylus and Euripides, it was undoubtedly in the temple of Apollo. The actual grave mound could not be moved as a grave, but if it was a mound plastered with λεύκωμα and if its significance had been lost, it could easily be copied on marble and the marble copy carried to the temple. The omphalos in the time of Pausanias stood, there is little doubt, on the terrace in front of the temple, and there the actual omphalos dis- covered by the French was found! This omphalos is obviously a copy of the real cultus object, for the fillets are copied in stone; the original omphalos would of course, like the Kronos stone, be covered with the real woollen fillets. If the omphalos was so freely moved about the like fate may have overtaken the stone of Kronos; it would be smaller and easier to move. In the place where Pausanias saw it, it had no special significance, its proper home was the precinct of Gaia. The incoming worshippers of Apollo were obliged to tolerate and even venerate Gaia, but Kronos being a male god would have been an inconvenient rival to Apollo, and hence everywhere the worship of Kronos became obscured, though even down to the days of Lycophron the tradition that he first held the oracle at Delphi survived.
οἱ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ βωμὸν τοῦ προμάντιος Kpovov.
On which the scholiast (ad v. 300) : οἱ δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ Κρόνου, καί φασιν ὅτι τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς μαντεῖον πρότερον τοῦ Κρόνου ἦν, ἔνθα ἔλαβον τὸν χρησμὸν οἱ “EAAnves ὅτι τῷ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τὸ Ἴλιον πορθήσουσι.
It remains to say a word as to the primary meaning of the term omphalos ; as Tam no philologist, I can only approach the question from the point of view of tradition and usage, In the Ziad ὀμφαλός is used to mean (a) the actual navel of the human body (lad 4, 525, 13. 568), (2) the boss of ashield ; there is no necessary implication that the ὀμφαλός is a central point except in so far as anything dome-shaped has necessarily a centre; the idea seems to be that of bossiness. In the Odyssey the word occurs once only (Od. 1, 50); Calypso is said to live
Νήσῳ ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ ὅθι τ᾽ ὀμφαλός ἐστι θαλάσσης,
‘in a seagirt isle where is the navel of the sea.’
1 Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 180; Pausanias decorated with marble tainiae and from the un- v. p. 518, This omphalos is as yet unpublished wrought condition of the base was evidently but by the kindness of M. Homolle I have been — sunk in the ground. able to see a photograph, It is of white marble,
DELPHIKA. 243
Liddell and Scott say that the order of significance is as follows: (1) the navel, umbilicus, (2) anything like a navel or boss...umbo, (3) a centre or middle point, so in Od. 1, 50, and by a later legend Delphi (or rather a round stone in the Delphic temple) was called ὀμφαλός as marking the middle point of the carth, first in Pind. P. 4, 131. This sort of loose statement is only tolerated where archacology is concerned. There is nothing whatever in Od. i. 50 to imply that Calypso dwelt in the middle of the sea, Any one who has looked at a solitary island on an expanse of level sea, has seen it rise boss- like from the level of the sea; if the sea is human an island is its omphalos. If the land is human, is Gaia, the grave mound is its omphalos, Later, when mankind concerns itself with theories, cosmical and geometrical, a naive local egotism sees in the navel of Gaia the centre of the universe, and stories grow up about eagles meeting in their flight.
That is one side of the question, but the ancients themselves conjectured another meaning. The scholiast on Eurip. Orestes 321 says, ὀμφαλὸς λέγεται ἡ Πυθὼ παρὰ τὸ τὰς ὀμφὰς τὰς ὑπὸ θεοῦ χρηστηριαζόμενος λέγειν, and more decisively and polemically Cornutus (de Nat, Deor. cxxviii.), ἐλέχθη δὲ καὶ ὁ τόπος ὀμφαλὸς THs γῆς οὐχ ὡς μεσαίτατος ὧν αὐτῆς ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναδιδο- μένης ἐν αὐτῷ ὀμφῆς ἥτις ἐστὶ θεία φωνή. The word ὀμφή means especially a divine oracular utterance, and it seems possible that the two notions of the speaking oracular mound or stone and the boss-navel blended; which was prior to the other, is hard to say, but I am inclined to give precedence to the speaking mound, 1.6. the ὀμφή derivation.
For this reason. The notion of the boss, the navel, though it did not necessarily involve, yet early, as we have seen, led on to the notion of centrality. The notion of centrality is much mixed up with ideas of the central hearth, the μεσόμφαλος ἑστία, and the Hestia-Vesta conception seems to me to belong to a later order of conception than that of Gaia-Erinys, the order of Zeus and Apollo. It is noticeable that in the Rig Veda (ii. 333, Wilson) we have ‘mighty Agni—the Fire-god—stationed at the Navel of the Earth...I ask what is the uttermost end of the earth, I ask where is the navel of the world. The altar is the navel of the world. This sacrifice is the navel of the world. Agni is placed by strength upon the navel of the earth.’ It is possible that the whole idea of the centre hearth stone came in with the Achaean invasion and Hestia worship. Hestia appears to have assimilated Gaia, at least, in the cosmogony of the σοφοὶ :
καὶ Γαῖα μῆτερ, ‘Eotiav δέ σ᾽ οἱ σοφοὶ βροτῶν καλοῦσιν, ἡμένην ἐν αἰθέρι.---ΕἸ Ε1Ρ. Frg. 938. and Ovid says (} δὲ vi. 266),
Vesta eadem est et Terra subest vigil ignis utrique Significat sedem terra focusque suam.
Cornutus, it will be remembered, gives a conjoint chapter to Demeter and Hestia (Cornut. de nat. Deor. xxviii.) remarking with more truth than he was aware of, ἑκατέρα δ᾽ ἔοικεν οὐχ ἑτέρα τῆς γῆς εἶναι. In fact, theology,
244 JANE E. HARRISON,
after articulating the ἕν into the πολλά, usually resumes them into the ἕν, hence mutatis mutandis late philosophizing authors are often of considerable use in understanding primitive conditions. An Orphic hymn is nearer to primitive conceptions than the clear outlines of Homer. With the omphalos, as with the Erinyes, the difficulty lies chiefly in the analytic habit of our own minds, our determined and exclusive discriminations. We discuss endlessly whether the omphalos was a tomb, an altar, a sanctuary of Gaia, a fetish stone of Kronos, a μαντεῖον, an εἰκών, when the real solution to all our difficulties is that it was each and all.
I have kept to the end the interesting question of the attitude of Aeschylus towards this ancient ghost and Gaia cult, the Erinyes and the omphalos. How far was he conscious that the Erinyes were ghosts and snakes ? Did he know the omphalos was a tomb? If he knew all this, how far did he, to subserve a theological purpose, intentionally conceal his knowledge ?
In a parenthesis it must be noted that any mythological investigation should end, not begin, with literary conceptions. The last complete mono- graph on the Erinyes, Dr. Rosenberg’s Die Hrinyen, a valuable corpus of material, is a good instance of the wrong order of things: it is divided under four heads in the following order :—
1. Die Erinyen in der Dichtung.
2. Ueber den Ursprung, den Namen und den Begriff der Erinyen. 3. Der Cultus der Erinyen bei den Griechen.
4. Die Kunstdenkmiiler.
The true order is first cultus, which shows us to what order of beings the mythological figures in question belong, 1.6. how they were conceived of by their worshippers. Next should come the minor arts—vase-paintings and the like—because these, though not free from literary influence, are less under the dominance of Homer than e.g. the tragedies of Aeschylus-—Aeschylus who boasted that his dramas were τεμώχη from the heroic banquet. An early black-figured vase will often (¢.g. Fig. 7) yield up a conception prior to any poetry has left us. Then should follow the name, with the constant proviso that the name, if primitive, will probably be no proper name, but an adjectival cultus appellation. Last will come what is after all the supreme delight of the investigator—the examination of how far literature embodies primitive conceptions, how far transforms, what ghosts of ancient thought and feeling hover round, present but not consciously evoked. The evil results of Dr. Rosenberg’s methods are seen in his first sentence, which strikes the wrong key-note and vitiates his whole investigation. ‘Schon Homer bietet uns ein fest umrissenes Bild von dem Walten der Rachegottinnen.’ It is just this ‘fest umrissenes Bild ’ this literary crystallization that does all the mischief.
In the case of Aeschylus, it is curious to note that, probably owing to the subject-matter of the two plays, the religious attitude in the Choephoro: and the Huwmenidles is wholly different and even opposite. 1In the Choe-
DELPHIKA. 245
phorot the theology is at bottom so primitive as to be no theology at all ; it is daemonology, ghost-worship centred round a tomb. It is not necessary for me to emphasize this point beyond what I have said at p. 214; for Dr. Verrall, in his edition of the play, the keynote is the τέτας φόνος (v. 65) the ‘avenged blood’ of kinsfolk. Earth was literally, physically polluted, and poisoned the murderer—a notion precisely paralleled by Alcmacon’s story (p. 239). The Earth is Erinys and implacable. But side by side with this, almost indistinguishable from it, is the other thought that the ghost is the Erinys.
, ἄλλας τ᾽ ἐφώνει προσβολὰς 'Epwier, -“ 4 / ἐκ TOV πατρῴων αἱμάτων τελουμένας, ¢ -“ , -“ ᾽ ὁρῶντα λαμπρὸν ἐν σκότῳ νωμῶντ᾽ ὀφρύν.
‘ Apparitions of fiends’ (I borrow Dr. Verrall’s translation) ‘ brought to effect by that paternal blood, phantoms which the victim, though his eyebrows twitch in the dark, can clearly see. The ‘teXovpévas’ shows the transition in the mind of Aeschylus; he does not say the phantoms are the ghosts, but they are brought to effect by the murder. As the doctrine is quaintly put in the mouth of Apollo, with whose religion it had nothing to do, perhaps this is as as much as dramatic propriety would allow. On the word προσβολάς I would make one remark. Dr. Verrall (ad v. 282) explains that προσβολή signified properly the ‘access’ of an object to an organ of sense, and vice versd, and hence here comes to mean something practically equivalent to our apparition. To cause these προσβολαί, or, as they are sometimes called, ἔφοδοι, was also one of the functions of ἥρωες, v.c. dead men, who here again parallel the Erinyes. ὁπόσα δὲ δείματα νυκτὸς παρίσταται καὶ φόβοι καὶ παράνοιαι καὶ ἀναπηδήσεις ἐκ κλίνης... ᾿ὥκάτης φασὶν εἶναι ἐπιβουλὰς (2 ἐπιβολάς) καὶ ἡρώων ἐφόδους (Hippocr. περὶ ἱερῆς νούσου, p. 128, 20, v. O. Crusius, Die Epiphanie der Sirene, p. 103).
I have already noted (p. 214) that Orestes recognizes in the snake the earth daemon, the Erinys of the dead; it is equally clear that to him, his father’s tomb, and earth as a sanctuary are thoughts near akin (v. 588)
ἀλλ᾽ εὔχομαι γῇ τῇδε καὶ πατρὸς τάφῳ, and again, v. 124, κηρύξας ἐμοὶ \ nan » ‘ 4 ’ \ Tous γῆς ἔνερθε δαίμονας κλύειν ἐμὰς εὐχάς, πατρῴων ὀμμάτων ἐπισκόπους καὶ γαῖαν αὐτὴν ἣ τὰ πάντα τίκτεται θρέψασά 7 αὖθις τῶνδε κῦμα λαμβάνει.
In a word the religion of the Chocphorot is traditional, tribal, inherited, uncon- scious, profoundly ritualistic. When we turn to the Humenides the whole attitude is altered, we have a theology conscious, combative, rational, highly moralised, theoretical, with no manner of relation to cultus practices.
As to the general monotheistic tendency of the prologue of the priestess I have little to add to what Dr. Verrall has said (Huripides the Rationalist,
246 JANE E. HARRISON.
Ρ. 221). Apollo is preceded by three women divinities, Gaia, Themis and Phoebe. Aeschylus, when he wrote the Prometheus, certainly knew that Gaia and Themis were the same (Aesch. Prom. 209):
ἐμοὶ δὲ μήτηρ οὐχ ἅπαξ μόνον Θέμις καὶ Γαῖα, πολλῶν ὀνομάτων μορφὴ μία.
but as his great desire is to avoid any mention of unseemly conflict between Gaia and Apollo it probably suited his purpose to lengthen out the genealogy. How much he knew of who Phoebe was must remain doubtful. Even Aeschylus did not dare, spite of the analogy of name, to say that Phoebe was related to Apollo; she is παῖς χθονός. The moment is an anxious one, hence the uneasy comedy of the γενέθλιος δόσις. At all costs there must be no breach, no mention of the slaying of the serpent.
So far all is fairly plain sailing. Beginning with a complete anthropo- morphism Aeschylus is not required to take cognizance of ghosts and ancestor worship. There is only the venerable figure of Gaia and the vague tran- sitional but always respectable Titanesses. But the moment has come when the omphalos and the Erinyes must be presented to the audience ; how could that be done? As to the omphalos I do not think that Aeschylus had any suspicion of the truth. By his time it had been completely taken over by Apollo, moved out of the Gaia precinct and was probably regarded as a portable cultus object of unknown origin and immense antiquity serving as an altar and mercy seat for suppliants to Apollo. The Erinyes who as we have seen were really resident im it are only conceived of as temporarily camping round it because Orestes has fled there. It is the sacred object of the temple, thatisall. I have sought in vain for any passage in Aeschylus which could fairly be taken to show that he took the omphalos to be a tomb, but in one chorus of Sophocles (0.7. 469) the thought is at least subconsciously present. For Sophocles Apollo has become the minister of vengeance, not of reconciliation—
ἔνοπλος yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐπενθρώσκει πυρὶ καὶ στεροπαῖς ὁ Διὸς γενέτας.
Here Apollo is but the double of his father Zeus. Yet it is not forgotten who are the ancient avengers though by a mythological inversion they are made subsidiary.
δειναὶ δ᾽ dp’ ἕπονται
Κῆρες ἀναπλάκητοι,
where the name ΚΚῆρες points to the ghost aspect—the Erinyes. And {Π686 Κῆρες haunt the ὀμφαλός. The Theban elders (Oed. Tyr. v. 475) chant the misery and loneliness of the guilty man.
lol A ΄ ᾽ , ͵ Φοιτᾷ γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ἀγρίαν ef > ΄ 3. ον ‘ ὕλαν ava τ ἄντρα καὶ , lal πέτρας ATE ταῦρος,
DELPHIKA. 247
μέλεος μελέῳ ποδὶ χηρεύων,
τὰ μεσόμφαλα γᾶς ἀπονοσφίζων
μαντεῖα" τὰ δ᾽ ἀεὶ
ζῶντα περιποτῶται. Here Prof. Jebb observes ‘The haunting thoughts of guilt are objectively imaged as terrible words ever sounding in the wanderer’s ears.’ Yes; and I venture to think more than this, the μεσόμφαλα γᾶς μαντεῖα are εἴδωλα, they are φοίβαι, they are ᾿Ερινύων προσβολαί. Though the guilty man shuns the actual tomb, 1.6. the omphalos whence they rise up to haunt him, it is in vain
τὰ δ᾽ ἀεὶ
ζῶντα περιποτᾶται. I do not say that Sophocles knew the omphalos was a tomb, but I do say that if his ancestors had never believed it this marvellous chorus would never have been written.
It is when we come to the Erinyes themselves that the theological animus of Aeschylus comes out and here we cannot escape the conclusion that his misrepresentation was wilful and deliberate. All is fair in theology and war. This misrepresentation is in two directions ; first, the new and hideous form given to the Erinyes; second, the statement by the priestess and the implication by every one, except Clytemnestra, that the Erinyes are novel apparitions, strangers to the land and of unknown lineage. The whole illusion is most skilfully arranged. In the first place, the Erinyes being πολυώνυμοι are addressed by no name in particular, they are νυκτὸς παλαιαὶ παῖδες they are ἀπόπτυστοι Kopal, θαυμαστὸς λόχος and the like. With great dexterity Aeschylus gives them an entirely new form and then turns round and says: We never saw you before, we do not know who you can be. The type he selects is that of the Gorgons and Harpies, shapes not clearly differentiated in ancient art, and that he has gone to graphic art for his inspiration is clear from the verses.
eldov ποτ᾽ ἤδη Φινέως γεγραμμένας δεῖπνον φερούσας.---ν. 50. The whole horrible description is a vociferous protest against the simple
fact that the Erinyes are the same as the familiar Athenian Semnae,! in whose imagination, as the candid Pausanias observed, there was ‘nothing fearful,’
1 The question of the age of the cult of the Semnae at Athens, and its exact character, can only be dealt with satisfactorily in relation to the whole group of the Areopagos cults. This I hope to discuss on alater occasion. At present I can only record my conviction that the cult of the Semnae is a form of the worship of Gaia intimately related to the very primitive ritual of the Thesmophoria. The Eleusinion, the site of which within very narrow limits must have been close to, if not actually on the site of an ancient Thesmophorion—the whole group of Are-
opagus cults being essentially chthonic—pre- ceded, I believe, the cultus settlements on the Acropolis. The Cecropidae, the ‘ white’ side of the Semnae, passed in part on to the Acropolis, but their worship there was always of a sub- ordinate character. In a former discussion of the Cecropidae (J. 7/.S. xii. p. 350) I have tried to show that they were originally two not three, and that these two, Pandrosos and Aglauros, represented originally what I should now call the ‘ black’ and ‘white’ side of the Semnae.
248 JANE E. HARRISON.
any more than there was in the images of other underworld divinities. τοῖς δὲ ἀγάλμασιν οὔτε τούτοις ἔπεστιν οὐδὲν φοβερὸν, οὔτε ὅσα ἄλλα κεῖται θεῶν τῶν ὑπογαίων (Paus. i. 28. 6). Pausanias knew that the Semnae and the Erinyes were the same. Πλησίον δὲ ἱερὸν θεῶν ἐστὶν ἃς καλοῦσιν ᾿Αθηναῖοι Σεμνὰς “Ησίοδος δὲ ᾿Ερινῦς ἐν Θεογονίᾳ. It is noticeable that he refers to Aeschylus only as an innovator. The literary innovation of Aeschylus was powerless to touch cultus practice.
Having made these sensational innovations in the visible form of his Erinyes, and having artfully suppressed their names as though they were un- known and nameless, Aeschylus paves the way for the amazing statement that the Delphic priestess knows them not.
τὸ φῦλον οὐκ ὄπωπα τῆσδ᾽ ὁμιλίας 0)» of ΜῈ ἰ- ϑὲ πῶ, ΄ , οὐδ᾽ ἥτις aia τοῦτ᾽ ἐπεύχεται yévos.—Vv. 57
She refers them to Apollo, he being above all things καθάρσιος ; with great skill, the taboo of uncleanness that should have rested on the guilty is shifted to the avengers. Even from the Homeric point of view this is a gross misrepresentation. It is Orestes who is θεομυσής. Apollo does not feign complete ignorance ; he avoids the issue by dexterously insulting the Erinyes for their virginity. It would indeed have been dramatically impossible for Apollo to say he did not know them; a few hours before the same audience had listened to a full account of Apollo’s views on the Erinyes, given by his protégé Orestes ; an account which shows, as has clearly been pointed out, an intimate and perfect knowledge of their nature and primitive origin (Choeph. vv. 275-295).
Athene’s attitude is, however, perhaps the most instructive of all. She, officially, in her capacity as president of the Court of the Areopagos, asks the name and race of the plaintiffs.
Who are ye? this I ask of one and all.
She is conscious that she is officially bound to ask Orestes the question just as much as the Furies, but she skilfully emphasizes the exceptional un- familiarity of the Erinyes, carefully insisting on their strangeness as a genus not as individuals (v. 410),
ὑμᾶς θ᾽ ὁμοίας οὐδενὶ σπαρτῶν γένει οὔτ᾽ ἐν θεαῖσι πρὸς θεῶν ὁρωμένας οὔτ᾽ οὖν βροτείοις ἐμφερεῖς μορφώμασι. Athene then pulls herself up, none too soon probably for the sympathies of the audience, and adds with pompous copy-book morality.
λέγειν δ᾽ ἄμομφον ὄντα τοὺς πέλας κακῶς πρόσω δικαίων ἠδ᾽ ἀποστατεῖ θέμις.
The bifurcation of popular theology favoured the position of Aeschylus ; technically he is correct, the Erinyes were not θεοί in the Olympian sense ; they
DELPHIKA. 249
were χθόνιοι, their worship was conducted with the rites of ἐναγέζειν not of θύειν, in a word they were divinities of the old Gaia-worshipping stock.
The audience must have waited breathless to hear what answer the Erinyes would make to the question when thus officially challenged; their answer is skilfully contrived to the same end, though its dignity contrasts strongly with the aggressive discourtesy of Athene.
πεύσει τὰ πάντα συντόμως, Διὸς κόρη; ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἔσμεν Νυκτὸς αἰανῆς τέκνα, ’ Ἁ Be ΕἿΣ fol ΄ Ἂς, / Apai δ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις γῆς ὑπαὶ κεκλήμεθα.
It is the grave lofty courtesy of the dames of ancient lineage arraigned before the religious parvenue. Aeschylus, prejudiced theologian as he was, is true to dramatic instinct, but how well contrived it is! ‘Children of Night,’ not of Earth! that would have been too hazardous, it would have brought them into line with hieratic tradition; ‘Curses we are called, Arai, a name by then of evil omen, and no one remembered that it was on the hill of the Arai, that judgment was being given.’ Did no one remember? it is all but incredible ; Athene is obliged to admit,
γένος μὲν οἶδα κληδόνας τ᾽ ἐπωνύμους.
It was by these κληδόνες ἐπώνυμοι that all the theological jugglery was carried on. Athene and Aeschylus chose to remember the «Anddves that favoured their cause, remembered the Arai, the Erinyes, the Maniae, perhaps the Praxidikae, they forgot the Charites, the Semnae, the Eumenides, or rather they separated them off into new divinities.
Apollo and Athene and the priestess ignore the divinity of the ancient ones, but there is one of the dramatis personae who knows perfectly who and what the Furies are and is not ashamed of it. The real truth is put in just the lips that will most discredit it. Clytemnestra knows the Erinyes and has worshipped them with the precise ritual of the χθόνιοι, the Δημήτριοι, the ἥρωες, 1.6. with the yoal ἄοινοι, the νηφάλια μειλίγματα, offered by night νυκτίσεμνα δεῖπνα, offered on the ἐσχάρα, the low hero-altar.
ἢ πολλὰ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἐμῶν ἐλείξατε χοάς T ἀοίνους νηφάλια μειλίγματα, καὶ νυκτίσεμνα δεῖπν᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάρᾳ πυρὸς ἔθυον, ὥραν οὐδενὸς κοινὴν θεῶν.
Even Clytemnestra is made to imply that there was something shameful in the service by night, πότνια NUE. Clytemnestra as we have already seen knows that the true vehicle of the Erinys is the earth snake, the δεινὴ δράκαινα ; but she goes with the times and adopts the splendid imagery of the dog hunting in dreams. ὄναρ διώκεις θῆρα, κλαγγάνεις δ᾽ ἅπερ κύων μέριμναν οὔποτ᾽ ἐκλιπὼν πόνου. The image of the dog was of course specially useful to any one who
wanted to vilify the Erinyes. H.S:—VOL. XIX. 5
250 JANE E. HARRISON.
The conclusive proof to my mind that Aeschylus knew perfectly well who the Erinyes were, is the simple fact that he turned them in the end into Semnae and restored alP their ancient functions. This is the very acme of theological duplicity or—simplicity. Even an Athenian must have found it hard to believe that for the privilege of living in a cave on the Areopagos the Furies were ready to change in a moment their whole vindictive nature and become the ministrants of
ὁποῖα νίκης μὴ κακῆς ἐπίσκοπα,
καὶ ταῦτα γῆθεν ἔκ τε ποντίας δρόσου
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τε κἀνέμων ἀήματα,
εὐηλίως πνέοντ᾽ ἐπιστείχειν χθόνα:
καρπόν τε γαίας καὶ βοτῶν ἐπίρρυτον
ἀστοῖσιν εὐθενοῦντα μὴ κάμνειν χρόνῳ.
καὶ τῶν βροτείων σπερμάτων σωτηρίαν.---903--909.
At Megalopolis it would have been simply impossible to play the piece. An audience at Megalopolis would have risen in a body and cried out, why these are our own Maniae, the black and white ones. It is noticeable that as soon as the ἀπόπτυστοι κόραι have been satisfactorily metamorphosed into Semnae, 1.6, when the chorus has said:
δέξομαι ἸΤαλλάδος ξυνοικίαν.---910.
Athene is less guarded in speech and sentiment. She frankly calls the Erinyes, Erinyes, and gives a very complete and satisfactory account, scarcely tallying with her previous ignorance of their nature and functions
μέγα yap δύναται πότνι᾽ ᾿Ερινὺς παρά τ᾽ ἀθανάτοις τοῖς θ᾽ ὑπὸ γαῖαν περί τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων φανερῶς τελέως διαπράσσουσιν, τοῖς μὲν ἀοιδὰς τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ δακρύων βίον ἀμβλωπὸν παρέχουσαι.-- ἰώ. 951.
In the background of the play always, in the foreground sometimes, there is the conflict of cults. It is not over one individual that Apollo and the Erinyes contend, and this they well remember. There was the parallel case of Alcestis which they aptly quote (v. 723)
τοιαῦτ᾽ ἔδρασας καὶ Φέρητος ἐν δόμοις" Μοίρας ἔπεισας ἀφθίτους θεῖναι βροτούς.
The Moirae, and who are they? only as we have already seen another of the κληδόνες ἐπώνυμοι. This is clearly brought out in
παλαιγενεῖς δὲ Μοίρας pOlcas.—Ewm. 172.
The cultus conflict is also most clearly brought out in the plaint of the Erinyes, that a grievous innovation has been attempted in matters of ritual,
σύ τοι παλαιὰν διανομὴν καταφθίσας οἴνῳ παρηπάτησας ἀρχαίας θεάς .--- τω. 727,
DELPHIKA. 251
It is the last outrage, despite is done to the ancient ritual of the νηφάλια, that dated back to days before the vine-god came, when men diank mead. Such was the ritual at Colonos,
Tov τόνδε πλήσας θῶ ; δίδασκε Kai τόδε.
ὕδατος, μελίσσης: μηδὲ προσφέρειν wéOv.—Soph. Oe. Vol. 480, And again,
πρώταισιν ὑμῖν ἀντέκυρσ᾽ ὁδοιπορῶν
νήφων aoivots.—Oed, Col. ν. 100,
The Eumenides is based on the great racial reality of a conflict of cults, but to Aeschylus the interest of his plot was that it was a conflict of ideals. Naturally he did not, could not know that in his veins ran the blood of two different races, with alien habits of religious thought. He was all for Zeus and King Apollo, the Father and the Son, with such unification of will and purpose that their religion was practically a monotheism, but he had to reckon with, to reconcile at all costs the ancient cult of the earth goddesses. The ideal of the Erinyes was the ideal of all primitive moralities, an eye for an eye, and above all the indissolubility of the bond of physical kinship, especially through the mother, Aeschylus could not be expected to see that the system was necessary and highly beneficial in its day and that its passing was attended with grave social dangers. He fastens on the harsh side of it, its im- placability, its endlessness Bod yap λοιγὸν ’Epivis Tapa τῶν πρότερον φθιμένων ἄτην ἑτέραν ἐπάγουσαν ET ἄτῃ.
He is all for the new ideal of atonement, for Apollo Katharsios—in itself an advance, destined of course in its turn to pass. It is impossible to avoid a regret that he stooped to the cheap expedient of blackening his opponents. That in doing so he was in part self-deceived only makes of the ‘ Eumenides ’ a still more human document.
JANE EK, HARRISON.
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE.
WHILE most of the dispositions of the ancient Greek theatre have been submitted in recent years to a searching examination, the question as to the scenery used as a background to plays has been somewhat neglected. It seems to me that a fresh enquiry on this particular point may be of service.
I must preface this enquiry by a statement of the view which I adopt as to the presence or absence of a raised stage in the Greek theatre, since it is obvious that any theory as to scenery must depend in a great degree upon the solution of the stage question which is adopted. It is quite impossible on this occasion to discuss fully the question whether the place of the actors in Greece was the orchestra or the λογεῖον. I can only say that I assume the latter view to be correct. I think that from the time of Aeschylus onwards the stage, which had at first been a low platform of varying size, grew steadily in height as the part of the actors in the performance grew more important, and their independence of the chorus more complete. And as the stage grew higher it also grew narrower by an obvious necessity, until we have the long narrow stone stage of the Hellenistic age, which exactly corresponds with the assertions of Vitruvius and other ancient authorities.
In the last few months a fresh piece of evidence, which tends strongly to confirm this view, has been brought forward. Mr. Fossum,! who was engaged in 1891 on behalf of the American School of Athens in excavating the theatre at Eretria, has now declared his conviction that he discovered there remains of the εἰσκύκλημα, a pair of parallel lines of slabs of bluish marble on which the ἐκκύκλημα ran backwards and forwards between the skéné and the proscenium. If he is right, he has found strong evidence that the ekky- klema ran on wheels on the level, not of the orchestra, but of the top of the proscenium, in fact of the stage or λογεῖον ; and this would seem to show that all the acting in tragedies took place at this level, and so would be inconsistent with the Dorpfeldian theory of the stage. Dr. Dorpfeld in a letter to Mr. Fossum,? allows that some contrivance ran backwards and forwards on his rails, but he thinks that this contrivance was not the ekky- klema but a crane, to bear aloft deities and their chariots. This view seems somewhat forced, and that of Mr. Fossum indefinitely more probable.
Any readers of this paper, however, who think that there was no raised stage in the Greek theatre, will find that opinion no fatal objection to the acceptance of the main views which I have to advocate; these views would require only some little modification.
1 Amer. Jowrnal of Archaeology, 1898, p. 187. 2 Tbid. p. 198. gy Ἂν Ῥ
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 253
The introduction of a painted scene or background in the Greck theatre is ascribed by Vitruvius to Aeschylus and by Aristotle to Sophocles. We will begin with the statement of Vitruvius:! ‘Primum Agatharchus Athenis Aeschylo docente tragoediam scaenam fecit, et de ca re commentarium reliquit.’ Vitruvius goes on to say that Democritus and Anaxagoras wrote on the same subject, and all tried to work out a theory of perspective mathematically.
With regard to Agatharchus, we have it on good authority that he was enticed by the young Alcibiades into his house, and not released until he had painted its interior. This would have happened soon after the death of Pericles, B.C. 429. There is thus no reason in chronology why Agatharchus should not have painted scenes for the latest plays of Aeschylus about B.C. 458. And the tradition that he did work for Aeschylus has a good deal of external support. The later plays of that poet seem, as we shall more clearly see presently, in comparison with the earlier, to have required more scenery. Agatharchus painted the interiors of houses and studied perspective. A tale makes him discuss painting with Zeuxis, and contrasts his quick work with the slow perfection of Zeuxis: and although an actual meeting of the two masters is chronologically almost impossible, yet the existence of the story shows the reputation borne by the painters respectively. Thus Agath- archus was precisely the kind of painter for a stage. If, however, we prefer the authority of Aristotle to that of Vitruvius, and regard Sophocles rather than Aeschylus as the tragedian who introduced scene-painting, we may still consider it likely that Agatharchus would be the artist employed. It may thus be considered as tolerably certain that stage-scenery came in at Athens in connection with the wooden stage-buildings of the Theatre of Dionysus about the middle of the fifth century B.C., and that the first painted scene was by Agatharchus.
When, however, we speak of painting a scene for the stage, modern associations crowd about us, and tend to mislead the imagination. We at once begin to think of painted backgrounds representing landscapes and natural scenes, such as frequently occupy the back of the modern stage. But it is well known to all who have studied the course of ancient painting that there could not have been any attempt to render in perspective a natural scene so early as the fifth century. I propose briefly to set forth this fact, and then to enquire of what kind the scene of Agatharchus must in reality have been. We have considerable materials for the solution of this question in passages of ancient writers and in inscriptions, especially the Delian inscriptions published by M. Homolle, as well as in a few monuments of Greek painting and sculpture.
An essential factor of the question is the condition of the art of painting in the fifth century and later. It is, of course, quite unnecessary to instruct archaeologists in this matter. But for the benefit of those scholars who are not familiar with the remains of ancient art, 1 may say a few words on the
1 vii. Praef. 11.
254 PERCY GARDNER.
subject. Our main evidence comes from vases. It is well known how admirable are the designs and how masterly the drawing shown by a great many fifth century vases. But in spite of their skill, the vase-painters move within narrow limits. They seldom foreshorten ; their idea of perspective is very simple and primitive, and they make no attempt at illusion, or at rendering natural objects in a naturalistic way. The features of a landscape are only hinted at; a few stones represent a rocky soil, a rock represents a mountain, a dolphin stands for the sea, an altar or a tripod for a sacred shrine, a pillar for a house or temple, and so forth.
It may perhaps be thought that this is the case with vases only, and did not hold in paintings of great masters. But this view 15. scarcely maintainable. We have Pausanias’ description of the paintings of Polygnotus at Delphi, executed about B.c. 470. From it we can jiadge almost with certainty that the composition and drawing were closely like those of vases of the middle of the fifth century: the same conventions of perspective and the same brief and symbolical way of depicting the background seem to have prevailed in the paintings of Polygnotus as in such vases as the well-known kraters of Orvieto and Bologna.! A single tree represents the grove of Persephone. The sacrifice of Odysseus is combined with Charon and his boat, though the two have no local connection, All the groups are simple, and their interest lies not in the nature of the scenery or the background, but in the human figures, to which the background is the merest setting. The Polygnotan scheme of perspective, which is best realised by the comparison of such vases as the krater of Orvieto, appears to have consisted merely in running irregular horizontal lines across the picture, to represent a greater distance from the spectator. But the distant figures seem to have been depicted on the same scale as the nearer. Hach figure or pair of figures stood detached and complete in itself.
We find very similar phenomena in the case of a great picture of a later age. The mosaic representing the battle of Issus at Pompeii is of all ancient pictures which have come down to us perhaps the finest. The vigour of the action and the mastery of the figures is most notable. The original of this ereat work probably belongs to the time shortly after Alexander the Great. It is very noteworthy how in this picture also all the attention of artist and of spectator is concentrated on the human figures. There is no clear indica- tion of locality. One or two stones in the foreground, a ruined tree and a rock in the background alone mark the landscape: the sky is not repre- sented at all. Even in Pompeian paintings, which represent painting in its inost advanced stage in antiquity, sky and sea are represented very simply. Rocks and rivers are depicted without any sense of their true forms. Aerial effects, and such objects as distant hills, waves of the sea, or clouds, are seldom attempted.
The reason of all this scarcely needs to be explained to any one at all conversant with the Greek spirit. If Greek painters had given their best
1 M.D.I. xi. 40: Suppl. 21.
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 255
mind to the representation of landscape they might well have succeeded. Men and women and some animals they represent with an energy and success which arouse our wondering admiration. Men and horses interested the Greeks: but the scenes of nature did not interest them to the same degree : and to the representation of nature they did not give their best mind. Even in Pompeian paintings, instead of painting a spring, the artists would paint a river-god leaning on his pitcher: instead of painting a mountain they would depict a quite wooden rock, with a goat leaping on it or a mountain deity seated on it in the guise of a hunter. They naturally thought of the features of nature as appearing in human shape, rather than in their own material forms, and preferred to interpret them through human embodiments rather than directly. And the Pompeian perspective, though not so quaintly simple as that of Polygnotus, is not worked out in any completeness. There is no adequate sense of distance or sense of atmosphere.
If, however, such was the state of Greek painting in the fifth century, and such the manner of Greek art at an even later time, what can be the meaning of the saying that a great artist who had studied perspective painted scenes for Aeschylus? I think the passage in which Vitruvius speaks of Agatharchus gives us a clue. Vitruvius says that he wrote a book on perspective and that others followed his example. But those who thus wrote were, so far as we can identify them, not painters, but mathematicians and architects, Ictinus, Pythius, Hermogenes and others. And here at once the well-known fact occurs to us that the great Greek temples of the fifth century are beyond doubt constructed with a careful reference to the laws of perspective. Most people have heard the fact that the floor of the Parthenon is not level but constructed so as to appear so to a spectator, and that the pillars of that temple do not taper with mathematical exactness, but are adapted to the eye. It was to architecture then, not to landscape painting, that the Greeks applied their discoveries in perspective.
Now Agatharchus, as we know, painted the interiors of houses ; was in fact the first great painter who did so. To paint the walls of rooms was not a custom in the fifth century, but it became more and more usual. At Rome and Pompeii we have hundreds of painted interiors. At Pompeii in particular we have chamber painting of a decidedly early style, going back in origin to the age of Alexander. What is the character of this decoration ᾧ It consists entirely of architectural paintings. In the later times of Pompeii the architect- ural style of painting is florid and fanciful, and the architecture is used as a frame to paintings. But earlier the painted architecture is simple and massive. But at all periods the architecture painted on walls, like the marble architec- ture of the great Greek temples, is contrived to please the eye, is worked out on mathematical principles with a view to perspective.
Thus it appears that though the Greeks introduced perspective into landscape painting very slowly and late, they introduced it into the architect- ural decorations of houses earlier, perhaps as early as the fifth century, and Agatharchus, being used to this kind of painting, and in all probability being the inventor of it, might well introduce it on the stage of Aeschylus or of Sophocles.
256 PERCY GARDNER.
It is instructive to observe that in the reliefs of Trysa in Lycia, dating from the middle of the fifth century, reliefs which have been shown by Prof. Benndorf to have a close relation to the works of the great painters of Athens, we find foreshortening applied only to walls and buildings. In the scene of the siege of Ilium! we see a temple in the background and the towers of the wall foreshortened. Trees, on the other hand, are represented with extreme convention ; a mountain is represented by a rock and a goat,* and the bottom of the sea by a line of fish. As I have already observed, man and his works interested the Greeks ; but with nature they did not take the same pains.
There is another custom of art in the fifth century, which may help us to understand the scene painting of Agatharchus. This is the custom of using colour, to make clear and emphatic what is imperfectly expressed in the architecture or the sculpture of the time.
Turning again to the reliefs of the hero6n at Trysa we find that in several places, especially where buildings had to be represented, the relief is greatly helped out by painting. The temple in the besieged city is scarcely intelligible without the help of colour,t and the same may be said of another temple in the scene of the Leucippides.® In the same way the Athenians of the age of the Persian wars helped out with painting the architectural forms of the pillars on which stood the images dedicated to Athena on the Acropolis. The mouldings and volutes are often expressed only in colour.’ The same procedure was employed in the fifth century, even on sculpture in the round. The Athena of the pediment of Aegina wears sandals, but only the soles are indicated with the chisel ; the straps are rendered only in paint. In the pediment sculptures of Olympia and the metopes of the Parthenon colour has a most important function, hair and beard being often rendered in a way which is scarcely intelligible without its aid.
Let us then return to the scene of Agatharchus, bearing in mind the two facts, first that the Greeks of the fifth century applied the principles of perspective to architecture long before they applied them to landscape, and second, that they were in the habit of using colour to help the rendering of form, both in architecture and in sculpture. The early plays of Aeschylus do not imply palace or temple as a background. They do, however, imply the presence of some building. In the Supplices of Aeschylus, the chorus sit on the steps of an altar, and their father stands on the top of it, and looks out. Long narrow altars approached by steps were familiar to the Greeks. The remains of such an altar, 200 yards and more in length and rising in steps, still exist at Syracuse. It seems very natural to suppose that the altar, about which the Danaides cling, is the early Aeschylean stage, decked with statues and uther properties to show its sacred character. In the Seven against Thebes, an altar is again the scene of action. In the Persae and the Niobe, a grave-monument takes its place. In
' Benndorf und Niemann, Das Heroén von + Benndorf and Niemann, P1. 12. Gyélbaschi, Pl. 12, 13. 5 Ibid. Pl. 16. LT ᾧ 10. 8 Alte Denkméler, i. 19 δα.
5 Ibid. Pl, 16,
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 257
the Persae we find the chorus sitting on the tomb of Darius; and here again, we may best suppose that the stage was the tomb. In the Prometheus, no palace is at hand ; probably the rock of Prometheus was sct up on a platform, through which, at the end of the play, it disappeared by means of a trap-door.
But when we come to the Orestean trilogy things are altered. In these plays, the background is a temple or palace. At this point, then, the work of Agatharchus seems to come in. Hitherto, the Aeschylean stage had been a rough platform of varying shape, and with no background at all. Now,a long narrow platform was laid down on short posts or piles, fixed in the ground. So I would render the well-known line of Horace, ‘ modicis instravit pulpita tignis.’? The word tignis is usually rendered by ‘beams,’ but the meaning is more satisfactory if, in this instance, beams set up vertically are understood ; and tigna scems to have this meaning in the difficult passage of Cvsar, in which the bridge over the Rhine is described.2~ Behind this platform was the wooden front of the stage buildings; and this front, probably a rough erection of timber, would be by Agatharchus painted so as to resemble generally a temple or a palace of the heroic age.
Thus it does not seem likely that Agatharchus would produce a canvas scene such as ours ; he would paint the front of the skéné to look like a palace with pillars and cornices. The building would have two storeys, and in the upper storey probably a balcony to serve as a θεολογεῖον. It would also probably, as Reisch observes, have a gable roof. Three doors below would lead out on to the stage. If the edifice had to serve as a temple, it would do very well, with slight adaptation. If it had to serve, as in Comedy, as a row of private houses, it would also serve. There is rather more difficulty in seeing how it would serve in the satyric plays, where rocks and caves were supposed to mark the scene. But the Greeks were utterly unused to pictorial illusion and quite ready to accept any convention which was intelligible to them. The whole character of ancient acting with its masks and trailing robes and set schemes proves this. And therefore we may fairly suppose that a few rocks strewn on the stage, perhaps a curtain or two to hide part of the skéné, would well suffice to satisfy the audience that it was ina glen or on a mountain side.
Such is the view which I would submit to scholars in regard to the scene- painting of Agatharchus. Like all views in regard to the setting of plays in the fifth century it does not admit of positive proof or disproof. The evidence for it is merely evidence of probability. If, however, we pursue the history of scene-painting onwards into the Hellenistic age, we have a great deal of archaeological evidence to consider in the form both of extant remains of theatres, and of inscriptions. This evidence seems to indicate that in the Hellenistic age there was still a permanent painted background of wood or stone, and that instead of using great painted canvas screens, the Greeks indicated a change of scene in a quite conventional way, by the help of periacti.
1 Ars Poctica, 279. dalia pauluim ab imo praeacuta...... in flumen 2 Bell. Gall. iv. 17, 3 Tigna bina sesquipe- defixerat.
258 PERCY GARDNER.
Among the younger contemporaries of Agatharchus, Apollodorus of Athens seems to have devoted attention to perspective and scene-painting. Hesychius speaks of him as σκεαγράφος and σκηνογράφος. He appears to have made improvements in the rendering of light and shade, especially perhaps on rounded surfaces. These improvements are quite in the line started by Aga- tharchus. There is no reason to think that a painter like Apollodorus would do more than paint the wooden front of the skéné. It is in fact certain that there is no justification for the notion held by some writers on the Greek stage that the scene-painter of the fourth century would stretch across the upper part of the front of the skéné a great canvas screen representing the sky, and across the lower part of that front another canvas screen representing some particular place, and pierced with doors corresponding to the doors from the skéné on to the stage.
So far as I know, the only piece of archaeological evidence alleged in favour of great painted screens as a background is found at Megalopolis. The σκηνοθήκη unearthed on that site does appear to have held some kind of long screen, which ran out on wheels immediately in front of the steps which led up to the Thersilion. But as to the character of this screen there is no evidence. Dr. Dorpfeld supposes it to have been a scaena ductilis, drawn in front of the Thersilion as a background to the orchestra. If, however, we turn to the only ancient writer who describes the scaena ductilis, Servius, we shall find that his description of it does not in the least suit the conditions of the case at Megalopolis. If there were at Megalopolis such a screen as Dr. Dorpfeld supposes, it could not be drawn away to right and left, to expose an interior behind it. It is in fact not clear of what period of the Theatre Servius is speaking. If any scene corresponding to his description ever existed, it would seem to be a later substitute for the ἐκκύκλημα of Aeschylus, some less primitive way of exhibiting what took place in the palace at the back of the stage.
I conceive that the contrivance kept in the σκηνοθήκη at Megalopolis was of another character, not a canvas background to the actors, but probably the wooden front of a stage, which ran out on occasion in front of the marble steps of the Thersilion.
In the fourth and third centuries, in most of the great theatres of Greece, a stone skéné took the place of the older wooden erection; and at a somewhat later time the wooden stage in front of the skéné was superseded by one of stone. Of course the erection of an architectural front to the stage-buildings would do away with the necessity for a painted imitation of palace or temple-front. But the process of petrifaction was a gradual one, and for a long time painting remained an important element in the front of the skéné. We may best see this from the very important inscriptions of Delos collected by M. Homolle.*. The Director of the French School of Athens is unable to satisfy himself whether, in the early part of the third
1 Servius on Verg. Georg. ili. 24 (scaena) iiluc species picturae nudabatur interior. ductilis tum, cum tractatis tabulatis huc atque * Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 161-7.
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 259
century, the stage-buildings of Delos were made of wood, or whether the foundations of walls were of stone, and wood was only used to fill up a stone framework. We know that in the theatres at Eretria and other sites, when the front of the stage was adorned with stone columns, the interstices between those columns were filled up with wooden boards or pinakes, which ran in grooves cut in the pillars. This arrangement seems also to have been adopted for the front of the stage-buildings at Delos. The inscriptions make it certain that σκήνη προσκήνιον and παρασκήνια alike were partly made of pinakes, wooden boards, squared and painted, of which there were at least two rows one above the other. Some information as to the painting of these boards is to be extracted from the Delian inscriptions. One exceedingly important fact meets us at once, that the painting alike of skéné, paraskenia and hypo- skenion was paid for, not in the cost of the production of plays, but in the ordinary cost of construction. There is no indication that it had any relation to plays to be performed. The painting, naturally, was renewed from time to time: but only at considerable intervals. As to the fashion of the painting we have some hints. Pinakes were inserted in the proscenium and the paraskenia: but the painting is sometimes apparently not confined to pinakes. In B.c. 274 some contractors undertake γράψαι τὰς σκηνὰς Kai τὰ παρασκήνια at the large cost of 2500 drachms. The word γράψαι used in this and other places scems to imply not mere house-painting in masses of colour, but the representation of actual objects.
It appears probable that the pinakes and the wooden parts of the walls of the front of the skéné would be painted mainly on the same principles on which the house-painters of Pompeii proceed : that is, they would be coloured to represent pillars, windows, inlaid marbles, and architectural decoration. If so, the line started by Agatharchus would be continued to quite a late period in the history of the Greek stage.
That the paintings of the front of the skéné were in Hellenistic times mostly architectural seems to be shown by various passages of ancient writers, Thus Polybius! says that history, compared with epideictic discourses, bears the same relation to them which real buildings and objects bear to those which appear in the paintings of the skéné. Valerius Maximus? tells us that Claudius Pulcher caused the front wall of the skéné to be decked with varied colour and fresh painting : crows are said to have tried to settle ou a roof which was painted, Vitruvius*® writes, ‘in scaenis pictis videntur columnarum pro- Jecturae, mutulorum ecphorae, signorum figurae prominentes, &e.
We have next to consider the periacti, which seem to have played a very important part on the Greek stage. As to their general character we have unambiguous testimony of Vitruvius; and writers on the Greek theatre are agreed. They were upright three-sided erections turning on a pivot, placed
1 xii. 28a. Mittheil. 1898, p. 884. As Dr. Holwerda is an
5. 11: 4. 6. advocate of the no-stage theory, his views do vi 22, not coincide with those here advocated ; but as
4 Among the most recent discussions of the to the general use of the periacti Dr. Holwerda periacti is that of Dr. Holwerda in Athen. and IJ do not greatly differ.
260 PERCY GARDNER.
by the two side doors of the stage, and bearing on each side a different device, which could be in turn presented to the spectators, to indicate a change of scene. y
As to the size and exact place of the periacti, the only definite monu- mental evidence which has been brought forward comes from Epidaurus. In the two wings of the stage, the paraskenia, of the theatre there, Dr. Dorpfeld calls attention to two openings in the wall facing the orchestra ; in the midst of each opening was a hole in which a pivot seems to have turned. He thinks that periacti moved here, probably rather two-sided than three-sided. The space to be filled by one side of each periactos would be some four feet in width by ten or more feet in height. The position thus assigned to the periacti is not that given them by Pollux, who says that they stood by the side doors on to the stage. The use of periacti being, as will be presently shown, quite conventional, it would not greatly matter whether they stood at orchestra level or at the level of the stage. But Dr. Dorpfeld’s view needs further proof. A two-sided periactos is quite out of accord with our testimony in regard to these machines from ancient writers: and boards placed in the positions assigned them by Dr. Dorpfeld would have been invisible to that part of the audience which had not the advantage of sitting opposite to the stage, being hidden by the projecting corners of the paraskenia.
It has been doubted whether periacti were in use in the fifth century. In my opinion an arrangement so simple,so conventional, and yet so effective, is quite in the manner of that century. One grammarian mentions them among the stage furniture introduced by Aeschylus. Of course we cannot rely entirely on such authority. But the contrivance is of the same class as the ekkyklema and as the mask, which were certainly Aeschylean. It has some- times been supposed that the periacti stood in line with a painted background, and when turned altered a small part of that background. That would be at once elaborate and clumsy. I conceive that there was no painted background : that the periacti stood alone ; and that they indicated a change of scene in a merely symbolical way.
The vases of the later fifth century furnish us with any number of examples to show how the painters of that age indicated locality. It was done on the principle of making a single typical feature stand for the whole.” Transferring this custom to the stage, it will I think be clear how easily and naturally a painter of that age could on the side of a periactos depict all
1 Vitruvius v. 8. Servius, ad Verg. Georg.iii. quibusdam convertebatur, et aliam picturae 24 speaks of the periactos as scaena versilis. faciem ostendebat.’ *Versilis tum erat, cum subito tota machinis
2 A few instances may be desirable :—
Domestic interior ; closet : Gerhard, Vases et Coupes 28 Ida ; rock and goats: Ὑ ἊΣ 11 Temple of Apollo ; tree, altar: Ss Auserl. Vasenb. 224 Palaestra ; columns, strigils : 3 a 281 Music School ; column, instruments: _,, 59 304 Tent of Achilles : Hartwig, Meistersch. ae 41
Palace of Agamemnon : 39) oe ”
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 261
that was necessary for the identification of a locality. A pillar and statue would indicate the temple of any given deity, a closet an interior, a tree a grove, und so forth. Pollux gives us a suggestion as to the kind of scenes commonly shown by the periacti. As the passage has been much discussed I will give it at length’: καταβλήματα δὲ ὑφάσματα ἢ πίνακες ἦσαν ἔχοντες γραφὰς τῇ χρείᾳ τῶν δραμάτων προσφόρους: κατεβάλλετο δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους ὄρος δεικνύντα ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ποταμὸν ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον. Several writers on the Greek stage regard the earlier part of this passage as referring to a painted background to the scene ; I think on the contrary that it implies that hangings or wooden tablets were affixed to the the sides of the periacti, giving the scenes described.
The mountain would be represented by a rock, with perhaps a goat or two: the sea by a waved line with blue colour below it, and a dolphin leaping above it. Perhaps a river, as is so very commonly the case in Greek art, might be represented by a reclining river-god, holding a vessel of water. The presence of river-gods to mark locality is to be found, in the opinion of most archaeologists, in fifth century pediments. Just as the audience on seeing a particular dress and mask would at once know what character was meant, in an exactly similar fashion they would, on seeing the device on a periactos, at once identify the scene which was to be understood. A turn of the prism, and all both far and near would realise that the scene was trans- ferred to a new place, and what the place was. In the absence of a play-bill some such conventional arrangement was necessary.
It seems a natural extension of the convention when Pollux adds that a turn of the right periactos changes the τόπος, while a turn of both together will change the χώρα. One would suppose for example that in the Ajax the τόπος is changed and in the Humenides the χώρα ; let us then try to see how this would be rendered. We may suppose that in the Ajax, the prows of two ships, standing for the Greek camp and fleet, were represented on both periacti. If one were turned, then at one end of the stage a ship would still be seen, but at the other end, where Ajax falls on his sword, there would be only rock and stone. Inthe Hwmenides, in the first act Delphi could easily be indicated to a Greek if one periactos showed a figure of Apollo, the other the sacred omphalos, which frequently appears on vases to indicate Delphi. Then in the second act the figure of Apollo would make way for that of Athena on one of the periacti, while on the other the omphalos would be replaced by the sacred olive of the Athenian Acropolis. It may be, however, that Pollux, as is so often the case with him, here makes a general rule on the basis of one or two instances. The above explanations cannot claim to be more than a suggestion of what was possible.
When a fresh play came on, the periacti or their pictures could be ina few minutes removed, and others put in their places, to move on the same pivots, giving fresh localities. Anyextensive change of background is only possible when there is a curtain to be raised or lowered, which will conceal the movements
ST νὴ}...
262 PERCY GARDNER.
of scene-shifters. On the Greek stage there was no curtain; hence it was necessary that changes of scenery should be carried out under the eyes of the spectators. And the device‘of the periacti enabled this to be done rapidly, simply, and to a Greek audience, intelligibly.
I conceive that we have now described in full the function of the periacti. It. is however supposed by some writers that Pollux assigns to these machines far more elaborate functions. Ina passage cited below! he is supposed to affirm that the periactcs on the right exhibits what is outside the city, while that on the left exhibits what comes from the city, and especially from the harbour, and introduces marine deities and objects too heavy for the mechane to carry. This way of taking the passage seems to me to deprive it of sense : it is impossible to see how the painting of a periactos could show τὰ ἐκ λιμένος, or how it could bring in marine deities. One commentator supposes that the sea deities would be perched on a shelf of the periactos and so become visible as it turned. But these difficulties vanish if we suppose, as Oehmichen and others have already maintained, that the descriptions of Pollux refer not to the periacti but to the doors by which they stood ; and this seems by far the simplest and most natural way of taking the passage. By one door would enter those from the country, by the other those from the city and the harbour. Most deities would descend in the méchané, but marine deities would enter on the ordinary level by the door leading from the harbour.
It may be objected that a passage of Vitruvius,? which connects the periacti with the gods, seems to be inconsistent with this simple interpreta- tion. He speaks of periacti, ‘ quae cum aut fabularum mutationes sunt futurae seu deorum adventus cum tonitribus repentinis, versentur, mutentque speciem ornationis in fronte.’ This passage however is of quite simple interpretation. It does not imply that the gods were introduced by the periacti, but only that when the gods were about to appear the locality as indicated by the periacti was changed, as indeed was very natural.
The next question which arises is whether there was not on the early Greek stage some scenery of a more detached and temporary character, and having closer reference to the requirements of particular plays than the painted pinakes ; and at.the same time less summary and conventional than the designs on the periacti. If such scenery was in use, it certainly did not consist of a continuous painted background, but of much simpler contrivances The doors of the skéné, I imagine, were always visible, and used. To put in front of them a long canvas, and to make doors in it corresponding to the stage doors, seems a most impractical and absurd arrangement. But by means of curtains and furniture a particular character could easily be given to the doors.
This seems to be clearly implied in the well-known passage, in which Vitruvius speaks of the doors of the stage, ‘ mediae valvae ornatus habeant
1 Pollux iv. 126. map’ ἑκάτερα δὲ τῶν δύο ἐκ πόλεως, μάλιστα τὰ ἐκ λιμένος" καὶ θεούς τε θυρῶν τῶν περὶ τὴν μέσην ἄλλαι δύο elev ἄν, μία θαλαττίους ἐπάγει, καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα ἐπαχθέστερα ἑκατέρωθεν, πρὸς ἃς αἱ περίακτοι συμπεπήγασιν, ἣ ὄντα ἡ μηχανὴ φέρειν ἀδυνατεῖ. μὲν δεξιὰ τὰ ἔξω πόλεως δηλοῦσα, ἡ δ᾽ ἑτέρα τὰ δι γ, 8:
THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE. 263
regiae aulae. And again, ‘ tragicae scaenae deformantur columnis et fastigiis et signis reliquisque regalibus rebus, comicae autem aedificiorum § privatorum habent speciem, satyricae vero ornantur arboribus speluncis montibus reliquis- que agrestibus rebus. I do not regard these words as implying, either on the early or the late Greek stage, any elaborate arrangements of cork pillars and other theatrical properties. Something far simpler sufficed, though what exactly was done we have no means for ascertaining with certainty. But it seems likely that in the fifth century, at all events, amid the many conventions of the Aeschylean stage, very summary changes of scenery would satisfy the audience.
The analogy of the Elizabethan stage entirely supports this view. On it also changes of scenery were indicated in the most summary fashion, sometimes merely by a placard. Hence the ease with which Shakespeare changes his scene. He flies like a bird from place to place, while the modern scene-painter is obliged to follow him with heavy steps, trying to translate into the language of realism the airy fancies of the dramatist. But anything like modern stage realism never existed at any period among the Greeks.
Some Hellenistic reliefs are very suggestive in the matter of a stage background. One of these in particular! presents us with a scene from a comedy, acted on a stage. <A door visible in the background is adorned with wreaths, bucrania and griffins ; part of the front of the skéné is cut off by a curtain. Such simple modifications of the background as this are quite Greek in style, and are sufficient for the purpose of adapting a permanent stone front to various representations.
On the present occasion I must confine the discussion to general principles, and cannot examine at length how these principles were applied in the staging of various ancient plays. ‘To do this adequately would require a volume, It need here only be said that we must not take too seriously the references to the scene which are not unfrequent in the mouths of the characters of tragedy, especially in the plays of Euripides. A crucial example may be found in that passage of the Zon? in which the chorus describes as if they were visible the pedimental sculptures, or as some prefer to think, the metopes, of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. They speak of sculptured groups representing the slaying of the Lernaean Hydra by Heracles and Iolaus, the overthrowing of the Chimaera by Bellerophon, and several scenes from the battle of the Gods and Giants. There is no evidence from other quarters that these subjects were sculptured on the Delphic temple: Pausanias describes the temple of the fourth century, and not that of the time of Euripides, and so does not come in. But the subjects were among those most commonly represented in ancient art, and perfectly familiar to every one of the audience. I conceive that the descriptions are merely fanciful and imaginary, and that we cannot press the testimony of Euripides to prove either that these subjects were really represented at Delphi, or that they were introduced at Athens for
1 Schreiber, Hellenist. Reliefs, Pl. 83 : Dorp- 5] 184-218, feld and Reisch, p. 327 : cf. Schreiber ΕἸ]. 85, &c.
264 THE SCENERY OF THE GREEK STAGE.
the occasion on the front of the skéné. We moderns find it difficult to realize how far more naturalistic we are in theatrical representations than the Greeks. In the same play of the Zon,! later on, a servant describes in great detail a piece of tapestry dedicated by Heracles out of the spoils of the Amazons. Surely in this case we can scarcely imagine that he produced on the stage a garment embroidered with the scenes described by the poet. But the two descriptions are alike vivid and detailed.
In like manner the elaborate backgrounds sometimes supposed to be implied in other plays of Euripides need scarcely be taken seriously. Dr. Reisch says that in the Andromeda of Euripides, the heroine appeared fastened to a rock close to the sea; I strongly suspect, however, that a dolphin and a line of waves on one of the periacti would represent the sea. The same writer thinks that the background of the 7’roades represented burning Ilium which, I presume, came tumbling down on the stage like the city in Mr. Wilson Barrett’s Claudian. Even Dr. Reisch, however, is staggered, when in the Hercules Furens the palace comes clattering down, and yet a little later in the play its front is spoken of as still standing. We are told that when the Incendium of Afranius was played before Nero, a real house was burned. Such a tasteless and ridiculous bit of realism was quite suitable to Nero, but would have been looked on with disdain in the better days of the Attic stage.
It does not seem impossible to realize what the background of the Greek stage was like in the various periods of dramatic representation. We know that in the case of such theatres as that of Aspendus it was an elaborate architectural stone front with pillars, cornices and windows, rising to a considerable height, and divided into storeys. Of a similar kind, no doubt, though less elaborate, were the fronts of the skénae in the great Greek theatres of the Hellenistic age, at Athens, Megalopolis, Epidaurus, and other places. At an earlier time, in the fifth and fourth centuries, the stage-buildings were of wood. But there can scarcely be a doubt that in architectural character they reseinbled the stone buildings which succeeded them, though on a less ambitious scale and a simpler plan. The doors on to the stage at all periods were house doors ; and the walls in which they were cut must have stood for house walls. This background would stand for temple, palace or house, as the case required, and any differentia of scenery necessary for the purposes of any particular play would be added either by the use of periacti, or by the introduction of very simple stage properties.
PERCY GARDNER.
1°], 1146.
ON REPRESENTATIONS OF HELIOS AND OF SELENE.
[Puates IX., ΧΙ]
Among the various references which Athenaeus makes in his Aeczrvo- σοφισταί to the encounter of Herakles with Helios, when he was going to the island of Erytheia, we find the following (Book xi. 39 ff) :—
Φερεκύδης δ᾽ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν προειπὼν περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ωκεανοῦ ἐπιφέρει: ὁ δ᾽ Ηρακλῆς ἕλκεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ τόξον ὡς βαλῶν, καὶ ὁ Ἥλιος παύσασθαι κελεύει, ὃ δὲ δείσας παύεται. “Ηλιος δὲ ἀντὶ τούτου δίδωσιν αὐτῷ τὸ δέπας τὸ χρύσεον, ὃ αὐτὸν ἐφόρει σὺν ταῖς ἵπποις, ἐπὴν δύῃ, διὰ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ τὴν νύκτα πρὸς ἐῴην, ἵν᾿ ἀνίσχει ὁ Ἥλιος. Ἡρακλῆς ἐν τῷ δέπαϊ τούτῳ ἐς τὴν ᾿Ερύθειαν κ.τ.λ.
To this curious episode only two pictorial allusions have so far been known; they represent two successive moments in the drama, and are found, one on a black-figured lekythos of somewhat careless style, first published by Stackelberg! and frequently reproduced, where Herakles is depicted in the act of stopping the chariot of the sun, and the other, on the beautiful and well-known kylix in the Museo Gregoriano ® where he is shown sailing in the cup given by Helios. To these two we can now add a third (Plate IX.), which has the additional advantage of being infinitely superior in point of technique to the first named. This too is painted in black on the red ground of a lekythos (Fig. 1) found some years ago in Eretria. Other lekythi of similar type found m the same district have already been published in this Jowrnal,? and the one in question (height 0°30, greatest cireumference 0.385), now in the National Museum at Athens, was acquired by the Greek Archaeological Society, together with several others, and placed in the
ἔπειτα πορεύεται ὁ
1 Graber der Hellenen, Taf. XV. 5; Gerhard,
the same excavations come the lekythos Poly-
Gesamm. Abhandl. Taf. V. 5. Roscher, Lexikon i. col. 1995 ; οἵ, zbid. col. 2204.
2 Museum Gregor. ii. Τὰν. LXXIV. 1; Ger- hard loc. cit. No. 4 Auserl. Vasenb. Taf. CIX. Roscher ibid. col. 2204.
3 Vol. xiii. 1892 Pl. I.-III. p. 1 sqqg. (Εἰ Sellers). For the excavations at Eretria οἵ, Tsountas, ’Epnu. apx. 1886 p. 31 sqg. From
H.S,— VOL, XIX.
technicon 3507 published Jahrbuch. d. Inst. ii. Ρ. 163; another, 3508 published Antike Denk- mdler i. Taf. XXIII. 3 (cf. Jahrbuch. ibid. p. 242) and various other lekythi and small oinochoai as far as the inventory number 3514 ; moreover the lekythos 3533 (Ephebus on horse- back) ete. ; all vases with the figures drawn on white ground, or else red-figured.
T
266 L. SAVIGNONT.
Polytechnicon collection (Reg. No. 3506) where I was able to examine and copy it, thanks to the kindness of M. Kumanudis.!. The vase is complete, but has been put together from many pieces. The surface has been some- what injured, the horses in particular being much damaged, but nothing of importance is wanting.
Helios in his chariot, drawn by two winged white horses, rises from the ocean, in which fishes swim; he is bearded, as is usual in archaic repre- sentations of him, and above his head is the radiate dise of a reddish sun; he wears a cehiton, and a chlaina embroidered with red and white flowers is thrown over ΠῚΞ shoulders and hangs down on cither side. His eyes are directed towards the figure of Herakles crouching on a rock in the midst of the sea. Herakles is rendered in ac- cordance with the usual archaic type, a wedge-shaped beard, lion-skin drawn over his head, and fastened round the waist by the belt, on his back a bow and quiver. His other weapon is the club, but he is not using it, as it is in his left hand; his right is raised in a gesture of surprise, so that the conception underlying this picture is clearly a very different one from that which in- spired the Stackelberg vase, where Herakles is making an almost grotesque display of valour. In our design the hero waits near the spot where the chariot of the sun will appear, and when at last it does burst forth in all its glory, he who was on the watch for the right moment to bar its progress with his club, so as to avenge himself for the burning heat with which the god has increased the toil of his task, dares not make use of his weapons and gazes in wonder at the sight.
The design is instinct with a fine and delicate feeling which agrees well with the spirit of Pherekydes’ story—the calm, imperturbable god seems to be uttering the very words with which he bade the hero desist from his attempt, and at the same time promised him the wondrous recompense, while in the hero’s attitude we trace a shade of fear, a feeling to which he was generally a stranger, and which prevents him from putting his plans into execution.
The value of our design lies not merely in its esoteric interest, the rarity of the subject rendered, but also in its exoteric one, the method of its
Fic. 1.—LEKYTHOS AT ATHENS.
’ The drawing has been cleverly executed by Sig. Berretti, after a careful tracing.
\SNSHLV) SOtISH GNV SATHVYSH HLIM SOHLANSN
R200 ee Ὁ
τονε ἣν na ἢ νι he viral - : hin i? ‘ δὶ are “ὦ δι νν εν hin ἐμ ἥν ving ὦ γίνω » hes 1 ἵν. py hay ~ ξ ay > 4 > - τ, ᾿ ἀν * on * ΄ ; « ψὰ - eR > 308 li " I - () 4 ὃ “τ ἣν Ἷ 4 Ὥ Ὗ ἀν Ψ ΟΣ πὰ
are ᾿ “a
bine:
hei ve bia
Δ1
ON REPRESENTATIONS OF HELIOS AND OF SELENE. = 267
rendering. In fact the composition is merely a combination of two distinet motives which existed separately in archaic art, the type of the chariot of Helios rising from the sea, and the type of Herakles crouching, armed to the teeth, But in spite of agreement in technique with the black-figured vases, archaism is here presented in a form somewhat modified by the spirit of a more advanced art, and just as the figure of Herakles has much in common with those on red-figured vases of severe style, so the chariot of Helios is represented in a style which does not correspond exactly with the earlier type, though it possesses many of its peculiarities, We see this type (which is of course based on the well-known scheme of a chariot seen from the front), though in a somewhat late and unusual form, on a black-figured amphora! of careless style. It is a proof of the persistence of the traditional type, a persistence which ean of course be paralleled in analogous representations of other subjects ; and even our artist carefully keeps to the received type and merely modifies it in the manner adopted in all known representations of Helios anterior to the fine red-figured vase style. We see the chariot from the front, and the god, save that his head is turned to the spectator’s left, faces the same way ; he is still bearded, not, as in later figures, beardless ; on the other hand an attempt has been made to give more movement tothe group, by changing the position of the horses ; but the artist unable yet to foreshorten them has had recourse to the ingenious expedient of drawing them in profile and of turning them to face each other; for they are a pair, not a team of four. The solution of the difficulty is not a very happy one, for the schema obtained is less natural and more forced than the earlier one ; but we cannot deny that the design gains in decorative effect from the greater symmetry thus obtained ; to this effect the beautiful recurved wings with which the artist has decorated the horses contribute not a little. He cannot however be credited with the actual invention of this second type, for (except on the amphora mentioned above), it is common to all known representations of Helios anterior to the fine red-figured style, but with the difference that in them the design is hurriedly and carelessly drawn, and of the horses, by a conventional abbreviation, only the fore-parts are shown. It is remarkable that all or almost all the vases on which this design is found are black-figured Attic lekythi of decadent style. The most notable of them are the Stackelberg lekythos and a few others in which only the chariot appears, as for instance one from Athens,? now in the museum at Berlin, a second, like ours, from Eretria, in Boston,® and a third, formerly in the Lamberg collection,‘ of which the shape is not indicated, but which probably, judging from the similarity of its. design, is also a lekythos. Further, the same design has been adapted to a Selene figure, in the interior of a well-known red-figured kylix (Fig. 2) in the style of Brygos, belonging to the Berlin Museum.
1 Zlite céram. ii. Pl, CXV. 1.
2 Furtwingler, Vasensammlung 1983.
3 C, Robinson, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Catalogue of Vases No. 335.
4 Laborde, Vases Lamberg ii. p. 18, vign. 3 ; Elite céram. ii. Pl. CVI.
5 Furtwingler, Vasensammlung 2293. Ger- hard, 7rinkschalen Taf, VIII. 3, 4 ; Elite céram. ii. Pl. CXVIL. The figure in Gerhard, Gesamm. Abhanadl, Taf. VIII. 3 and in Roscher, Lexikon ii. col. 3139, is reversed. Cf. also Hartwig, Meisterschalen p. 356.
T 2
268 L. SAVIGNONI.
The type, therefore, is one familiar to the painters both of black- fienred lekythi and of ‘severe’ red-figured kylikes, and both these styles belong to a period not anterior to the fifth century n.c., though 1 should say that the type in question was in existence at the very outsct of that period. The kylix just referred to, and the new Iekythos, are both better arguments in support of this theory than the black-figured lekythi of later style first mentioned, for our vase is painted in a manner which is still very far distant from that which is shown, for instance, by the well-known vase with the quadriga of Amphiaraos,’ and attains a degree of accuracy not often found
Vig. 2.—KyYLix Ar BERLIN. (From Gerhard, Trinkschalen, P|. VIII.)
in the black-figured lekythi of that century. The figures are drawn with a firmer and bolder touch than is perhaps consistent with the technique employed, and all their details are picked out in accordance with the methods traditional in this style. The outlines and the inner markings, both of the black and of the white figures, are marked out with finely-incised lines, used with special effect in the manes, tails and wings of the horses, which last are painted in white, laid, as usual, over the black silhouette; the fish ure white, so are the edge of the rock on which Herakles crouches, his belt, and the outlines of the mouth and the teeth of his lion skin. The rosettes
1 Wiener Vorlegeblitter 1889 Taf. XI. 8.
ON REPRESENTATIONS OF HELIOS AND OF SELENE. 209
on the garment of Helios are partly white and partly red, a colour used also for his beard and front hair, for the beard of Herakles, for the solar disc, and for some touches on the lion skin, and on the manes and tails of the horses, so that the monochrome reproduction on Plate IX. gives but a poor idea of the rich and varied colouring of the original.! Not content with the effect thus produced the artist has attempted, by a very ingenious device, to indicate the transparency of the water; its depths are rendered in black with the usual schematic waves on the surface, but water supposed to be immedi- ately in front of the horses’ legs and of the fishes is treated with a slight and uneven wash of varnish much diluted, and spread horizontally over the white, which thus looks as if it were veiled in a thin yellowish-white medium. This device is an carly sign of the well-known naturalistic tendencies of the polychrome Ickythi, and occurs also on another lekythos from Eretria with black figures on a white ground (published in this Journal, vol. xii, 1892. Pl. I.), in which the water between the rocks of the Sirens is rendered in the same way. ‘The presence of so rare a technique” on two vases from the same locality makes it not unlikely that they both come from one workshop, and the likelihood is still further increased by certain general resemblances of style and the similar treatment of certain details, such as the serpentine lines incised in the hair of one of the Sirens and painted on the tunic of Ulysses, the form of the rocks, the similar distribution of colour, the pattern incised on the figure of one Siren, etc. Our vase may moreover be compared with the two other lekythi from Eretria (published together in the same Vol. xiii, Pl. 11. and IIL), one representing the adven- tures of Ulysses at Circe’s court, and the other those of Herakles and Atlas. Here also we find some similarities of treatment, notably in the type of Herakles, the form of his bow and quiver, and the method of rendering the curls.
Though our lekythos and the other three may very probably come from the same workshop, there is no real ground for saying that they are contem- porary. Ours is the earliest in date, in proof of which we may adduce its more intense archaism, the absence of white engobe, and even the shape of the vase, which is less cylindrical and flatter than the others. I deem it premature to enquire whether the manufacture of this, and of the other three lekythi, is to be assigned, with Tsountas (loc. cit.), to Eretria or to Athens.
Il.
The subject figured on Plate X. forms an effective contrast to the pre- ceding, for whereas that pictures the god of daylight, this represents another
1 In the Plate the incised lines and the — small black strokes.
white colour are represented by the natural 2 Miss Sellers in the text dealing with the P1. tone of the paper; the red is indicated by a I. cited mentions a fictile b.f. fragment from half tint, and the veiled white of the parts Naukratis (Catal. B. 103,,) in which the water immersed in the water by another, lighter half- [8 indicated in an analogous way.
tint. The flaked-off portions are indicated by
270 L. SAVIGNONIT.
rare subject, the goddess of night. Sclene rises from the sea (indicated by a dolphin) in her chariot drawn by two winged fiery steeds, and starts on her rapid journey across the starry sky, guided by the figure of Hermes who precedes her. The subject decorates a bell-krater (Fig. 3), which was found in Boeotia, and has passed with the rest of the Polytechnicon collection into the Central Museum at Athens. It belongs to the end of the ‘fine’ red- figured vase period, but still in my opinion to the fifth century; the design though hurriedly drawn is the work of a skilled and experienced hand, and its spirited execution atones for the incorrectness of some of the details. . The goddess appears in the form of a graceful maiden, wearing a radiate diadem on her flowing hair, and dressed in a light robe, which stirred by the breeze winds itself round the girlish figure slightly bent forward to obtain a firm footing on the chariot and to steady the galloping horses. Near her head is the lunar disc between two stars. Here, as in the Helios vase, we have another instance in which the = presentation of a divine personality in a Fic. 3.—Krarer ar ATHENS (Reverse). human form does not exclude that of the natural phenomenon,? and just as Helios has his solar disc, so Selene has her moon. Sometimes, as in the Berlin kylix (Fig. 2), this takes the form of a dise placed on the head of the goddess, like that above Helios, only it is not radiate ;* sometimes it is a profile female head, enclosed in a circle,t probably an allusion to the full moon ;° the commonest sign is however the characteristic crescent moon, a sign which in the best period is always placed beside Selene, and generally between two stars,° while later artists preferred to place it on her head. It
1 Invent. No. 4294. Acyuired in 1888. + See the vase in Compte Rendw 1860 PI. III. Put together out of several pieces. Height 0°33. and another in Gerhard, Gesamm. Abhandl. The interior is varnished. It is provided also Pl. VIII. 8, repeated in Roscher, Lexikon ii. with a cover (omitted in the photograph) col. 3166. Cf. the analogous representation of adorned with branches of laurel, palmettes and Helios in Gerhard ibid. Taf. V. 1, and Roscher
lotos-flowers. ib. i. col. 1998.
* Cf. Furtwiingler, Sammlung Sabouroff, text > Cf. the κύκλος πανσέληνος of Euripides, to Taf. LXIII. Ion v. 1146 sqq.
* By Rapp in Roscher, Lewikon i. col. 1277, 6 Cf. for example the vase at Florence, and at first also by Furtwiingler she was inter- Heydemann, Hall. Winckelmannsprogramm preted as Hos ; Robert in 7/cermes 1884 p. 467 1878 Taf. 111. 2; Roscher Lexikon ii. col. 3140. sqq. recognised Nys:: but the presence of the ΔΑ small xf. lekythos with the head of Selene lunar dise absolutely excludes both these inter- and the half-1n0on, unpublished, is mentioned
pretations. Cf. Weizsiicker in Roscher, Lexikon — by Hartwig, Mcisterschalcen p. 356 note 1. See 111, p. 575. for the rest Roscher loc. cit. col. 3131.
PL X.
J.H.S. VOL. XIX (1899).
‘SSWYH3H ONV 3N373S HLIM SNSHLV LV YaLVvYym
ON REPRESENTATIONS OF HELIOS AND OF SELENE. 271
-
is obvious that by this time the realistic representation of the phenomenon has gradually lost itself in the symbol; in earlier work, such as our vase, instead of the crescent, the goddess wears a golden diadem from which dart effulgent rays.
There are as is well known two classic types of Selene, one on horseback, the other in a chariot; the former was the favourite type in the fifth century, and it is well known that Pheidias used it on the bathron of Zeus at Olympia. Up to a very recent period it was supposed that it was the only one recognised by the master, and that in the Parthenon pediment also Selene was on horseback, but recent investigations show that she, like Helios at the other end,2 was in a chariot drawn by four horses. This does not in my opinion® necessitate a renaming of the group, for the idea of Sclene journeying in a chariot is of fairly ancient date.’ Judging from the monuments of all periods of ancient art it appears to be the more popular of the two, and if the riding type was more common in the fifth century it did not entirely oust it from public favour. A proof of this is to be found in the Berlin kylix to which we have already had occasion to refer, in a red-figured vase of severe style from Cuma,® and in the Athenian vase under discussion, which is but little removed from the Parthenon marbles in point of date, and in point of composition recalls the chariot groups on the frieze.
One detail remains to be discussed, the duty assigned to Hermes: it is no unusual thing to find him acting as guide to the chariots of gods and heroes,® but in that case his presence is explained by his duty as herald and messenger of Zeus, an explanation which in this case would be unsatisfac- tory.’ This connection with the fair goddess of night must rather be explained by his functions as god of sleep and dreams, in which capacity he is often spoken of as ὀνειροπομπός and ὑπνοδότης *; he it was who put to sleep and slew Argos, and who (Z/. Ὁ 445) ‘shed sleep’ upon the sentinels of the Achaean host ; and it was in virtue of this power of his that the Phaeacians, before going to rest, offered a last libation to him (0d. ἡ 137) and that those who wished for ‘ pleasant dreams and sweet repose’ hung his image near their beds. In this case his functions are identical with those of Hypnos, who is mentioned as driver of Selene’s chariot, and sometimes takes the place which
1 Cf. Hymn. Hom. 32, 5. Roscher ibid. 5 Fiorelli, Vast Cuwmani Tay. VI. 3133. 6 Cf. c.g. the vase at Bologna Annal. d. Inst. 2 Sauer, Athen. Mutheil. xiii. 1891, p. 84, 1880 Τὰν. IV. where Hermes precedes the
Taf. III. The hypothesis that Selene rode on horseback was sustained by Cecil Smith in this Journal, vol. ix. p. 9.
3 Miss Sellers in Classical Review vi. 370 proposes to recognize Nyx in accordance with the Euripidean description in Aristoph. Z'hesm. v. 1065; an opinion accepted reservedly by Furtwingler Masterpicces p. 465.
4 Cf Hymn. Hom. 32; Pindar, Olymp. iii. 19 ; Euripid. Suppl. 990 sqq.
quadriga which hears Herakles to Olympos, moving, as here, over the sea, indicated by fish.
7 On the relief representing Echelos and Basile, the mother of Helios and Selene, Hermes acts as guide to the chariot (Egy. apx. 1893 Pl. IX.; Collignon, Sculpture Grecque ii. p. 190) ; but this is not enough to establish a connection.
8 See-Roscher, Lexikon i. vol. 2375 sq.
272, ON REPRESENTATIONS OF HELIOS AND OF SELENE.
on our vase is occupied by Hermes?!. It is the connection between these duties of his and his attributes as god of death which accounts for the association of Hermes Psychopompos and of Selene on later sarcophagi, in the same way that the life-giver Prometheus appears with Helios”. This explanation is in no way invalidated by the fact that on the Lasimos vase ὃ Hermes acts as marshal to Eos, another divinity of the light, because his golden wand had the double power of giving sleep to mortals and of awakening them *; and this is why, on some of the neo-Attic reliefs, Hermes precedes the chariots of Helios and of Kos, if M. Homolle’s explanation is correct ®. But in so far as it concerns those on which the figure in the chariot is female, I think that a comparison with our vase would suggest an identification with Sclene, rather than with Kos, and the more so that the figure is wingless.
On the reverse of our krater (Fig. 3) there is a figure of Athena in a chariot in motion ; she is dressed in a sleeveless tunic with the aegis thrown behind her shoulders, her hair unbound, the crest of her helmet floating in the wind ; beside her flies her owl.
L. SAVIGNONI.
1 Roscher, tbid. ii. col. 3142. Ona gem at — Lichtgotthciten, Taf. VII. 4.
Berlin, Hermes is figured as Ilypnos. Miiller- 4 [lias 2 343; Odyss. ε 47; @ 3; Verg. Aen. Wieseler, Denk. a..K. ii. 328. iv. 242. 2 Cf. O. Jahn, Arch. Beitrage p. 88. 5. Bull. corr. hell. xvi. 1892 p. 336.
3 Klein, Meistersignaturen pp. 210 ; Gerhard
VENATIO ALEXANDRI. [PLATE XI.]
WE learn from Pliny! and Plutarch * that there was in the sanctuary at Delphi a large bronze group, the work of Lysippus and Leochares, with a dedication by Craterus, Alexander's licutenant, representing the rescue of Alexander by Craterus in a lion-hunt. The precision with which certain details are mentioned, (in particular the dogs) seems to show clearly that Plutarch was speaking de visw of this work of art; there is no need to imagine that it was transported to Rome and that it was there he saw it. It is therefore quite possible to suppose that it was still in existence at Delphi at the time of Pausanias’s visit. As the Periegetes makes no reference to it, his enemies will not fail to take advantage of this omission; unjustly, for Pausanias did not undertake to give a complete enumeration of even the most important ex-votos, with which in his time the sanctuary at Delphi was still crowded.
On the right of the staircase which leads from the space before the temple to the theatre * there is a sort of large chamber—if the word chamber is applicable to a court enclosed by walls on three of its sides. This chamber is consequently similar to that of the ex-voto of the Lacedaemonians; but its construction appears to be of more recent date, to be Hellenistic rather than Hellenic. In the middle ages we find that this sort of hall was transformed into a dwelling ; the side which was left open (that looking on to the space in front of the temple) was closed, a wooden upper floor and wooden par- titions were added, and the beautiful isodomous masonry, with its stones tinted by the rays of the sun, was covered with a thick coating of stucco. The dimensions of the room and the care with which it was executed were calculated to be in harmony with the object it was destined to contain, and
1 HN. xxxiv. 63-64: nobilitatur Lysippus ct temulenta tibicina et canibus ac venatione... Idem fecit Alexandri venationem, quae Delphis sacrata est.
2 Alex. 40: Ἐπέτεινεν οὖν ἔτι μᾶλλον αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐν ταῖς στρατείαις καὶ ταῖς κυνηγεσίαις κακοπαθῶν καὶ παραβαλλόμενος, ὥστε καὶ Λάκωνα πρεσβευτὴν παραγενόμενον αὐτῷ λέοντα κατα- βάλλοντι μέγαν εἰπεῖν. Καλῶς γε, ᾿Αλέξανδρε,
πρὺς τὺν λέοντα ἠγώνισαι περὶ Tas βασιλείας. Τοῦτο τὸ κυνήγιον Κράτερος εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀνέθηκεν εἰκόνας χαλκᾶς ποιησάμενος τοῦ λέοντος καὶ τῶν κυνῶν καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως τῷ λέοντι συνεστῶτος καὶ αὑτοῦ προσβοηθοῦντος, ὧν τὰ μὲν Λύσιππος ἔπλασε τὰ δὲ Λεωχάρη»".
3. See the plan of the Delphic sanctuary in B.C.H, xxi. (1897), or in Frazer’s Pausanias, v. PL “4.
274 PAUL PERDRIZET.
indeed it was in this chamber, so well adapted to receive an ex-voto of such great and general importance, that the offering of Craterus was erected. To this fact evidence is borne by the following epigram, which may be read in large letters carefully cut on two consecutive stones of one of the
courses of the back wall (B.C.\H. xxi p. 598):
Υἱὸς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου Kpatepos τάδε τὠπόλλων [4] Μ Ψ \ / , / ηὔξατο Tides καὶ πολύδοξος ἀνήρ' r \ al στᾶσε, TOV ἐμ μεγάροις ἐτεκνώσατο καὶ λίπε παῖδα, πᾶσαν ὑποσχεσίαν πατρὶ τελῶν Κράτερος" Μ © 22 \ e / / ΜΝ ὄφρα οἱ ἀΐδιον καὶ ἁρπαλέον κλέος ἄγρα, a / / lo / ” ὦ ξένε, ταυροφόνου τοῦδε λέοντος ἔχοι: ou ποτε, ᾿Αλ[ζεξάν]δρω: τότε ὅθ᾽ εἵπετο καὶ συνεπόρθει τῶι πολυαιν[ήτωι τ]ῶιδε ᾿Ασίας βασιλεῖ, Aa ΄ Ν ’ ΄, ᾽ ΄ ὧδε συνεξαλάπαξε, καὶ εἰς χέρας ἀντιάσαντα 10 ἔκτανεν οἰονόμων ἐν περάτεσσι Σύρων.
οι
This shows-that the offering was consecrated at Delphi by the younger Craterus! (vv. 3-4) in fulfilment of a vow made by his father Craterus, son of Alexander of Orestis (vv. 1-2) and lieutenant of Alexander the Great. This consecration must have been somewhat belated, seeing that Craterus the elder died in 321 and, according to the epigram itself, Craterus II was still in his infancy at the death of his father”. Craterus II was the son of Phila, the daughter of Antipater, whom Craterus the elder had married in the autumn of 322; the battle in which the elder Craterus met his death took place in the following summer, in harvest-time. Craterus the son was only a few weeks old at the time. It is natural to suppose that he waited to reach manhood to dedicate the ex-voto of his father. The dedication could not therefore be anterior to the year 300. The exact date lies somewhere between this date and that of the death of Craterus, which latter moreover is not exactly known. It is placed between 270 and 265. The palacography of the epigram indicates clearly the first half of the third century ; the letters have both thick and thin strokes, and the omega is of a particular shape 9. which at Delphi seems pecular to this period.*? Craterus the son, the uterine brother of
1 For the younger Craterus cf. Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften, i. ; Bockh, C.1.G. i. p. viii. of the preface ; Meineke, Stephani Ethnicorum quac supersunt (Berlin, 1849), p. 214 sq.; Miller, F.H.G. ii. p. 617 sq. ; Cobet, Ad Crateri ψηφισμάτων συναγωγήν, in Mnemosyne, 1873, p. 97 sqg.; Krech, De Crateri ψ. σ. et de locis aliquot Plutarchi cx ca petitis (1888): Susemihl, Gricch. Litt. in der Alcxandrinerzett, i. p. 599 sg. For Alexander, son of the younger Craterus, cf. Monceaux, b.C.H. vi. p- 526 sq.; Wilhelm, Ath. Mitth. xvi. p. 150, and 'Ἔφημ. ᾿Αρχαιολ. 1892, p. 131.
3 Droysen (Hist. de Vhellénisme, ii. p. 115 of
the French translation) supposed that Cra- terus II. was a posthumous son, a hypothesis negatived by the third line of the Delphic epigram. Cf. Cornelius Nepos, Vita Eumenis, 4: ussa (Crateri) in Macedoniam waort etus ac liberis remisit (Eumenes) ; in order to explain this liberis, Craterus must have had some children by Amastris, the niece of Darius, whom he had married in 324.
3 Examples of this kind of omega on Delphic inscriptions of the third century: (1) Proxenia for Theodorus of Megara, B.C.H. xxi. p. 316, engraved στοιχηδόν, but belonging to the third century, seeing that it is dated in the archon-
VENATIO ALEXANDRI. 275
Antigonus Gonatas, played towards the cnd of his life a sufficiently important part; he held high military commands in Greece proper, but there is nothing to prove that the Delphic ex-voto was not dedicated before the accession of Antigonus, i.e. before 277. We learn from Athenaeus (xv. 696 EK, ΕἾ that a paean, the work of Alexinus, the Eristic philosopher, was sung at Delphi in honour of Craterus: παιὰν δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ εἰς Κρατερὸν τὸν Μακεδόνα γραφεὶς ὃν ἐτεκτήνατο ᾿Αλεξῖνος ὁ διαλεκτικός, ὥς φησιν “ρμιππος ὁ Καλλιμάχειος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλους: ἄδεται δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἐν Δελφοῖς, λυρίξοντος γέ τινος παιδός : which means, that the people of Delphi, or the younger Craterus, had instituted a festival in honour of the elder Craterus. The pacan of Alexinus was written in all probability for the first occasion on which these Kpartepeta were celebrated, that is to say for the dedication of the ex-voto of Craterus; but this does not tell us the exact date of this dedication, seeing that Alexinus is supposed (although his epoch is not definitely determined) to have lived to the end of the first third of the 3rd century. One thing only is certain, viz. that neither Lysippus nor even more certainly Leochares can have seen the inauguration of their work. The extreme date of the activity of Leochares is placed about 320 and that of Lysippus about 300.
Yet another problem presents itself, which scems as little capable of exact solution as that of the date of the dedications—‘ Where and when did this hunt take place in which Craterus saved Alexander’s life?’ οἰονόμων ἐν περάτεσσι Σύρων, says the epigram; the text seems clear enough, and yet it is by no means so, when we remember that the Greeks employed quite indifferently the terms Σύρος and ᾿Ασσύριος, Συρία and ᾿Ασσυρία. Between the battle of Issus and the entrance into Egypt, historians make no mention of any hunting expeditions on the part of Alexander, and we may quite pertinently ask ourselves when he could have found the time. During the siege of Tyre, which lasted so long? But that was just the busiest time in all the Phoenician campaign. At the beginning of the siege, while con- structing the engines for attack, Alexander left Craterus before the city and went into the Anti-Libanus to make a raid upon the Arab tribes.’ The hunt, with Craterus present, can therefore hardly have taken place during this period. In short, there is nothing to prevent the supposition that Assyria
ship of Ornichidas II. ; (2) Proxeniai for the Cuidians, B.C.H. xx. p. 583, note 2; (3) decrees engraved on the ex-voto of the Messenians, B.C. H. xxi. p. 618; (4) decree for the Thracian king Cotys, &.C.H. xx. p 476; (5) dedication of the ἀνάλαμμα of the Cnidians ; &e. This form of omega, which is unknown to Attic epigraphy, is found outside Delphi, fairly often in the inscriptions of Northern Greece; cf. C.L.G.S.. iii, 88, 34 (Stiris), 658 (Ithaca); I know two unpublished examples,
the one in an epigram of Acraephiae of
the third century, the other in an epitaph
of Amphissa; Mr. Mahafly has noticed it in the Laches papyrus (Flinders Petrie Papyri, ii. p- 165). The point of interest lies in its ap- pearance in two fairly well-known documents connected with one another, of which the date is placed variously in the third and second cen- turies (cf. B.C.H. xx. p. 488); these are the decree of the people of Olbiopolis for Protogenes (Latycheff, Znser. Pont. Mux. i. p. 31) and the dedication of tlie tiara of Olbia.
1 Cf Noldeke, ᾿Ασσύριος Hermes, v. (1871), p. 443-468.
2 Q. Curtius, iv. 3, 1.
Σύριος Σύρος in
276 PAUL PERDRIZET.
was the scene of the hunt. It is, in fact, after giving an account of the taking of Babylon that Plutarch goes on to speak of the ex-voto of Craterus ; unhappily, at this point in the biography, the chronological order is suspended and the narrative interrupted to make room for reflections and anecdotes. Plutarch relates, it is true, that a Spartan ambassador was present at this hunt, and ironically congratulated Alexander on having come so successfully out of his struggle with the lion. Untortunately this mention of the Spartan ambassador does not enable us to date with any precision the hunt in which Craterus distinguished himself. In 332 Parmenion laid hands at Damascus on a certain Euthycles, an ambassador from Sparta to the court of the Great King. Alexander kept this Euthycles a prisoner for some time and even put him in chains (Arrian, 11, 15, 5). It is difficult to believe that under these cireumn- stances Kuthycles would have been invited to a royal hunt, and above all, should have allowed himself to scoff at the King. To find any fresh mention of Spartan ambassadors at Alexander’s court after 332, we have to come down as late as the end of the year 330 after the battle of Megalopolis.! At this date Alexander had left not only Syria but also Assyria. However, it is quite possible that Plutarch has confounded two separate anecdotes in one story.”
The subject of the King hunting the lion, especially popular in Oriental art, had not up to the time of Alexander been treated by Greck artists except in mythological guise or on monuments executed to the order of Asiatics.? For the introduction of the oriental motif among the stock subjects of Greek art, it was necessary that a Greek king should conquer Asia, should become the King of Kings, and in pursuance of the ancient tradition of the monarchs of Susa, Babylon or Nineveh, should hunt like a new Nimrod in the παράδεισοι of the Achaemenidae. This magnificent subject makes its real entry into Greek art with Alexander; it was adopted with enthusiasm by those who may be called the sculptors of the reign. The son of Lysippus~ Euthycrates, executed the hunt of Alexander, which was dedicated at Thespiae*; on the famous Sidon sarcophagus, Alexander is seen liunting the lion in company with a Persian prince and a numerous retinue of Greeks and Asiatics.
It is open to us to believe that of all the Lysippean works which repre- sented Alexander hunting the lion the most remarkable was that at which the master himself had worked. Is it not, then, possible to form some idea of the work of Lysippus and Leochares ?
The attempt has been made to identify replicas, more or less faithful and complete, of the celebrated group on the reverses of two of the medallions of the treasure of Tarsus® (PI. XL, Figs. 2, 4), or on the relief brought from Messene
1 Aud not in 331, as Judeich says (Jahrbuch, 1895, p. 172).
2 Willrich (Z/erimes, 1899, p. 233) thinks that the hunt took place at Marathos or at Sidon before the siege of Tyre.
3 Cf. the Lycian sarcophagus from Sidon, and Urlichs, Scopas, p. 196.
4 Pliny, H.N. xxxiv. 64.
5. Longpéricr, Liev. Numismatique N.S. xiii. (1868), Pl. X. et XII. = Ocwvres, iii. p. 168 sq. Pl.1V. et VI. Amer. Jour. of Archacol. iii. p. 253. Kopp, 52tes Winckelinannsprogr, p. 13. Pernice, 58s IWinckelmannspr. p. 14. Hamdi- Bey et Th. Reinach, Une Necropole royale ἃ Sidon. Collignon, Sculpture greeque, ii. Fig. 229, ete.
pu:
VENATIO ALEXANDRI.
277
to the Louvre by Le Bas (Pl. XL, Fig. 1),! or again on the great sarcophagus from Sidon (PL XI, Fig. 5). But let us confront these monuments with Plutareh’s text and with the Delphie epigram. As Alexander's life had been in danger, the Delphic ex-voto ought to show him ina fairly perilous position. Now on the pretended replicas of this ex-voto it is not the royal hunter but rather the lion which seems to be in danger; and further, on the Sidon sarcophagus, Alexander plays exactly the part which Craterus was supposed to play in the group at Delphi. The Alexander of the Sidon sarcophagus is coming to the help of the Persian prince, on whose horse the lion has thrown itself. In short, all the monuments which have up to now been cited as more or less direct replicas of the ex-voto of Craterus, have been wrongly so eited ; and we should have had to give up the hope of forming for ourselves any exact idea of the work of Lysippus and Leochares, if Mr. Arthur J. Evans, whose scientific acumen is always accompanied by no less remarkable good fortune, had not discovered, in the shop of a London dealer in antiquities, a cornclian intaglio (of rather inferior and late workmanship, it is true), which represents the following subject (Pl. XL, Fig. 3).2 In the foreground is the nude figure of a man, with one knee on the ground, defending himself with his sword against a lion who has fixed his teeth in the man’s side. In the background a horseman is rushing to the rescue of the fallen man; he raises his spear to strike the lion, and is about to transfix him by a vertical thrust; his horse meanwhile rears with fright, and his chlamys floats in the wind. Like the horseman in the relief from Messene, lhe wears a kind of hat in which we may recognise the Macedonian causia.* The learned possessor of this intaglio at once recognised the significance of this fact, and the importance of the whole representation ; and I agree with him that it is the only monument which has any serious claim to be called a replica of the Venatio Alecandri. For his permission to publish the intaglio here, I desire to express my cordial thanks.
Many objections may possibly be advanced. In the lion-hunt on the relief from Messene, and in that on the Sidon sarcophagus, dogs are represented ; these are wanting in Mr. Evans’s intaglio; nevertheless dogs are expressly mentioned by Plutarch, in his description of the ex-voto of Craterus. This objection does not seem of great weight if we remember the small size of the intaglio, and realise that a gem-engraver who wished to avoid a confused presentment of his subject was under the necessity of pruning away a very secondary detail in the somewhat exuberant composition by which he was inspired.
Ought the fact that Alexander is represented nude to make us hesitate ?
On the Sidon sarcophagus Alexander
1 Lischcke, Jahrbuch, iii. (1888), p. 189, where the previous bibliography will be found ; Collignon, Seulplure greeque, ii. Fig. 3138 ; Dragendorlf, Terra sigillata, p. 57. The illus- tration in the plate is from a photograph.
* Dimensions : 18 mm. 5 by 16 mm. 25. The
is clothed, so too is the horseman on
illustration is an enlargement by one-third, from a drawing by Mr. F. Anderson.
3 Of. Heuzey, art. ‘Causia’ in the Dictionnaire des Antiquités of Darembere and Saglio, and Mission de Macédoine, γν. 263 sy.
278 PAUL PERDRIZET.
the relief from Messene. But what is there astonishing in an ancient artist representing a king nude? Have we no statues of Hellenistic kings or of Roman Emperors which represent them in heroic nudity? On the Sidon sarcophagus, the hunting-scene, like the battle-scene, was executed by an artist imbued with feeling for the picturesque; he thoroughly understood the interest which his work would gain by the exact imitation of the costumes, and the mingling of Greek and Oriental fashions of dress; whereas the Venatio of Lysippus and Leochares, according to the testimony of Mr. Evans's intaglio, must have been conceived in a style half realistic, half heroic. Alexander was there represented nude, like a god in the Gigantomachia. Perhaps, however, he was represented as knecling on his mantle. This fallen mantle would have helped to a more vivid realisation of the intensity of the struggle and the greatness of the danger.
A third objection has been raised, to the effect that it seems hardly admissible that Lysippus should have portrayed Alexander as fallen to the ground, in such peril, and in an attitude unworthy of a king—nay rather a god. Obviously we should look in vain on monuments of Oriental art, whether Persian, Assyrian, Hittite or Egyptian, for a king in such a posture, fallen to the ground, and being saved from the lion’s jaws by one of his lieutenants. But the ex-voto of Craterus was not set up in the Palace of Susa, or in one of the squares of Babylon. Being destined for one of the sanctuaries of a free country like Greece, it told the story as it really happened. After all, it was not Alexander who ordered it, and it is not at all certain that Craterus, who wished to raise this monument to his own glory, would have appreciated at all clearly the courtier-like objection that we have ust been discussing.
And lastly, are we to urge that the passages which speak of the wounds which Alexander received,! know nothing of his having been bitten by a lion, and that if the thing had happened as it is figured on the intaglio Alexander, in order to recover from his wounds, must have made a longer stay at Babylon than history tells us he did? This objection could carry real weight only if we possessed a complete catalogue of Alexander’s wounds. Tn fact the royal hunter must have escaped from the claws of the lion without serious wounds; a miracle, if you will, but {this miracle, perhaps, was just one of the reasons which decided Craterus to immortalise the memory of the event.
To sum up, it is, if not certain, at any rate plausible, that Mr. Evans’s intaglio is a replica of the Venatio, The dimensions of the room which contained the celebrated ex-voto compel us to imagine a work on a large scale, and of fine proportions. Mr. Evans’s intaglio makes it possible for us co figure to ourselves this monumental ex-voto as a work full of life and dramatic movement, and remarkable for its composition. In the foreground, with the lines of the two bodies extending in a horizontal direction,’ is the
--τττ’“’-΄ ΄ ΄ ͵ ͵Ῥ͵ὟῬ͵͵ῬΘΟΉ.΄Π“ἷἝΠἷΠὖὅὃὖὃςπ“πΠρΠὖΠ6ὖἷΠὖἷὖὅὖἷὔ΄ὔρΠρΠΠὖ6 τι͵. -Ο-
? For Alexander’s wounds, cf. Plutarch, Περὶ 2 Compare with the Alexander of the intaglio, THs AA. τύχης, i. 2; 11. 25. Plutarch however the fallen enemy with whom Dexileos is fighting only speaks of the wounds received in battle. (Collignon Sculpt. Grecque, ii. Fig. 89).
J*H.S. VOL. XIX (1899). PL. XI.
VENATIO ALEXANDRI
» ὅ Pe ’ + μ > i “ve + ἢ ῃ : ΠῚ Ὁ" eek ' μ".. a ΚΟ 4 Ν h ὯΔ \ F , , τ tke
: } at “πε δι," “| ἡ Ε ᾿ ᾿ Ἂν «ἢ» sive Γ i ty ᾿ j eiv 4 ? 7 y aX ᾿ ' f “2 vs a _ ; ἱ Η ᾿ ϊ ; j 1 4 ϊ fF Vr <i ’ } Ῥ) ® ia Ls A ‘ ~ εν ‘ay ὶ 4 ͵ ἱ ᾿ \ ins i 2° τ i] } ‘ Ἢ νὰ ἐΠ ῳ ιν y@ " Σ": ᾽, 4 ᾿, » 7 bd 5 y <) εν 4" ins ( cw \ Ay “i ee Ἢ ψ ἵ Γ" ᾿ be i”
‘My 7 owas sis! ait ae
We
VENATIO ALEXANDRI. 279
group composed by Alexander and the lion; in the background, dominating the former group, is Craterus on horseback. The composition approaches the pyramidal form, being a kind of abridged) pedimental scheme, arranged on two planes. Every actor in the scene was represented in cnergetie action in a striking attitude ; Alexander in danger of death, fallen to the ground but fighting on, gathering up all his strength for a final effort ; Craterus flying to the help of his king, admirable for his devotion and courage, but. still more so for his coolness and dexterity; the lion, the horse prancing, his nostrils quivering at the scent of the wild beast, the dogs attacking the monster, ‘some wounded and panting: in very truth, a magnificent subject. The spiritedness of the conception is probably duc to Lysippus, if, as appears to be the case, the genius of Leochares was colder and iore correct than that of the Sicyouian master. We may also notice how well a subject of the sort must have suited such a marvellous depicter of animals as Lysippus. But of course it would be futile to seek to discover the personal share which each artist had in the Venatio Alecand7i. PAUL PerpRIZET.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. Part IT. (Continued from Ὁ. 134.) X. The west side of Lake Tatta (continued).
δ 7. SAvatTrRA.—There is another important site in this district now called Ak-Oren (‘White Ruins’), which represents SAVATRA or SOATRA (Strabo, p. 568), as Prof Ramsay has rig’.‘ly recognised, though he does not seem to indicate its position quite correctly when he speaks of ‘the ruins, four hours south-west of Eskil1 Five hours west-south-west of that village is a fairer estimate. It is placed approximately in our map, but we did not revisit it. The remains must formerly have been very conspicuous: weeks before we arrived in this district we were told about the site as the sort of piace people in search of ruins should not fail to visit. There is no village (as I understand) beside the ruins, and, to all appearance, the ancient name has migrated to Suwarek, which lies some distance to the west. Thither also great part of the remains has been transported. During a compulsory halt of an hour at Suwarek we copied a few inscriptions. Doubtless there are more, for the village was a place of some importance in Seldjuk times (cf. Sarre, Meise in Kleinasien, p. 104-5 and Taf. XLIV.); but we imagined they must have been published already and we copied them mainly to amuse ourselves !
163. In the mosque: copied hurriedly. (A.).
AAAKAATTA Aaéa ᾿Αττά- AOYAPXIFAA Rov ἀρχιγάλ- OYOPETTTH + [Nov θρεπτὴ MHTPI@EWN Μητρὶ Θεῶν ZIZIAAMH _ sie ΖΔιξιμμη- ΝΗΕΥΧΗΝ νῇ εὐχήν.
For Ζιζιμηνὴ = Δι(ννδυμηνὴ see Ramsay, Ath. Mitth. XIII. p. 237, n. 9; Kretschmer, Hinleitung, p. 196.
1 Hist. Geog. p. 343. Though he does not to. He did not visit Eski-il and accepted the give the modern name, the same site is referred _ report of the people at the ruins.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM, 281
This is the first mention in a Greek document of the archigallos, chiet of the Kybele priests (gv//oi), who has hitherto been known only from Latin sources, chiefly inscriptions of the western provinces. Cf. Cumont in Pauly- Wissowa, Real-EHneyc., s.v. .
104. In the cemetery, (A,).
AYP’TIPEIEIC Aup. IIpeteis AYP’ ATITIAAIAN Αὐρ. ᾿Αππᾶδι ἀν- APIFAYKYTATW dpi γλχυκυτάτῳ KETAEKNAAY κὲ Ta τέκνα ab- TOYACEIATIKO/ τοῦ ᾿ΛσειατικὸΪς //EEYTYXIGN κ]ὲ ὐτυχίων KEAOMNATIA κὲ Δόμνα πα- TPIMNM-LX 4 P// τρὶ μνήμης χάρ[ιν.
On Πρειεὶς see No, 117,
165. In the village. A small altar with defaced relief below the inscription. (A.).
MC PKORPATOMIIA ΑἸύρ. Kodparols ’AXe- ZANAPOYAII Edv8pov Διὶ ZEMPOY TINY | Ζημρουτηνῷ ΕΥ Re- XEN εὐχήν.
Ge Mf sin This inscription is said to have been carried from an old site, Zulmandani Khan, three hours from Suwarek and three from Obruklu, on the right
(west) of the road leading from Suwarek to the latter village. The modern ° 2 Ne oe ἢ = Desk name is clearly a survival of the old Znupovtnvos: cf. Gondane for
Tavfanvos.
166. In aruined building eight or nine miles south of Suwarek on the road to Konia. Rude lettering, much worn. (A.).
JX PCAN BASE IC ΑἸΤύρ. Σανβάθειος (as Cate ENTOY ἀνέσθησεν τοῦ (!) OE! MEN CYNTPO εἰ]δείῳ . . συντρό- ῬΠΜΙΝΔΑΡΕΕΝῈ plo μνήμης ev<p>e-
κεν].
1.1. Σανβάτιος, CL. 8912; Σαββάτις (= τιος), 9910, &e.; Σαββατὶς (fem.), No. 217 below. On the name see Hicks, #4. xii. (1891), p. 236.
§ 8. SITES AT ZEBIR KEUI.—There still remain two nameless sites quite close to each other in the central Proseilemmene, at the villages Tcheshmeli H.S.—VOL. XIX. IT
282 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
(‘Fountain’) Zebir and Kuyuli (‘ Well’) Zebir, which are so called from the sources of their water-supply. The former lies four hours west-south-west of Insuyu. Each village has its Aiiyiil:, here again not a ¢wmulus proper, but a hillock; the mound at Tcheshmeli Zebir shows remains of walls and buildings on the summit. At these villages we copied numerous inscriptions.
A. TCHESHMELI ZEBIR KEUI.
167. Small tablet in the wall of a house. (A.).
AYP Αὐρ(ήλιος)
ΜΑΡΙΟΓΠΟ Μάριος 11ο- TIAIOYANEC παίου avéc- THEATHTAY τησα TH γλυ- ΚΥΎΤΆΤΗΜοΟ κυτάτῃ μο- ΥΓΥΝΚΙΑΔΥΡ υ γυνεκὶ Αὐρ. ComoKAIHM Σοφοκλίῃ p- ΝΙΜΈΧΑΡΙΝ. _ νήμης χάριν.
ΠΠοπαῖος for ἸΠοππαῖος, Poppaeus, also in CLL.G. 5224.
168. Altar-stone. (A.).
A¥P?O0¥AA KH. Αὐρ. Οὐάλης ΔΑΔΥΡΜΑΝΗΚΑΙ Αὐρ. Μάνῃ καὶ ae flies tiie Aup. Tata yo- MIX APIN Es πα “οὶ mS Kale’:
169. Stele with triangular pediment containing figures of man and woman; below, man or boy riding an ox with stick in hand, on the left a calf (poor technique) ; two pilasters at the sides. (A.).
FAAYKETHTTWTEIN® Γλαυκέτης Τ(λ)ωτεένῳ TIATPIKAPTEMICIAMIT πατρὶ κὲ ᾿Αρτεμεισίᾳ μητ- PIKEYTYX WAAEADW pi κὲ Εὐτύχῳ ἀδελφῷ ΜΗΜΈΧΑΡΙΝὼ μνήμης χάριν.
170. Inthe mosque. (A.).
MANIOCMAN// Μάνιος Map{i- ΟΥ̓ΤΑΤΕΙΤΗΓῪΝ ov Τατεὶ τῇ γυν- AIKIMNHMHC αικὶ μνήμης
ENEKEN ἕνεκεν.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM
171. In fountain. (A.).
MM Un * \| PALA
SAA OYTATHPMMIMN «
Αὐρη]λία Δούδα θυγάτηρ μ[ν]ήμ(η)ν
KAITTAP® C THE ENAY Kal παρέστησεν αὖὐ- THOT NACIOL AY THE τῇ ὁ γνήσιος αὐτῆς ΝΗΡ
ἀἸνήρ.
172. In village, moulded stone with wreath below. (C.).
AHAHCATTAAOC
BABEIOYFATPI MNHMHCXAPIN|
Δήδης Αττᾶδος 51.
Βαβεὶ θυγατρὶ μνήμης χάριν.
173. Inthe village. A fragment. (C.).
Christian Inscriptions :-—
M
KYTA
ζω mP
MEIPO EENMI
OYTET AP OCOMOIW ENTEDIAOZE
174. Inthe village. Large altar-stone with moulding and ornamenta-
tion. . (A.).
@
AYP’ dIAHH’ AYP ATIOAAQNI®QYIG KAIAYP’/AIEINA TRAYTRATION //NIG2AANAPIAY MMMMIKYTATO
Avp. Φιλήτη Αὐρ. ᾿Απολλωνίῳ υἱῷ καὶ Αὐρ. [I‘]atetva τῷ avT@ ᾿Απολ- λ]ωνέῳ ἀνδρὶ av-
τῆς γλυ]κυτάτ[ῳ.
bo
284
175. Slab with a cross amid rough ornamentation ;
(A).
plough,
+AYRNEWNNEW
NOCTWIPAIWA
AEADW TAY KY TATWAY PITATTA ANECTHCENMNH MHCXAPIN
TIE AN OCE WNASABOC TIANT WNITOA¥ 9 IAT ATOCHENEL MHTPOC AEOVYA AE NTIAAHC
176. Altar with moulding,
AYPONHCIN/////// KAIKYPIAAAAY/ POYOWKAIETIE NETWKAIAOMH KAIAYPHAIWTE KNOILFAYKYTA TOICKAIEATOIC ZWNTECMNM ENEKEN
177. Ina cottage wall.
—_— -— Ξε 1:
ΞΓΕΜΟΣΗΓΥ OLAIOMEOYE WITOOECH MAETEY3ENAY -TOCOTNTIOLIO NEYEMH +L XAPIN ἔτ Ὁ +
(C.).
J. G. GC. ANDERSON.
underneath is <
+Adp. Νέων Νέω-
νος τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀ-
δελφῴ γλυκυ-
τάτῳ Adp. Hara
ἀνέστησεν μνή-
pens χάριν.
Πεδνὸς (-- παιδνὸς) ἐὼν ἀγαθὸς πάντων πολυφίλτ-
ατος ἦεν, ἐγ μητρὸς
δὲ Οὐαλεντίλλης.
(Α...
Αὐρ. ᾽Ονήσιϊμος καὶ Κύριλλα Αὐϊρ. “Ῥούφῳ καὶ ᾿ἔπε- νέτῳ καὶ Δόμνῃ καὶ Αὐρηλίῳ τέ- κνοις γχλυκυτά- τοις καὶ ἑατοῖς ζῶντες μνήμης ἕνεκεν.
Γεμούσης ὗ-
os (-- υἷος 1) Διομ[ήδ]ου(ς) . τόδε σῆ-
μα ἔτευξεν av-
τὸς ὁ γνήσιος γο-
νεὺς μνήμης χάριν.
+ 4: +
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 285
178. In the village ; broken on right and at foot. (A.). ᾿Ενθάδ]ε
. κίταίι Σωφρό"{ι- os Λευέτ- ἧς ὧγνός" Αὐρ. ᾿Ιωάν[ης τῷ ἰδίῳ γυνε[καὃ- ἔλφῳ] μνή- μης χάριν.]
L. 4. Λευίτης seems clear; cf. Μωυσῆς, No. 196. There were many
Jews in this neighbourhood.
B. KUYvLI ZEBIR KEUI.
179. Inthe mosque. Two figures (male and female) above. (C.).
KANAIAO Kavé.do- CKEDIAAP | s κὲ Φιλάρ- ΓΥΡΟΓΑΔΕ | yupos ἀδε- A®OIIPHNA λφοὶ 'Ipnva- lOYTIATPI | tov πατρὶ AHMHTPIA Δημητρια- MATT vp. .]
180. bid.—Small stele decorated with grapes ; above, man and woman
(broken): below, table and cup. (C.).
TTATTACMA Παπᾶς M- OYCHIAI ovon ἰδί- APYNEK: | ᾳ γυνεκὶ Γλνκντα γλυκυτά- ITHECTH | τῃ ἔστη- C€NMNH | σεν μνή- KAHCX AP NS χάρ- IN ιν.
181. Jbid.—Plain stone. (C.).
AYPTIAYAAA//// Adp. Παῦλλα AYPMONTANL(//// A vp. Μονταυ[ῷ AN APIANELTH//// ἀνδρὶ ἀνέστησϊ!εν MNIMEX APIN//// MX:
Perhaps Christian.
286
J. G. C. ANDERSON.
1810, In the cemetery. (C.).
EPMITITIOCK | Ἕρμιππος κ- AIAKYAACTWI αἱΑκυλᾶς τῷ i AIWTTATPIKAI δέῳ πατρὶ Kai MHTPIZWCIM | μητρὶ ζῶσι μ-
“ΠΕ ΧΑΡΙΝ | νήμη]ς χάριν.
182, In house-wall: two poorly worked figures above. (C.).
IOVAILOCOMWMTTLAN, Ἰούλιος Ολυμπιαν- OCIOVAIAKAAIFFV os Ιουλίᾳ Καλί(ῇ) γυ- NEKIKAIEAVT® ANE νεκὶ Kal ἑαυτῷ ave- CTHCENMNHMHCXA στησεν μνήμης χά- ΡΙΝ | pu.
183. In the wall of a house. (C. and A.).
TPAMACINAENAYCB AE YON®IAECHMA TITWAEENOACYPOC KITETTANTWNTTPOC DIANECTATOC ANHP AONIOCALAOOCKA TAPTEKENYIONAPIC TON OYNOMAANIKH TON OCHPMOCETITA
OX WPWMANHKAYT ON OYNOM EXOYCAN MATPOCAOYNOMAYY
Possibly Christian.
ONEMAYTWCYNIAIHAA
Tag
Γράμασιν aevavs (=-o1s) βλέψον, φίλε, σήματι τῷδε ἔνθω Σύρος Kite πάντων προσφιλέστατος ἀνὴρ 5 S \ / / ἄφνιος ἀγαθὸς, κα(ὶ) yap τέκεν υἱὸν ἄριστον οὔνομα ᾿Ανίκητον ὅς ἥρμοσε τίτλον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ
\ ὃ / IX , Ῥ “ Xx \ ” 3, ἢ σὺν ἰδίῃ ἀλόχῳ ᾿Ρωμανῇ κλυτὸν οὔνομ᾽ ἔχουσαν,
\ »
marpos © ouvoia......-.-
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 287 Christian Inscriptions :—
184. High up in the mosque wall. (C.; seen also by A.).
Lie U////// 3 Ce Ep A “ 7) XTC TTANAPICTOCE πὶ MEFAOY ηες KE NTPECBS FETONA CYTTEPTA WA REMKEQOPIC CHC EYAAB ICON. KAIAPXE 0 GENTTPOYTIHPAICO YAEN KAP IZ TZ OME NOIEE AP XEOSCENKAGE! AP YIZGOIAOVAIATIPEC BEICOYTAT πὶ hb PONTONOCTCOTTOAYTIOOHT & KAITAYKYTATC9 MO YANAPITIATTIA
€ PTANECTHCAMNHMHC XAPIN +
185. In house-yard. Around is a border of grapes; above, a rosette between two crosses. The letters are clear. (C.; seen also by A.).
-HMATOAATPHCIENI Σῆμα τόδ᾽ ἀτρῆς, ¢ ἐν ἴσῃ τινὰ τύνβος ἐρύκι,
ἬΤΙΝΑ ΤΥΝΒΟΚΕΡΥΚΙ ἔνθα τὺ νῦν κατάκειται ναῖος παῖς ᾿Αρχιγένιος ΝΘΆΑΤΥΝΥΝ KATAKEI ὃς πολλοὺς ἀκάχησε θανὼν ai(o)ds (= ἑοὺς) δὲ τοκῆα(ς)), PAINAIOCTTIAIC ΑΡΧΙ οὔνομα Μάρκελλος ἀγα(θ)οῦ Νέστορος υἱὸς
᾽ / / \ cn , yw Αὐταίου μήτηρ σὺν υἱῷ τύνβον ἔτευξαν \ , / μνημόσυνον κούρυσι καὶ ἐσομένοισι ποιθέστε (= πυθέσθαι).
“ENIOCOCTTOAAOYCAKA CHCEOANWN* AIOYCAE FOKHAOYNOMAMAPK SAAOCAT AOYNECTOPOC (IOCAYTAIOYMHTHP -YNYIWTYNBONETEYEAN ANHMOCYNON KOYPYCI S<AIECOMENOICITIOIOECTE L. 1. Apparently ἀθρεῖς, εἰ ἐν ἴσῃ τινα τύνβος ἐρύκει, Which seems to mean ‘if the tomb can justly be said to hold anyone within it’; or perhaps ἐν αἴσῃ.
180. Ina house-wall; rude lettering. (A.).
//IINONI/A Adp.] Νόν[ν]α (MINT Wr // σὺ]ν τῶ[ν vi- WNITAVAW av (!) Παύλῳ KEABAC KA κὲ ᾿Αβασ[κ]ά- NTWANECT VT@ ἀνεστ- HCOMAENTO ήσομεν (!) το- VTOTOTIT ῦτο τὸ τίτ- sic!
ΛΟΝΜΕΙΒὼ λον Μεέρῳ
288 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
AIAK//NW ANECTHCE NMNHMVC XARIN ἢ AVRNONNA FEPONTIOV ANECTHC A MNHI//// C//APIN
L, 2. [Σὺ]ν τῶν νἱῶν is atrocious even confusion of gen, and dat. is very common.
διακ[ὀνῳ
«,ἀνέστησε-
v> μνήμυς sic
xapw ¥.
Αὐρ. Novva
Tepovtiov
ἀνέστησ-
α μνή[μη-
ς [χάϊ]ριν.
for rude Lycaonian! But the The monogram (also No. 174)
indicates a date after the middle of the fourth century ; CB. ii p. 739 quoting
Le Blant, Znscr. Chrét. de la Gaule, No. 369.
At Lek Keui, some miles N.W. of this village, there are a few remains
(probably carried) and a few inscriptions.
187. Ina house-wall; below, representation of shoes. (A.).
Ay/
AAEA'////// YEIOIATITA
AO CCOYAOC κεπάπας KEMEIPOC KEMNHCIOE ocYAIAMH TPIAYPTTIPEINLC -FAYKITATH ANECTHCAN MNHMHCXAPIN
ader[ hot
vetot ᾿Αππῶᾶ-
δος Lovaos
κὲ Llamas
κὲ Meipos
xe Μνησίθε- > ͵
ος ὑδίᾳ μη-
“tpt Αὐρ. Πρειὶς
/ γλυκιτατῃ ἀνέστησαν
μνήμης χάριν.
With Σούαος we may compare Σουαεὶ (nom. fem.) in Egypt, CLG. 9111.
188. Cemetery. (Δ...
AYPAAANHCIAIA -FYNEKIMAOYN AKEYWKAEW NIFAYKITATH CAANHMAHCXA PINKEZWAYTW sie
Αὐρ. Μάνης ἰδίᾳ γυνεκὶ Μούν-
ᾳ κὲ ὑῷ Κλέω-
νι γλυκιτάτη-
ς μνήμης χά-
pw κὲ ζῶ(ν) αὐτῴ.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 289
189. Stele with the common execration "Os τούτῳ | τάφῳ κακόν | Te ποήσει | ὀρφανὰ τέκνα λίποιτο.
190. <A long, only partially legible, metrical Christian inscription beginning like No. 183; with names Mipos, Θέκλα, Ke.
§ 9. Before leaving Lycaonia, we may give some inscriptions which we copied at Meidan, a village about nine miles (in an air-line) east of Laodiceia Katakekaumene (Yorgan Ladik, south-east of Ilghin). In ancient times it was probably a village subject to Laodiceia,
191. In the village. Large stele, much worn. (A.).
MIGPAATHC sic Μιθραδ(άγτης EYPOPOYKETIA Εὐφόρου κὲ Ta- TEICAAANHY τεὶς Μάνῃ ὑ- Ιωγλυκύτάτω ιῷ γχλυκυτάτῳ MN////////X APIN po[ nuns] χάριν.
Μιθραδάτης, cf. No. 230.
192. Lhd.—Stele with figures of a man and a woman in the triangular
pediment. (A.).
ACKAHTTIOC ᾿Ασκληπιὸς KAIZI-NWNKAI καὶ Ζήνων καὶ CoYCoYCCoy Σούσους Lov- COYITATPIKAI σου πατρὶ καὶ AOY AHMAHTPI Aovdn μητρὶ ZW CHAANHAAHC toon μνήμης XAPIN χάριν.
Σούσους, cf. No. 138.
193. 71ι.---(Ἀ.).
////PHAICZ82// Αὐ]ρήλις Zwo[e- MoCKAIKYNE μος καὶ Κυντε- \NOLCEYTPO//0 alvos Εὐτρόϊπῳ TTATPIKAIM-T//// πατρὶ καὶ unt pi \CYAEIAN-M-M//// ᾿Ασυλειανῇ μνήμ[ης ΠΠΧΗΡΙΝ χάριν.
L. 2. Κυντεανὸς ἴοι ΚΚυντιανὸς, Quintianus.
290 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
194. Ibid.—(A.).
/IYPKYPIACi 11 //ENOYZI-NWN UCCINTYCTEK NOICEPMOrENO KEMACATWIAY KVTATWMOYAN APIAHHTPIWAAe ZANAPOYANEC THCAMCNZWN © sie /////[MNHMHC MITTIAPIN
ΑἸύρ. Κυρία ['Eppo- γ]ένου Ζήνων-
οἷς σὶν τῦς τέκ-
νοις ‘Eppoyévo(v)
κὲ Μασᾷ τῷ γλυ- κυτάτῳ μου ἀν-
Spt Δημητρίῳ ᾿Αλε- ξάνδρου ἀνεσ-
τήσαμ(ε)ν ζῶν-
10 τες] μνήμης
χά]ριν.
Μάσα (f.) at the neighbouring Iconium, C.Z.G. 3998; on the name, see Ramsay’s interesting remarks, Classical Review, 1898, p. 337.
195. Jbid.—Altar-slab, broken at the sides. Below the first line are
figures of a man and a woman on a panel.
////MOYNATINHAY//// ////|OCOYPANAE //||[YPHALOIOYPAN ////KAIAA®PHNOCKAI //||\ANOCKEMANOCAC [//IECTHCANENEXA
(C.).
Αὐρ. 1] Μοῦνα γινὴ Αὐ[ρή- Atlos Οὐραν(ὸς κὲ 7) ΑἸύρή[λ]ιοι Οὐραν-
ὃς] καὶ Λαφρηνὸς καὶ
M Javos κὲ Μανοσᾶς ἀν]έστησαν ἕνεχα
(μνήμης).
L. 2. ΔΕ on the stone. ’Qpavos above, No. 55, but here possibly Οὐράν[ιος] should be restored. L. 4. Λαφρηνὸς at Laodiceia (Kata.), Ath. Mitth. xiii. p. 236, where it seems to be an ethnic.
196. Jbid.—Altar-stone, with man and woman. (C.).
Al P HAIATPo Αὐρηλία [II ]po- KNAIAIM® A κλα ἰδίῳ ἀ- NQPSEO WHA I vopet Αὐρηλί- GO aMvces » ΜΙω]υσίε]!
NIMC THC ἀνέ]στησ- και LAN εν] καὶ av- THZMCA τῇ ζῶσα MNHMHC μνήμης XAPIN χάριν.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 291
197. Jbid.—In the cemetery: grey marble block. (C.). //|/MMnEQUNIOYCYNTY//// ////PMANOA WPOYKEAOKII//// ///NOYZWNTECMH MICS ////
198. Jbid.—In a fountain. (C.).
AYPTIMOTICANTITIA Avp. Τιμότις ᾿Αντιπώά- POYANECTHCAZWNTT P| Tpov ἀνέστησα ζῶν πρ- ΟΝΩΝΜΕΤΑΤΗΓΓΛΥΚΥ ονῶν μετὰ τῆς γλυκυ- TATHCCYNBIOYTIAY τάτης συνβίου Παύ- ΛΗΓΜΝΗΜΤΠΑΡΙΝ Ans μνήμ[ης χ]ώριν.
Τιμότις for Τιμόθεος like Φροῦγις for Φρούγιος (No. 149), Σαγάρις for Σαγάριος (No. 250), etc. See «..1.δ. 1898, p. 118, No. ὅ9. ΠΡρονῶν for φρονῶν, cf. No. 242, &e.
This inscription is probably Christian.
199. Ibid.—In the village. (A.).
APSMIPOC ᾿Αρ(ήλιος) Mipos YIoCAlIoMH υἱὸς Διομή- ΔΟΥΓΥΝΤΗΜ δου σὺν τῇ μ- HTPIMOYTIPI ητρί μου II pc- EILANECTHC 5 el ἀνέστησ- ATWIAYKY α τῷ γλυκυ- TATWUMoY TAT@ μου TIATPIAIOM πατρὶ Διομ- vac. (787). L.1. ᾿Αρήλιος : cf. ᾿Αρελία, J.H.S. 1898, p. 122, No. 69. L. 4. Πριεὶ,
No. 117. This inscription is perhaps Christian.
The rest are certainly Christian :— 200. Jbid.—Poor lettering. (A.).
AYPTTNVAOCKAI Αὐρ. Παῦλος καὶ CAICKAIIWAN Paws καὶ ᾿Ιωάν- HCCYNKAPTTIAHH ns σὺν Καρπιανῇ HHTPIAVTWN μητρὶ αὐτῶν ΚΑΙΤΑΙΓΤΥΓΑΤ ὅ καὶ ταῖς τυγατ- PACINAVTHCZW ράσιν αὐτῆς Ζώ(σῃ κὲ ?) ΠΡΙΕΙΚΕΤΕΚΛΉΚΕΝΟΝ ἃ Πριεὶ xe Τέκλῃ κέ Nova ΓΙΝΦΠΑΤΡΙΑΥΤ Σίνῳ πατρὶ αὐτ- WNANECTHCAN ὧν ἀνέστησαν MNHMHCXAPIN 10 μνήμης χάριν.
Βα ύνυα.ο.ι
292 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
L. 2. Vass for Vacos. L. 7. Τέκλῃ for Θέκλῃ, like τυγατράσιν for θυγατράσιν. L. 6. Ζωπρίιει is hardly probable; the engraver seems to have omitted several letters after ZW, as in No. 199, 1. 8; he can hardly have meant ζώ(σαις). L. 8. Was Σένω(νι) meant ?
201. Ruined Turkish village on the hills near Mcidin. Slab with moulded margin. (A.).
AYPHKAATIOINIASEDHKAI Avpn(Aia) Κωλπο[ζρ]νία (ἀ)δε(λ)φὴ Kat TIWAAAEATIHKA MOYNAAAE IloXa (ἀ)δελπὴ Ka(i) Modva ἀδε- ATIH MNNA MNHCXAPIN λπὴ μννάμνης (!) χάριν. EITICOEAHCIETE EZ? τις θελήσι ἕτε- PONETTENBAAEECGE 5 pov ἔπενβαλε (!) ἔσθε AYTWOPOCTONGEON αὐτῷ pos τὸν θεόν.
11.2,5,0. ἀδελπὴ for ἀδελφὴ, ἔσθε for ἔστε (-- αἰ), φρὸς for πρός. Such interchanges occur frequently in inscriptions of Lycaonia and of the country south-east of Amorion.
202. Jdid.—Plain stone with margin. (C.).
ALT τις POYOC Αὐρήλιος 'Ῥοῦφο-
///ICYIOCTIMAOS ς υἱὸς Τιμοθ-
//// COYTIPECBBS éov πρεσβ(ύτερος πρεσβυτέρου) ////ANECTHCATH ἀνέστησα τῇ ITAYX YTATHAAO γλυχυτάτῃ μο- VAAEADHOEXA υ ἀδελφῇ Θέχλ- IHAANHMAHCX API ῃ μνήμης χάρι- IN + p+
XI. The country round Amorion.
$1. Into the centre of the Axylos, the region around Ala Dagh, we did not penetrate ; but from all accounts it is wholly waste land and contains hardly any villages. Nothing of importance ever existed here. Moving on, then, towards the west, we pass the limits of the Proseilemmene (which were never narrowly defined in this desert country) and enter a district which in the earlier centuries formed part of Phrygia, but was assigned to Galatia at the end of the fourth century when the province Galatia Salutaris (Secunda) was instituted. A description of this district has already been given in the Annual of the Brit. School, 1898, p. 59, and necd not be repeated here. It is sharply marked off from Phrygia Parorcios by the long ridge which runs south- east from Emir Dagh. But this ridge docs not form an impassable barrier, At the north end of the Ak Sheher Lake the crossing is very easy, and this
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 293
is the line followed by the v.aggon (arabe) road from Piri-beyli and the north to Konia—the modern representative of the old road (indicated on the Peutinger Table) from Amorion to Laodikeia Katakekaumene (Yorgan Ladik, south-east of Ighin).
We entered this district by another road which runs over the plain in a north-easterly direction and crosses the hills by an easy line to the plain of Durgut. As soon as the traveller enters this plain and casts his eye over the bare, arid stretches before him, where no tree is to be seen nor any shrub, where the soil hardly repays the labour of cultivation and the villages are few and far apart, he recognises that he is on the edge of the dreary Axylos, which in reality extends from the great Salt Lake to the vicinity of Amorion on the west and of Angora on the north. This great desert is still the same as it ever was, devoid of vegetation and producing nothing but pasturage for great flocks and herds; and no better description of it can be given than Strabo’s happy phrase—wuypa! καὶ ψιλὰ καὶ ὀναγρόβοτα ὀροπέδια (p. 568).
δ 2. Harra AND Miskamos.—This corner of it, however, is better than the rest and it contained several old settlements. At Khursunlu we found a boundary stone with the following legend on either side. (A. and C.).
203. ent OPol oOpol oom, GEN © € bd AE w + Ὅροι σὺν Θεῷ χωρίω(ν) Μεσκάμου. X Ud P| 4 oP | + Ὅροι σὺν Θεῴ χωρίων Appor. vod ω Μιςκῶ, NAP Mov ΡΩΝ
In the neighbourhood we then found two sites, one at the Turkmen village, Dureut, the other round an old fortress (Kw/é) near Harranlar, on the opposite side of the Ova, about 4 miles distant. It seems probable that the latter village retains the ancient name HARRA with the plural termination -lav added to give it a Turkish sound; compare Harran (=Carrhae) in Syria. We may therefore assign that name to the site beside the Kalé, which was a fortress of some importance. The walls are now mostly ruinous, but parts of the outer one still stand and are built of fair-sized stones laid in rough courses without mortar. We found here several fragments of wheel- made pottery—imitations of black-glaze Hellenic fabrics and fine black ribbed ware and red ware (one piece having a yellow line painted below the rim) ; and below the fort there are some rock-cut tombs (unornamented). To this site probably belong three inscriptions now at Khursunlu.
1 The nights and early mornings are very cold in these regions even in summer.
294
and
J. G. C. ANDERSON.
204. In the mosque. (A.).
AY-Alo MHOHC AAACWCKEH CYNBIOCAYTOY AY AoYAAIAI WITATPIAY AAAHKETHI AIAMAHTPIAY TEPTIAECTH CANMYML XA PIN
Αὐρ. Διομήδης Δαδέως κὲ ἡ σύνβιος αὐτοῦ Αὐρ. Δούδα ἐδί-
5 ῳ πατρὶ Αὐρ. Δαδῇ κὲ τῇ ἰ- δίᾳ μητρὶ Αὐρ. Teptia ἔστη- σαν μνήμης χά- ριν.
L. 6. Δαδῇ for Δαδεῖ; cf. Μενεκλῇ (No. 150) ete.
205. Ibid. (A). AVPKYPIAKOCAC KAHTTIAAOYKAI HCINBIOCAYTOY
AM MIAAOVEKIOYIAIA MHTHKYIAKOoCAYP © sic Λε “εἰ γι
Αὐρ. Κυριακὸς ᾿Ασ- κληπιάδου καὶ
ἡ σίνβιος αὐτοῦ
᾿Αμμία Λουκίου ἰδίᾳ μητ(ρὶ): Κυ(ρ)ιακὸς Αὐρ.
The name Kyriakos is an evidence of Christianity.
206. Ibid.—In the village. AVPAOYAIIFA////A’N KAM MIANECTHC//// TOAECHMA
(A.). Αὐρ. Aovén .. . av κὲ Appia (ἀ)νέστησ[αν τόδε σῆμα.
At Durgut, which we identify with MISKAMOS, there are many remains
numerous inscriptions.
207. Durgut: in the cemetery. A tall slab. (C.; seen also by A.).
AYPOYANA‘WNMENI |
KPATOYIAIOICFONE
CINAYPMENEKPATH
ΚΕΙΙΔΙΑ MHTPIKYPIAAH
AIONYCIOYICTAONAH
NWANECTHCENAAM KAHC XAPIN
Αὐρ. Ovava[E]ov Mer[e-
κράτου ἰδίοις γονε[ῦ-
σιν Αὐρ. Μενεκράτῃ
κὲ. 2» ἰδίᾳ μητρὶ Κυρίλλῃ 5 Διονυσίου ᾿Ισγαονδη-
νῷ ἀνέστησεν μνή-
μης χάριν.
1.1. Cf. Οὐάναξος, Nos. 223, 239. L. 5. ICT is just possible, but not probable. Isgaonda is unknown, The name was probably Isgawonda (cf. Kardabounda in Isauria).
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 295
208. Llid.—(C.).
AYTIACIKPATHCIAIW//// Αὐρ. ἸΤασικράτης ἰδίῳ {[πα- TPIKAIMHTPIMA 21M //// Tpi καὶ μητρὶ Μαξίμ[ῳ x- AIAOY AHAKAIAAEAN//// αἱ Δουδήᾳ καὶ ἀδελπ- Ἰςαωρηςζαντωκ,}} ῆς ἀώρης Ξαντῷ κὲ TIACIKPATHKAAEA//// 5 Πασικράτῃ κὲ ἀδελ- ®HNANAMNHMNC φῇ Nava μνήμης
ΧΑΡΙΝ χάριν.
L. 4 With dative =ANTW (6. Ξανθῴῷ) cf. Διδῴ No. 159.
209. In a fountain. Above the inscription is a piece of moulding
(C.).
/i// ZC AAAHAOILEYTEKNOYNTELCENTWBI/// ////[NAYPTIACIKPATOYCKAINMATIAKAIMAMA//// ////KP ATHA WP) TEONHKOTIMHM//Y¥///////////I//I//
ες ἀλλήλοις εὐτεκνοῦντες Ev τῷ βίῳ. -ν Αὐρ. ἸΠασικράτους καὶ ard καὶ Μαμᾶ .. ΤΠ ασιε]κράτῃ ἀώρῳ τεθνηκότι μ(νγήμυ[ς χάριν.
210. Incemetery. Doorstone: good lettering. (A.).
COYCOYKAAAI2 €Elxari® Σούσου Καλλιξέ- BOVYAQYAATHIAIA). ... - νου Δούδᾳ τῇ ἰδίᾳ TYNAIKIKAIMANIA|. .... γυναικὶ καὶ Mavia KAIAATEKNOICAW καὶ Ad τέκνοις ἀώ- POICMNHMHCXAPIN | pois μνήμης χάριν.
\ ea καὶ υἱῷ ae ee
211. JLbid.—Two figures (male and female) above, (A.).
AYPMAAPKOCAAEZ Αὐρ. Μάρκος ᾿Αλεξ- ΑΝΔΡΦΚΑΙΑΥ͂ άνδρῳ καὶ Αὐρ. ΤΙΘΙΛΛΑΙΔΙΑΜ Τίθιλλα ἰδίᾳ μ- ΗΘΡΙΤΑΤΕΙΚ ηθρὶ Τατεὶ κὲ TIATPIAAEZAN πατρὶ ᾿Αλεξάν-
AP WMNME δρῳ μνήμης
ΧΑΡΙΝ χάριν.
296 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
212. In the village. Rectangular slab. (A. and C.).
Tov κλυτὸν ἐν πυνυτοῖσι τὸν ἤπιον ἐν. . . εἐμοισι ἀνέρα παν τίμων τὸ γένος ἐγ μερόπων
ἔνθα | Δαμᾶν δόμος οὗτος ὁ λάινος ἐντὸς | ἐέργει, ὃν τοῦ κεδνοτάτη δείματο συν[β]7ι6] τὴ
Δόμνα δόμον κλειτοῦ πόσιος φιλίας δὲ | θυγατρός, τὴν Οὐαλέντιλλαν ἀμφότε | por κάλεον.
Σοὶ δὲ λέγω, ξένε, ταῦτα καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πιθέσ Oe τοὺς γὰρ ἐπαυρόντας εἰσέ τι κῆδος ἔχει.
Αὐρ. Δόμνα [4] ω-
τικοῦ τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ μνήμης
χάριν.
This is perhaps Christian. L.2 ENEPFNAIIEMOICI. The sixth letter may be ©,
Fis. Lbid.—(A.).
THNAT AQHNAAOXO KAICAODPoNATHAYTE
Τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἄλοχο(ν) Kai σαόφρονα τηλυγέτην TE τὴν ὀλιγοχρονίην οὗτος ἔχει ὁ δόμος
THNTETHNOAIFOXPONI εὐγενικὴν Addn<n>v μέγ᾽ ἀμύμονος ἀνδρὸς ἄκοιτ|ιν'
HNOYTOCEXEIOAOMOL ὦ[κα] φθόνος κοτέων ἥρπασε τὴν ἄλοχον"
ΕΥΓΕΝΙΚΗΝν ολδηηναλεγαλλΥ σῆμα ἑῇ τόδ᾽ ἔδειμα φ[ἰλο]ς πόσις εἵνεκα μνήμης
MAONOCANAPOCAKOITH W,//// Καλίξενος υἱὸς Διομήδεος χερσὺν ἑοῖσιν (sic !).
ΦΘΟΝΟΓΚΟΤΕΩΝΗΡΠΆΓΚΕΤΗΝ
ANOXONCHMAAEHTOAEAEIMA
φ' “CTOCICEINEKAAANHMHC
KAAIZENOCYIOCAIOMHAEOC
XEPCYNEOICIN
214. In village. (A.).
NOCIAIW
TIATPIAYPAY.
EZANAPWI/M | HTPIAOMNI |
-vos ἰδίῳ
πατρὶ Aup. ᾽Δλ- εξάνδρῳ [κὲ] μ- ητρὶ Δόμν[η.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM.
Christian Inscriptions :—
215.
(A,).
UUM TTT YAEYKEIOCZWTIKC ONOCENOGAAEKIMI
TION |
KAAEAIOIKONXHPOVN TONAETEMOCXONK KYPIAAAMOVM-TPI
MINITHCANTOAECM [///;\WHMOCYNIC ENEKE _NHEATEIM-NEKVEC// _
L. 3. N perhaps misread for AE,
216.
In a mosque. (Δ...
NIP PIA YPIAAAP KO// J/L11111 WYVK OK AK AYE // //// WY ΕἸΔιὼ AN APIAY TH] /IHAiTEKNOICAYTWNGAEI
IDKKY PIANHKAYPLA/! sic
YAAEP IITHCA NEC] τε “ἢ MAIN ιν ΜΝ
917.
In the cemetery. (C.).
MAM AKEANI KEIL\W AAC ZAN APWKEAYPCAB BATICYAIWAN APITFAYKITA T ὦ AKVENNCA MAMA, K TEKNW A WPW AYAAC E ANAPQO)
€CcTHC
A KIMAITH
MHCXAPIN
H.S.—VOL. XIX.
υ Λεύκειος Ζωτικ[οῦ
(γ)όνος ἐνθάδε κῖμι,
κὰδ (δ᾽) ἔλιπον οἶκον χῆρον T[ae]-
tov δέ τε μόσχον, κε
Κυρίλλᾳ μου μητρὶ
ἀνέσ]τησαςν;» τόδε σ(ῆ)μ- α μ]νημοσύνης ἕνεκε-
ν" ἡ γὰρ τειμὴ νεκύεσσι.
['y(a)tov seems unsuitable.
Δυρη]λία Kupia Mapxo[v Ζ2]ωτικῷ Κλα[υδΊ]ε-
(lou ? εἰδέῳ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς
κ]αὶ τέκνοις αὐτῶν Γαεί-
ῳ κ(ὲ) Κυρίλλῃ xe Adp. Γα[ίο- υ (=) δαέρι [αὐ]τῆς ἀνέσ[τ- σε ΑΟΉΜΗΜΑΑ μ]ν[ἡ- μίης χάριν.
Αὐ]ρ. Με[ννέ- ας] Mapa κε ᾽Ανι- κείῳ ᾿Αλεξών- Spm Ke Αὐρ. LaB- Batis Δημᾶ ὑδίῳ av- Spt γλυκιτάώτῳ / -
Mevvéa Mapa Ke τέκνῳ ἀώρῳ Αὐρ. Αλεξάνδρῳ
ἔστησα κιμιτήη[ριον
μνή]μης χάριν.
298 J. G. C. ANDERSON. 218. Ina fountain; worn and faint. (A.) ᾿
+ENGAK//TAKITEK AAYZENOCKE//W
TIKOCANAIFNWTHCODPAM/ νον Μ MHCANI AQONKAEOCECETETO:®:
AYTOCAEONTICTIPOHKOCANE TH//// TWNYAIWNTEK//G(ONMNHMHCXAP?//
ΤΈνθα κ[α]τάκιτε Καλύξενος κὲ [Z]o-
τικὸς ἀναγνώ(σ)της" ὄφρα μ[ὲὴν od(v) μίνή- — uns a<v>yabov κλέος ἔσετε τοῖσ[ι, F αὐτὸς Λεόντις πρόηκος avé(a)ty oa
τῶν ὑδίων τέκ[ν]ων μνήμης χάρ[ιν,
WITACANT+APITACQEOCKATEXECEW//// ᾧ πᾶσαν (ἢ χάριτας Θεὸς κατέχε(υ)σε ὠ[ πῇ.
For the conclusion cf. the following inscr., 1. 6.
L. 4 πρόηκος, i.e. πρόοικος, seems to be a civil official like the modern mayor: οἵ, Const. de Themat. 34 τί Λυκανδός ; τί Θωμᾶς ὁ πρόοικος ; In Theophanes 612 πρόοικος is the major-domo of the Frankish King. The term occurs also in No. 219 and in an inscription copied by me at Mandra keui, N.E. of Afion-Kara-Hissar, Ἐπὶ tod θεοφιλεστάτου Ké ὁσιωτάτου é€n(u)oxorrou Kwotavtivou κὲ προήκου ΤΙρινκιπίου κ-τ.λ.
219. Πϊά.--(Ο).
+ MNHMHENTIAPOAYCCINHNET
EYS ENAAMACTTPOHKOCENOBA KATAKITEMATPWNAKAAHTE TTAOCCYNBIOCAAMATIPO ΚΟΥ MEPANHTOPOCANAPOCAPIC TOV WITACAC XAPI TACGEOCKA TEXEVCETTPOCNITH WKE MPP]
AMHNAGEOC TTOPENASRAEA WKENAYTOCTPAAAMACTTPO HKOCCYNFEIVC IN Καὶ OYPATPACIN EC THCAN TONYKON EWNON O>PAMENOYNMNHMHCASAGON
ΤΜνήμη ἐν παρόδυσσιν(-Ξ: οισιν) ἣν ἔτ- εὐξἕεν Δαμᾶς πρόηκος, ἔνθα κατώκιτε Ματρῶνα καλήπε- πλος σύνβιος Δαμᾶ προήκου μεγαλήτορος ἀνδρὸς ἀρίσ-
του, ᾧ πάσας χάριτας Θεὸς κα- τέχευσε πρὸς ὠπῇ, ᾧ κὲ μύρι- α μῆλα Θεὸς πόρεν ἀγλά᾽ ἔδ- ὠκεν: αὐτὸς y(ap)? Δαμᾶς πρό- ηκος σὺν υεἱῦσιν κὲ θυγατράσιν ἔστησαν τὸν ὗκον ἐών(ι)ον
κλέος ἔσετε τοῖσι] μνήμης χάριν.
There are also some other more or less fragmentary texts.
§ 8. SeELMEA.—Durgut Ova is separated from the plain on the east of Amorion (in late times called Pankaleia?) by the hill called Kurshunlu Dagh and the greater mass of Bayad Kolu (/ol=‘ arm’) immediately west of it. The latter is a conspicuous Jandmark for many miles to the north, and a very useful point for the cartographer. Between these hills and the ridge bounding Phrygia Paroreios there is a little recess called Eshme Ova con- taining two or three villages, the chief of which is Geuz-Oren (‘eye-ruins, two hours north-west of Durgut). Geuz-Oren marks the site of a township (δῆμος) called SELMEA. Nothing is known of it beyond what may be learned from the following texts; doubtless it was subject to Amorion,? whose territory probably extended south-eastwards as far as the borders of Galatia
> Atleast until Pissia became independent (if Piribeyli represent Pissia, as is most probable, § 5).
1 Leo Diaconus, p. 170; H.G. p. 231 (ef. Class. Review, 1899, p. 137).
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 299
and Lycaonia (Proseilemmene). The village lies on, or close to, one of the roads from Ak-sheher (Philomelion) to Angora vid Yuzuk-bashi and Tahadjir (on the Sangarios).
220. Inthe cemetery: stele with triangular pediment containing the relief reproduced below from C,’s sketch. (A.).
Αὐρ. Hamas Vadouv
AYTTATIALPALOY | κὲ Γάϊος Maras ὁ ᾿Ξ ΓΑΙ ΟΓΙΤΑΤΤΑΓ Gill υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ Y 100 AY TOY Y ΠΕΙ’ τ]ῆς ἑαυτῶν. σω[τη- ἩΠΙΠΕΑΥΤΩΝ ΓΟ , / \ τὶ A AL M-NI CEAMERWI/ pijas Myvi Σελμεην[ῷ EYXI-IN εὐχὴν.
221. Jbid.—Altar, with relief of Mén standing, below the inscription : a bunch of grapes on two other sides: the fourth side has been cut away by modern stone-hunters who intended to reface the stone and transport it to
Ak-sheher. (C. and A.).
Ulu MOC CEA MIAN ΚΝ Ὃ δῆ]μος Σελμ[ε]ηνῶν MUI NA EN XING Μ]ηνὶ εὐχήν.
The Phrygian god is worshipped all over Galatia; see above No. 44
and below, under XII.
222. Inthe cemetery. Tall pillar (square in section). Above, a man and a woman in very low relief. (A.).
AYMAPKOLCKAYKA?//////// Avp. Μάρκος xe Avp. Ka{cav-
APOCTREAYTON//////// dpos τῷ ἑαυτῶν [πα- ΤΡΙΔουλωομμμεχα τρὶ Δούλῳ μνήμης χά- PINS TILANTOYT oo pw. Tis ἂν τούτῳ TOEPPOKAKOCTIOINE! τῷ ἔργῳ κακῶς ποιήσει AYTHDAOLAINOITOKAI αὐγῆς φάος λίποιτο καὶ ηλιουτοφῶξγ ἡλίου τὸ φῶς.
300 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
223. Ibid.—Tall stele: above, a cross (7) between comb and mirror. (C.).
- OYANAZOCKAITA Οὐάναξος καὶ Ta- TEICTIIIAIAGYTA Tels τ[ῇ] ἰδίᾳ θυγα- TPIAMMIAMNH τρὶ ᾿Αμμίᾳ μνή-
| ΜΗΓΧΑΡΙΝῸ μης χάριν.
Οὐάναξος is a Phrygian name (perhaps formed from fava& or from Εάνασσα, the name of the Nature-goddess in Pamphylia), occurring also in . No. 239 and at Philomelion (C.Z.@. 3983); cf. also πο. 207, 1. 1. ἢ
224. Ibid.—(C.).
EPMOFENns IOCNICEpouv κτλ.
225. Ibid.—Cover of a sarcophagus. (C.).
Meveou κε Αὐρη(λέία) "Αππὴ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ τέκνῳ ἀώ]ρῳ Μεννέᾳ ἐπύησαν τὴν cory X'S , > a 7 ΄ κὲ ἰδ] ῳ ἀδελφῷ μνήμης χάριν.
AC ME NE OY KAY ΑἸττΓ ΗΠ ΓΥΝΊΔΥΤΟΥ
ΩΣ
IQAAE ASD ΜΕ ΜΕ ΧΆΡΙΝ
220, 7014.---Αἀ͵ destroyed relief in pediment supported by pilasters : the inscription is engraved on the entablature. (C.). //// MOTENHCKAI MAPKOC MAin|IAMHTPI Ἑρμογενης καὶ Μάρκος Ma[px]ia μητρὶ ////HMHCX APIN μν]ήμης χάριν.
227. In the village. A fragment of entablature; large letters. (A.).
A¥RAMMIATWIAI WANAPIFAY! Αὐρ. ᾿Αμμία τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ γχλυ[κυτάτῳ KA¥RMAPK OLTWIAI wit A κὲ Αὐρ. Μάρκος τῷ ἰδίῳ π[ατρὶ ᾿Αλεξά- Ν Ν APOY MAME ENEKF νδρου (=@) μνήμης ἕνεκεν.
228. Ruined village (γαΐα) Kizil Kuyu, some distance to W. Beside a well. (A.).
//YPHAIOIAIOMIAHEKTIONOW ΑἸύρήλιοι «««ομήδης κὲ Πονφω-. /IAKTATEICKUXAPOYTATPI υία xe Tateis Κωκάρου πατρὶ //QKAPUKAAEADWAAEZAN K]oxapo κὲ ἀδελφῷ ᾿Αλεξάν- APUXAIAAWPAIAIWANAPIKW ὃρῳ: κὲ Διαδώρα ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ Κω- KAPWEEAYTHZWCAMHHC Kap@ κὲ ἑαυτῇ ζῶσα μνήμης
XAPIN.© χάριν.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 301
229. Yunak. Tall pillar (square in section). Very rough letters. (A.).
AYAOYACTAILCIAIW Aup. Aot<p>Xos δὶς ἰδίῳ
\AEAQDWKAYTATIA ἀ]δελφῷ κὲ Adp. Tatia-
/NHTEIMOGEOYCYN νὴ Τειμοθέου σὺν
ΤΟΙΓΙΔΙΤΕΚΝΟΙΓ 510 τοῖς ἰδί(οις) τέκνοις
TWIAIANAPIAI sic τῷ ἰδί(ῳ) ἀνδρὶ Ac-
AlOM AHMML sic «δι ομ(ή)δῃ μνήμης //APIN x Jape.
230. Jbid.—In a house near the fountain. Above is a basket. (C.).
AV PHAILSPAG) POC KA Αὐρ. ἩΗλιεόδωρος κα-
1ANEZANAPOCIAI i ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἰδί-
WPATPICACUNINO Y ῳ φατρὶ Σα(λ)ωνίνου
AN€COHCA NMNH ἀνέσθησαν μνή- MHC XAPIN -
KETHTAY KY TATHMHTP| YTATEIMY TPA ἘΠ aa Ad
5 wns χάριν, κὲ τῇ γλυκυ-
Αὐ[ρ.] Τατεὶ Μυτρα-
δά]του.
L. δ. Μιθραδάτου, also No. 191: for the Mithras cult at Amorion ef. Ramsay, Revue des Htudes Grecques, 1889, p. 17 = Cumont, Textes et mon. rel. aux mysteres de Mithra, ii. p. 91.
231. Jbid.—Broken door-stone. (C.).
AYPKAPIKO *AIGFENOYMHTP/ Adp. Kapixo[s] Avoyévou μητρ[ὶ KAAAI ATPIAIOFENC // Kadndi[Eéva? κὲ θυγ)]ατρὶ Διογεν[είᾳ
YK‘ TATOI
XAPIN γλ])υκ[υ]τάτοι[ς μν]ήμ[ης] χάριν.
232. Jhid—In the wall of a house; worn and faint. (A.).
CINDYNOYJGFIATAPGBEKN 1.9.
KECEMNONTAMONOYKEAE HCAC AYAIONHAICANEIKH TOYEMNE //TIOT HN TIAPAKH WAU MUMMY ARH BE TO WIM MT HUY NT IAN WHY LY JUPITUS
Γράμμασιν ἀενάης (Ξε οις) βλέψον, φίλε, σήματι τῷδε πῶς ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς ἑοῦ τά[ φ]ος ἥρπασε, β[ ἀσκανος Αδης, Αὐρ. Tartei[v] ἣν φθόνος οὐκ ἐθέ]χησ[ε]ν ἑοῦ ἀπολαῦσε (-Ξ αι) σιν- e[v]vou . yap θέκν[ων 2] κὲ σεμνὸν γάμον οὐκ ἐλεήσας
302 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
Christian Inserviptions :—
233. Genz Uren. Outside the mosque; pilasters and rope mould-
ing. (C).
‘\ , os Θεόν.
ὍΓΘΕΟΝ ' |
ΙΪ φυκωῖμννι “Os δὲ [ἂν κακὴν
| ISEIPANTIPOCENEN κεῖραν προσενέν-
| |KHECTEAYTWMP | κῃ, ἔστε αὐτῷ πρ- | |
234, Kizil Kuyu yasla. In the cemetery. Solid sareophagus-shaped
stone ; inscription at one end: very faint. (C.).
ENOAAEKATA ᾿νθάδε κατά- KITEMAPY QC | «ite Μάρκος «ἘΜΟΓΕΝΉΤΓΙ κὲ] Ε[ρ]Ἱμογένης X αδελφο Δ ἀρ NTEKNATIMO | i] τέκνα Timo- CEOYMNHMHL | θέου μνήμης ΧΑΡΙΝ | χάριν
The brothers are perhaps the same as those mentioned in no. 226.
235. Jbid—Similar stone. Ornamental cross within a circle (on side). Faint. (A.). FAdpAAOS Tie- όθις ἀνέσ « α» τη- σα τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέ- κνου Ἰ]ολυκώ-
- ε ρπου KE τῆς ἀρ-
LI. 6-8 ἃ ACTHCAYT μ[ο]στῆς αὐτ- ΦΨΑ YAMNH od Δάδα μνή- MHCXAPIC T ens yape(v) +
236, Jli¢d.—Similar stone with similar cross, (A.).
ENGA/ EKA’! "Ev@al Se «al ta- ITETT. TIAL kere Π|ωἸπᾶς [Τ μ-
ΟΘΕΌΝ Δ, ΡΙΚῸΓ οθέον Μ|[ά]ρκον . .
MNHCX * μνήμης χάριν.
MH
one
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 303
§ 4. ΒΈΪΕΙ OrENt.—Between the lower slopes of Bayad Kolu and the plain round Tcheltik (see the map) is interposed a long, narrow ridge called Seifi Oreni, which derives its name from an old site on its slopes fifty 1 minutes south-south-west of Kutchuk Hassan, a village on the edge of the reedy marsh Ak Gidl. This site goes by the name Kalé (‘Fort’) and from it are said to have come inscriptions Nos, 237 and 238; beside it there is a deserted cemetery with old stones, but otherwise we could see only very slight traces of ancient life. Formerly the ruins were doubtless more conspicuous, else they could hardly have given their name to the long ridge on which they
lie.
237. Kutchuk Hassan: in the oda wall. [The stone is reproduced from C.’s sketch]. (A.).
οὖς Μένανδρος [Me- νάνδρου ὁ κὲ Ν[ου- vas Μητρὶ 'Terpar| po- σώπῳ ὑπὲρ avOpwr| wv κὲ τετραπόδων εὐχήν.
/MENANA POC] »
The ‘ Four-faced Mother’ of this quaint inscription is Kybele as goddess of the four seasons. Τετραπρόσωπος is used by Plutarch to describe the four
sides of an altar (βωμός).
238. IJbid—Above is a figure, on the left side of which is a chest, and on the right a spindle and distaff. (A.).
AYPHAICMAZI Αὐρήλις Maki- MOYKEAYPHAI μου κὲ Αὐρηλί(α) sic AMIATAIOY "Apia TVadov
THIAIATYIA ἢ ἰδίᾳ τυγα- TPIAYPTATEI tpi Αὐρ. Tarei AWPHANECTH ἀώρῃ ἀνέστη- CENMNHMHC σεν μνήμης τς $e
XAPIN χάριν.
304 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
239. Kurdushan (on the hills, about an hour and a half south-south- west of Seifi Oreni). Fountain below the village. Copied hurriedly. (A.).
OYTOCOTVNBOCEXE! Οὗτος ὁ τύνβος ἔχει!, ἄνδρες φιλοί, φῶταν ap | ιστον ANAPECHIAOIDWTANAP Δουλίωναν μεγάθυμον ἀωροθανῆ | δὲ γεγωνώς, ICTONAOVAIW NANMEP ὦτινι ἡ γ᾽ [αἹμετὴ [σ]ύν v[i]dow et |[S]puce βωμόν. ΑΘΥΜΟΝΑΏΡΟΘΑΝΗ Θαλία a | [e]uvorarn Κουίντου θυϊγάτηρ γεγαῶσα
σὺν yAu|Kepois τέκνοις μνήμης | χάριν ἐστεφάνωσαν" ΔΕΓΕΠΟΝ ΘΕ TNT Οὐάναξος καὶ Μάρκος τε [[χ]νεῖται |/ METHTYNVWACINE!
//PYCEBW MONGAAIAC —~MNOTATHKOVINTOVEV -ATHPFEFAWCACVNFAV KEPOICTEKNOIC MNHMHC XAPINECTEPANWCAN OANAZOCKAIMAPKOCTE /INEITAL vac.
L. 2-8. Aredundant vin accusative of 3rd declension is not uncommon in Phrygian Greek.
L. 12. Οὐάναξος, πο. 223. Lil. 12-13 give the stone-cutters’ signature, if τε[χ]νεῖται (suggested by Prof. E. A. Gardner) is the correct restoration.
240. lid —lIn the village. (A.).
AYPBACHCTIATIACKICTPATONE]! KHCYBIOCAYTOYEAYTI/NOE XNOICMAEAI/KF ALWAUPOILCMAHC XAPIN Αὐρ. Βασῆς Πάπας κὲ lotpatovei- Kn σύβιος αὐτοῦ ἑαυτ[ῶ]ν θέ- χνοις M.... κὲ Γαίῳ ἀώροις μνήμης χάριν L. 3. Perhaps the first name is some form of Masa (No. 194).
241. Jbid.—Stele with fragments of two figures, (A.).
| IC THAAWECOP/AC ἸΙστήλλην ἐσορᾷς
| TIoAYAEAAAON|IEN πολυδέδαλον ἐν-
_IAAEKEITETATIIA | θ]άδε cette Τατια- ////4[/CIMOYMIC| KAA vy [Ζ]ωσίμου Μισκλα-
ΔΗΝοΟΥΟΛΙΓοΝ ἃ δηνοῦ ὀλίγον ὃ...
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 305
242, Ibid.—In village. Figures of man, woman, and child, with heavy festooning. (C.).
AYPH-KAPIKOCMENNEOY OF// Αὐρή(λιος) Kapixos Μεννέου θῇ
EAYTWCYNBIWPOAINKEAY// ἑαυτί(οῦ) συνβίῳ ‘Podiyyn κὲ ἑαυ- T WZ UNETTPON UNN-MICX APIN τῷ ζῶν KE προνῶν μνήμης χάριν KATITIAYIWZWNTI κὲ ᾿Αππᾷ υἱῷ ζῶντι.
L. 1 θῇ for τῇ, 1. 3 προνῶν for φρονῶν : cf. above Nos, 198, 200, 201, 240, ete.
243, Ibid. (A)
ah 20L ie 1AlW
πατρὶ AYEIPHNEW xe aderl\W AIOMHAH piNH MH-X APIN! NANAMAMAL
ENOCOKO MH
| al ΗΝ] pat
|
Εἰρηναῖος also Nos. 99, 244. On Nava, Maya, Kretschmer, Hinlei- tung, pp. 341, 338.
244, Hadji Fakir (two hours and twenty-five minutes from Kutchuk Hassan). In the cemetery. (A.).
AYPHAIOCEIPHNEOCMA Αὐρήλιος Eipnvéos Ma- NO¥C¥NTHEAYTOYC// νου σὺν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ a[v- NBIWZOHCEA¥TOICZWNF νβίῳ Ζόης ἑαυτοῖς ζῶντ- ECKDPoNo¥NTECKATELKE ες κὲ φρονοῦντες κατεσκε- ¥ ACANOIAOCTOPFIACE// ύασαν φιλοστοργίας ἕϊν- ΕΚΕΝῸ KTICANTA*¥THT// εκεν > κὲ τίς ἂν ταύτῃ τ[ῇ
ΠΠΠΠΠΠΧΕΙΡΑΠΡΟΓΟΙΓΕΙΟΡ στήλῃ κακὴν] χεῖρα προσοίσει op-
[hava τέκνα λίποιτο κ-.τ.λ.]
Zen in C.LG. 3765, 4165, Ath. Mitth. xiii. p. 242, ete.
245. Sakushagh (on north side of Ak Giél): stele. (A.).
NEYKIOCTATA Λεύκιος Tara Tw ElAIWTIATPI τῷ εἰδίῳ πατρὶ
MNHMHCXAPIN μνήμης χάριν."
306 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
§ 5. ῬΡΙΒΙΒΕΥΓΠ (7 prssta).—Under the western corner of the Seifi Oreni ridge, in a favourable situation, well-watered by a two-fold stream which presently loses itself in the plain (except perhaps in winter, when it may possibly reach the Sangarios), lies the large village Ashagha (‘ Lower’) Piribeyli. Here there is an extensive site on both banks of the stream which comes down from Yokaru Piribeyli and waters the gardens of the village. Both the village and the cemeteries are full of remains of all sorts; on the slopes on the south side of the stream there are numerous ‘door-stones’ lying about, probably in their original position; and on a round hill beside them large squared blocks may still be seen in situ. Clearly this was a town of some importance and Prof. Ramsay has proposed to identify it with PISSIA, one of a local group of bishoprics under Amorion (p. 233); but at present there is not sufficient evidence to fix with certainty either Pissia or Klaneos, another member of the same group.! We copied every inscription we could find in the hope of discovering the name—but in vain. Some of these have already been published by Ramsay amongst the series of Phrygian texts in Kuhn’s Zt. f. vergl. Sprachf., N.F. viii. p. 381 ff. (Nos. xx.-xxiv.). Our copies generally confirm his, but there are a few differences.
In No. xxiv. (at the top of which there is a representation of a horse- man, doubtless Mén) ll. 5-6? read
€YEMOIA////
TIAACOIGEOCANTATIOAOIT//// 1... Ὅσα] εὖ ἐμοὶ δ[ι]πλᾶ σοι θεὸς ἀνταπόδοιτ[ ο]. Cf. No. 246.
No. xx., 1. 1 (according to my copy) begins {{{ΠῸΝΠΕΙΟΓ, 2.e.[Avp.] Πονπέϊος, and in 1.3 I have AAAKE “TITETIKMENOL, 1.. adaxeT τιτε- τικμενος, Without initial € ; cf. 0.1.5. 1898, p. 122, No. 68. Above the in- scription is a row of small figures ; the frame work of the two doors underneath is decorated with grapes and vine leaves; and the eight panels are filled with representations of various articles of household furniture (including amphora, jug, vases, fish on a plate, bed, mirror, etc.) and implements (spade, hammer, hook).
246. In an old cemetery ten minutes south of Agz-atchik (Yokaru), on one road from Piribeyli to Ak-sheher. Stele with linear ornamentation of vine-leaves and grapes ; comb, mirror, and basket above the inscr. (A.).
ILZSTHAHNEZOPAZKA ἸΙἸστήλην ἐσορᾷς καϊταζώγραφον, ἀλλὰ | νόησον TAZWEPADONAAAA ἣ τύνβον κα τέχει Τατείας καλῆς | ἱερείης NOHEONHTYNBONKA ᾿Αρτέμιδος | κούρης Bacirnidos ἣ | προκάθηται" TEXEITATEIACKAAH- ἣν ia | τοργῆς ἕνεκεν avnp|éos ἐνθάδ᾽ ἔτεισεν
1 [At the time of writing there was another fore, practically certain.] possibility, viz. that pe lay in the plain 2 In 1. 2, my copy reads CYNBIOC and in north-west of Amorion ; but an examination of oh eed he this district, which I made in Sept. 1899, 5 EAYTWN. We did not see nos. xxii, and shows that only small villages existed there. aa The identification with Piribeyli seems, there-
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 307
IEPEIHL APTEMIAOL Avp. Kapixos Νουνᾶς KOYPHCBACIAHIAOCH Τατίᾳ συνβίῳ καὶ θυ- ΠΡΟΚΑΘΗΤΑΙῸ HNIC γατρὶ Χαριτίῳ καὶ Νου- ΤΟΡΓΗΓΕΝΕΚΕΝΆΝΗΡ REMIR OVEN TERRORS
μνήμης χάριν. Τίς δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ἰστήλῃ
EOCENGAAETEICEN AYP-KAPIKOCNOYNAC
‘\ an κακὴν χεῖρα προσοίσει
ΤΑΤΙΑΓΥΝΒΙΜΝΝΚΑΙΘῪ καὶ ζῶν δεινὰ πάθοιτο ΓΑΤΡΙΧΑΡΙΤΙΝΝΚΑΙΝΟΥ καὶ θανεὼν ἔτι δεινά" ΝΑΥΙΜΝΓΛΥΚΥΤΆΤΟΙΓ “Ὅσα εὖ ἐμοὶ διπλᾶ σοι θεός (sc. ἀνταπόδοιτο).
ΜΝΗΜΗΓΧΑΡΙΝῸ TICAETAYTHTHICTHA KAKHNXEIPATIPoCoICE! K AIZWNAEINATIACOITO K AIG ANEWNETIAEINA
OCAEYEMOIAITTIAACOIGEOL
247. Piribeyli. In the village. (A.). AMMIA” ANTTIIOYOYFATHP ᾿Αμμία [Π]Ἰανπίου θυγάτηρ τς AEAYTHAATIANAICIAI ζῶσα ἑαυτῇ δαπάναις idi- ΠΟ ΔῊΝ ΑΡΙΟΙ ΓΚ ΦΝΚΑΙΤΕΙΜΟΘ αἰῤς δηναρίοις % φν' καὶ Τειμοθ- ΠΑΝ ΔΡΙΚΑΙΤΕΚΝΟΙΓΚΑΙΕΓΓΟ ἐῳ] ἀνδρὶ καὶ τέκνοις καὶ ἐγγό- IINMISVOL go 15 CHAAAAAIA νοις ἐ]δίοις ἡ ᾿Αμμία
PE HCX PIN ανήμ]ης χάριν. Πάνπιος for Πάνφιος i.e. Wavdacos or ΠΠάμφαιος (fem. Παμφία).
248. Ibid.—Door-stone, half buried. (C).
K APIKOCAAHNOO1/A//// Καρικὸς Μηνοφίλ[ου γλυ- ΚΥΤΆΤΗΚΥΡΙ.. . AANH//// κυτάτῃ Κυρίίλλῃ])] μνήμης χάριν KAIEATWZ ΠΝ WNETTIOIHC//// καὶ ἑατῷ ζῶν ἐποίησϊεν.
249. Ibid.—Double doorstone with small figures in relief: in pediment, eagle standing, with wings displayed. (A.). //|/NAPONEIKOCMENANAPOYTHIAIATL YNAIKI [||| M1 AK AITHOYFATPIA MIA MNH MHCXAPIN
JJ MT WENO EP WANAK AITHITENO €//// AMIAMNHMHCXAPINZWCIN ᾿ΑἸἹνδρόνεικος Μενάνδρου τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικὶ "Ajuda καὶ τῇ θυγατρὶ Apia μ. χ. κ]αὶ τῷ πενθερῷ "Avva καὶ τῇ πενθεϊ ρᾷ "Aula μνήμης χάριν ζῶσιν.
308 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
250. Jlid.—Altar-stone with inscription on upper margin: below ornamental wreaths, and pedimental door. (A.). ////[ADAPICEYTYXA Σ]αγάρις Ἐὐτυχᾷ I/IEKNWEAYKYTATW τ]έκνῳ γλυκυτάτῳ MNHMHCX APIN Xs 251. Jbid.—Similar stone, in a vineyard. (A.). KAPI eagle KOCME Kapixos Me- NANAPOVEAVTWZWNETIOICEN νάνδρου ἑαυτῷ ζῶν ἐπόισεν. 252. Ibid.—Very faint. (A.). AY’ AAAAEZANAPW// Αὐρ. Aa ’AreEdvipw[... . κὲ LAIWANAPIXEAC WE//// ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ Χέλσῳ xe [θέ- XN//ICAOMUK AAEZ//// xvlo]es Δόμνῳ κὲ ᾿Αλεξ[άν- APLKENOYNAKKYPIAK//// Spo κὲ Νούνᾳ κὲ Kupia x[é Μη- TPOTTAN-KMENEAKK Y//// τροπάνῃ κὲ Mevvéa κὲ Ku[pir- AH/AENTAMNMICX AP//// Alp. + + + wh:
Χέλσος for Κέλσος, 1. Celsus. Μητροπάνης for Μητροφάνης ; compare
nos. 200, 201, 240, 242, etc.
The following three lie on the hill-side opposite the village. 253. Ibid.—Triple doorstone. (A.). AYPAAAHLZWTIKOYKAIKOAPATIAAA//// Adp. Δάδης Ζωτικοῦ καὶ Κοδράτιλλα..
254. Ibid—Large doorstone. (A.). (bird in wreath) HNB KAPIKOCMENANAPOYEAYTWZC/,// OCANKAKWLCTTYHCE! TOHPW////
Ν ΄ « a - Καρικὸς Μενάνδρου ἑαυτῷ ζῶ[ν . . . a Ν a ‘Os ἂν κακῶς πυήσει TO ἡρῴ[ον... ..
255. 10υ14.---Τ)οοτβίοπο. (A.).
///|CANTWNIOCXEIAWNTHEAVTOV/"//
////HCX APINKALEAYVTWZWNKAIG//// Taio]; ’Arto@vios Χείλων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ [συμβίῳ μνήμ]ης χάριν καὶ ἑαυτῷ ζῶν καὶ φ[ρονῶν.
There are also several other fragments.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 309
256. IJbid.—Outside the village. Stone decorated with ox-heads and garlands much broken. (C.).
//// MMA AMHTPC////)/// ///] MNHMHCXAP//////// ///ITIOWHCENECTAIAYTW ////POCTONG EON
... ᾿Α]μμία Μητρο[φάνους 1... οὖς μνήμης χάρ[ιν . . Ὃς ἂν δὲ... κακῶς] ποιήσε[ι], ἔσται αὐτῷ a |pos τὸν θεόν.
δ 6. ToListoKHoRA and ABrostoLa.—The plain lying between Seifi Oreni and the hills that fringe the Sangarios lias next to be considered. It forms part of the district called Djihan-beyli, which includes the country round Ak Giél and extends up towards Inler Katrandji, but about the exact limits of which we could not obtain certain information. Tcheltik is now the chief village of the plain, but it shows no remains of antiquity except those which have been used up in building and repairing the elaborate mosque. But about an hour and a half to the north and about the same distance from the Sangarios there is an important site, with a necropolis of enormous extent nearer Tcheltik ; the foundations of ἡρῷα may be traced over a large area, and numerous door-stones, tcrribly weather-worn, lie beside them. The situation was well chosen near the deep-flowing perennial stream that comes down from Geuk Bunar and joins the Sangarios immediately below Elles Pasha. On the Jeft bank of this river, some distance below the ruins, there is quite a labyrinth of rock-cut chambers communicating with each other, which the natives call Bolat Hissar.!
Before endeavouring to ascertain the name of this site, we must mention another, which lies on the right (south) bank of the Sangarios, thirty-five minutes west of Hadi Ali Oglu, a village on the river almost due south of Sivri Hissar. This site is called Veledler, i.e. ‘the Sons, and derives its name (so runs the tale) from the sons of a Pasha of Ak Hissar? (Amorion) who met their death here while looking after some property belonging to their father. There is nothing now to be seen beyond the foundations of an enclosing wall and an old cemetery containing ancient stones,—pillars, door- stones, ornamented slabs, building-blocks etc. The distance from Pessinus (Bala-hissar) is about xi Roman miles.
Now the Peutinger Table indicates a road running from Dorylaion (Eski- sheher) by Trikomia (Kaimaz) to Pessinus and over the Axylos to Egdaua (see x. § 4) and thence along the Salt Lake to Archelais. We have already
1 So the ensemble of rock chambers at Bey- Kale, see Annual Brit. School 1898, p. 71, bazar is called Hissar (above i. § 8, p. 65.). n. 1. 2 Foran explanation of Hamilton’s Hergan
310 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
discussed the latter portion of this road. The section south-eastwards from Pessinus is thus represented :—
Pessinus XXilli
Abrostola xxiii . xi Abrostola xxiiii | Abrostola xxili_ 4 yrig %! Abrostola xxi a ere : | Yolosocorio vii
| Bagrum [etc. ]
ve
\ \
\Laudicia catacecaumeno
This is a terrible jumble; and the cause of the confusion is the same as we have already indicated in discussing the latter section of the road (see 1. § 6 above), viz. the running together of two diverging roads. What the Table meant to describe is (1) a road from Dorylaion by Pessinus to Archelais, which cannot pass Amorion, and (2) a road diverging from this one below Pessinus and going by Amorion to Laodikeia Katakekaumene. Owing to the mixing up of these two roads the numbers have become more or less cor- rupted, Abrostola is given twice, and stations have been omitted between Amorion and Laodikeia. The repetition of Abrostola would easily occur if the parting of the ways was at or near the town. Now the roads actually diverge a little to the cast or north-east of Hadji Ali Oglu. We may be allowed, then, to suppose that Veledler represents ABROSTOLA,—until a stone turns up to settle the question. So much at least is certain, that Abrostola cannot have lain further east; for it was in the province of Asia (Ptol. v. 2, 23), and the boundary between Asia and Galatia must have passed near (probably a little east of) Hadji Ali Oglu.
The other site on the north of Tcheltik may with fair certainty be iden- tified with the Tolosocorio of the Table, 1.5. TOLISTOKHORA, a town of the Tolistobogioi (Ptol. v. 4,7). The distance from Pessinus is something like xxiii Roman miles. The form of the name is not quite certain: one MS. of Ptolemy reads TodAaotoXopa, four or five ToAactaXwpa, many others Τολαστάχορα. But the conjecture Tolistokhora is most probable. We may therefore provisionally emend the Table on this wise :—
Pessinus xxiii
| Tolistokhora aaa πὶ [vii Bagrum ete. ]
The road from Amorion to Laodikeia goes by Tyriaion and Sinethandos (Kadyn khan), whence Laodikeia is xx MP. The road across the Axylos doubt-
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 311
less passed by the north side of Ak Giol to Eudokias and Glavama; but the centre of the Axylos is still an unknown land.
These conclusions will be found to agree remarkably well with the positions assigned to the towns by Ptolemy. See Prof. Kiepert’s map in Franz’s Fiinf Inschriften vu. fiinf Stddte in Kleinasien'
§ 7. THE MARCH OF MANLIUS.—The route followed by the consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso in 189 B.c. between Synnada and the River Lalandos (Bunarbashi Su) has been described by Prof. Ramsay in Revue des Btudes Grecques 1889, p. 22 f. and has recently been discussed at length by Dr. Korte (Athen. Mitth. 1897 p. 1 ff.), who has effected some improvements and, in particular, has fixed the site of GORDION opposite Pebi, on the Sangarios (cf. above). It cannot be said, however, that even this section of the march is settled beyond dispute. We have elsewhere pointed out that Dr. Korte’s suggestion to place Anaboura at Siirmene and to see in it the earlier name of the bishopric Augustopolis is disproved by our discovery of the Eulandra inscription.” His identification of Abbassos, however, with a site a little south of Geume (Ramsay placed it at the village itself) is more convincing ; ὃ and the Lalandos was proved by Ramsay to be the Bunarbashi Su, which flows from a great source near Amorion in a northerly direction to join the Sangarios.
The next section of the Consul’s march lay over the plain east of Amorion by Tyscon, where ambassadors of the Oroandeis * came to meet the Roman general : inde ad Plitendwm, deinde ad Alyattos, where envoys came from the friendly Galatian chief Eposognatos requesting him not to be in a hurry to attack the Tolistobogioi® until he himself should try to persuade them not to reject reasonable conditions. Manlius consented, and leading away his army per Axylon quam vocant terram encamped at Cuballum Gallo- graeciae castellum, where the Gaulish horsemen attacked him and suffered a defeat. Then seeing that they were bent on resistance, Manlius marched continentibus itineribus to the Sangarios, over which he threw a bridge and marched along its left bank to Gordion.
1 The fact that I omitted to consult the map until the above argument was finished may be considered to lend some confirmation to it.
* Annual Brit. School 1898, p. 50-1.
3 But the road from Mandri fontes (which he seems to place at In-Bunar, north-east of Mandra keui) is not ‘all down hill,’ as he declares, in seeking to account for the long day’s march of 29 or 30 kilometres (20 MP.). There is a lofty pass to cross.
4 It seems doubtful if the Oroandeis are the Pisidian tribe (Orondeis). Staehelin is perhaps right in regarding them as the inhabitants of some town in the neighbourhood (Gesch. d. kleinas. Gal.). (Cf. Livy c. 19.)
5 So Polybius xxii. 20 (Schweighaiiser). Livy xxxviii. 18 says ne Tectosagis bellwm in-
ferret, which Dr. Korte prefers because Manlius ist ja seit geraumer Zeit im Gebiet der Tolisto- bojer. But Livy’s only authority was Polybius, whom he certainly misunderstood: for, as Weissenborn pointed out, Eposognatos’ am- hassadors return with the news that his mission had failed and that the Gaulish chiefs had fortified themselves on Mt. Olympos,—i.¢. the Tolistobogian chiefs, for the Tectosages retired to Mt. Magaba (c. 19). Polybius’ meaning is perfectly clear, μὴ προεξαναστῆναι μη δ᾽ ἐπιβαλεῖν χεῖρας Τολιστοβογίοις Γαλάταις. [I see that Dr. Korte has now come to the same conclusion, in Woch. f. Klass. Philol. 1898, p. 5. He rightly remarks that the passage supplies important evidence as to Livy’s historical method. ]
Tots
312 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
If we must make suggestions for these places, we might suppose that Tyscon perhaps lay beside the refugee village Zonk (53 minutes east of Hamza Hadji), where there is an ancient site on and around a low hillock. If we could be sure that the Oroandeis were the Pisidian tribe of that name, we might find an argument for this identification in the fact that the envoys of that people met Manlius at Tyscon: for, as Prof. Ramsay has pointed out (Hist. Geog. p. 422), the envoys would naturally come by Hadrianopolis and Piribeyli. But the Oroandeis are more probably the inhabitants of some small town in the vicinity: they afterwards bring the Roman general intelli- gence as to the movements of the three Gaulish tribes. For Plitendum we will not offer even a suggestion, though we may note the existence of some remains in a cemetery ΒΝ the village Kaldirim, which signifies ‘ Pave- ment’ or ‘Causeway. Alyatti might be the site which we have identified with Tolistokhora and we might suppose that Manlius then drew away south- wards to Seifi Oreni. It is certain that he did not penetrate far into the Axylos proper, where water and provisions would have been hard to find But we fully recognise that these are the merest suggestions and that there is not evidence enough to fix the stations with any certainty.
XII. Galatian Civilisation.
The primitive remains which we discovered in Galatia (to recall for a moment what was shown in detail in Part I.) furnish welcome evidence that the central parts of the peninsula shared, as we should have expected, in that homogeneous civilisation which spread over the lands of the Aegaean and the Levant before the beginning of the first millennial period ; and, in particular, they indicate the existence of intercourse with Cyprus by way of the Cilician Gates, through which passed one of the oldest trade-routes to the North (ef. Hist. Geog. pp. 27-8, etc.). We have found evidence, moreover, of the existence in Western Galatia of the civilisation represented by the so-called ‘Hittite’ monuments of Cappadocia and North Syria, which is apparently contemporancous with the later stages of the Mycenaean culture. Whether the Phrygians were already in the land at this time, there is as yet no certain means of determining; but the ancient tradition, which places their immigration about the end of the tenth century, is not yet shown to be wrong.!
About the Kulturgeschichte of the centuries intervening between the Phrygian conquest and the appearance of the Gauls we know hardly anything. Existing monuments belong mostly to the period from about 80 A.D. onwards; and with regard to these we may say that if anaes
1 From the fact that ‘Trojan’ pottery has . Ῥαῦ more than five taaied ἘΠΕ even a been found op the site of what was probably whole thousand, years earlier.’ (Athen. Mitth. the Phrygian city Gordion, Dr. Korte con- 1897, p. 25.) But surely that copalnetay does cludes that the Phrygians had conquered the not necessarily follow. country, not ‘about 900 B.c., as Ramsay thinks,
»»....
EXPLORATION IN GALATTA CIS HALYM. 313
familiar with the character of the remains of the Imperial period in Phrygia proper were to be set down almost anywhere in Galatia and were asked to tell from an examination of the monuments in what country he was, he would certainly reply ‘In Phrygia.’ If he looks at the tombstones—sad to say, there is little else to see !—he finds that they are of the three common Phrygian types,—the altar, the stele (with or without a pediment), and the door-stone.1_ He sees carved on them the common representation of tools, toilet articles, etc., or typical Phrygian devices like the eagle standing with outstretched wings; he recognizes in the couching or sitting lions which decorated the tomb (No. 92, and above vi. § 1), or even served as the actual gravestone (as at Pessinus, Ath. Mitth. xxii. p. 48, No. 31), the ancient Phrygian motif which goes back to the age of the rock monuments and survives on the tombstones, especially in the Praipenisseis country. The nomenclature, too, with a few exceptions already noted, is distinctively of the Graeco-Phrygian type: the dead are conceived as deified (No. 142); even the Phrygian language is there (e.g. Nos. 117, 127). If he looks for evidence of the prevailing religion, that also (as we have shown, No. 44, 76, etc.) is purely Phrygian: there is no trace of any Celtic cult.
Perhaps the reader will ask in astonishment, ‘But what of the Celtic conquest and the consequent introduction of a Celtic civilisation?’ His surprise seems to be shared by Dr. Korte when he speaks of the astonishing tenacity with which Phrygian ideas maintained themselves in spite of Celtiza- tion and Hellenization (trotz Keltisirung und Hellenisirung hielten sich die phrygischen Vorstellungen mit erstaunlichen Zihighkeit®). But our astonishment vanishes when we realize the facts of the case. In reality the native civilisa- tion was entirely unaffected by the Celtic conquest (there was no Keltisirwng), and the real question rather is, How far did Celtic manners and customs retain their purity? Was it the case that Phrygia capta victores cepit? Did the Gauls not gradually become Phrygianized, i.e. assimilated to the Phrygian civilisation now beginning to be overlaid with a veneer of Hellenism *? The facts already adduced would seem to point to an affirmative answer, but we must examine the evidence more closely. Prof. Ramsay has pointed out (Classical Rev. 1898, p. 341 4) that the invading Gauls were few in numbers. The main army numbered 20,000, of whom only 10,000 were fighting men °;
1 For the significance of the altar see above, no. 142, and the references there given. For
Phrygian ideas. The god, for example, may be called by a Greek name (since Greek was
the importance of the door in Phrygian religious conceptions, see Ramsay, CZ. i. p. 99 ff. The door-stone continues in use even in Christian times: the raised division between the panels easily becomes a cross, and from it is developed the later stele with cross in relief occupying the centre of the field. I have noticed all stages of the transformation in Galatia.
* Ath. Mitth. xxii. (1897), p. 49.
3 The Hellenization was little more than external : it did not really change the nature of
mS.—VOL, XTX.
spoken), but he reniains the Phrygian god ; he is not a Hellenic deity, as the reliefs show. [In the great centres of life pure Greek ideas may be introduced, but that is a different thing. ] Thus there is nothing to astonish us in the fact that in spite of Hellenization Phrygian concep- tions maintain themselves with tenacity.
4 More fully in the article on Galatia already quoted.
5 Livy xxxviii. 16.
314 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
and, even if we suppose a few more bands followed, still the total number was very sinall. For 46 years after they entered the country they were engaged in continual wars, and there cannot therefore have been any great internal increase up to the time when Attalos I. penned them within the country to which they gave their name (282 B.c.). Now,as Galatia was about 190 miles long and 100 broad, it is obvious that the Gauls were merely a small military aristocracy ruling over a vastly larger native population, which they reduced to the position of coloni, allowing them in the usual way (Caes. Bell. Gall. 1. 31)! to retain two-thirds of the land on condition of paying a fixed proportion of the produce. The remaining portion of the land they occupied them- selves, leading a pastoral life when not engaged in war,’ while the chiefs lived in their fortified castella (φρούρια) surrounded by their clientéle. Such castella abound all over the country ; we have already described some of them, Dikmen Kale (I. ὃ 7), Tizke keui (I. ὃ 5 fin.), ete.; other examples are Assarli kaya® (near which Perrot conjectures their sacred meeting-place Δρυνέμετον, Strabo p. 567), Germesh Kale north of Kara-eyuk-Vindia (Ainsworth, Zravels p. 140), Geuklu in Murtad Ova (Ainsworth, p. 139), and so on.
In these remote rural retreats the Gauls long preserved their cantonal constitution (Strabo p. 567), their language, and their national manners and customs.* In 189 B.c., a century after they crossed over to Asia, they are still perfect barbarians, living in country villages (campestribus vicis agrisque) and fighting without any military organization (Liv. 38, c. 17 and c. 18 § 15), The cities (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Gordion) still remained in the possession of the native inhabitants,—Hellenized Phrygians, Greeks and Jews—who carried on all trade. But within the next twenty-five years a change has begun. Some time before 164 B.c. Pessinus fell into their hands,° ‘ probably by an agreement according to which one-half of the priestly college was to be Gaulish and one-half of the old Phrygian priestly families.’ Ancyra soon followed, and Gordion was also shortly afterwards conquered and destroyed, for it disappears henceforth from history.’
From 164 B.c. onwards we find the Gaulish nobles holding priesthoods at the great native temples.* The attraction lay in the enormous power
1 Ramsay J.c., improving on Van Gelder, De Gallis in Graecia et Asia (1888), p. 183 (who follows Perrot, Mémoires @ <Archéologie, 1875, p. 233-4).
2 Van Gelder, p. 182.
3 Cf. III. 8 6 above.
4 τριῶν δὲ ὄντων ἐθνῶν ὁμογλώττων Kal KaT ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐξηλλαγμένων (Strabo, p. 567).
5. Korte, Ath, Mitth. 1897, p. 16.
5 Ramsay’s interpretation (Class. Rev. l.c.) of an inscr. published by Korte, op. cit. p. 39. The suggestion is accepted by the latter.
7 Cf. Ramsay l.c. Korte, on the other hand, infers from Liy. xxxviii. 18 and 24 that Gordion and Ancyra were already conquered in 189 B.c.
(Wochensch. 7, klass. Philol. 1898, p. 3). But there is nothing to lead to this conclusion, As regards Gordion, Livy indeed says that Manlius found the town desertum fuga incolarwm, re- fertum idem copia omnium rerum. But that only means that the Phrygian natives fled in fear, just as they had done in Phrygia proper (c. 15, mcetu omnibus circa oppidis desertis). The Romans did not show much consideration towards the towns they passed on the march.
8 A, E. Mitth. 1884, p. 95-101 (=Ch. Michel’s Recueil no. 45): a Celt Attis (his brother is Aioiorix) is priest at Pessinus, (Attis is the permanent name of the chief priest, )
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 315
possessed by these priestly δυνάσται; and in the decline ot military vigour which followed their defeat by Rome the chiefs found this the best and easiest way of satisfying their ambition. From this time begins the process of Hellenization. The nobler families took to living in the towns and readily assimilated the civilisation around them, learning to speak the Greek lan- guage, adopting Graeco-Phrygian manners and customs, and taking for the most part Graeco-Roman names. One great sign of this assimilation of Hellenism is, as M. Perrot long ago pointed out (though he used it to support a wrong thesis"), the gradual disappearance of Celtic names. How readily Graeco-Roman names were adopted is shown, for example, in C.l.G. 4039, ], 26, where a man with the pure Celtic name Gaesatodiastes has a son with the Greek name Amyntas. The same thing appears in the process of Romanization in Gaul. In an inscription of Cenabum (Orléans) the son of a Celt Atepomarus has the pure Roman name [L. Corn]elius Mag[nus] ;? there, however, the change oftener takes several generations to accomplish, as in the case of a family mentioned in an inscription of Saintes, where the great- grandfather has a pure Celtic name Epotsorovidus : his son, having received Roman citizenship from Julius Caesar, calls himself C. Iulius Gedemon : but it is only in the fourth generation that the wholly Roman name C. Iulius Ο Iuli Otuaneuni f. Rufus is reached? After the time of Tiberius Celtic names occur only sporadically in the case of the nobility, sometimes (but very rarely) even in lower ranks, as in an inscription of Pessinus (later than 212 A.D.) where the name Aur. Deiotarus appears in the third generation, the father and grandfather having Graeco-Roman names. The ‘descendants of kings and tetrarchs’ (6.16. 4033, 4058) come to have pure Greek names.
In the cities, then (to which most of the inscriptions hitherto known belong), we need not wonder at the few traces of Gallic names or at the absence of any vestige of the Gallic language. The Hellenized Gauls become indistinguishable from the Hellenized Phrygians.
But it is a mistake to suppose that this picture applies equally to the rural parts and the small towns. There Celtic manners and customs neces- sarily maintained their hold longer than in the cities. But we must not carry this to an extreme. It is altogether improbable that, after their vigour as a fighting caste declined (from 160 B.c. onwards) and they began to take to a settled life, the rural Celts remained entirely unaffected by the civiliza- tion around them and preserved their primitive ideas and customs uncon- taminated down to the time when the fusing and Hellenizing force of
~
1 See below. tion is more rapid in Galatia than in Gaul, 2 In the beginning of the first century: becattse of the influence of Greek neighbour- 6.1.1.. XIII. Part I., 3067. hood: ‘the conception of the community as
3 De Boissieu, Jnscr. Antiques de Lyon, p. πόλις [ )( ἔθνο5] gains the predominance earlier 96 (Rushforth, Latin Hist. Inscr. no. 16), than among the European Celts.’ [now published in 6.1.1. XIII. Part I., no. 4 Ath, Mitth. 1887, p. 47: ef. 6.1.6. 4072 1036]. Mommsen has pointed out (Rom. Prov., (Ancyra. Eng. tr. i. p. 341) that the process of Helleniza-
316 J. G. C. ANDERSON.
Christianity began to affect these rustic parts. A small number of immigrants with a rude civilisation could not help borrowing from a culture superior to theirs, any more than could the vastly more numerous and _ as highly civilised Turks of a later period, who took over wholesale the civilisa- tion of the Christian inhabitants. So far as religion is concerned, the new settlers perforce adopted the native cultus: for it was always necessary to ‘know the manner of the God of the land’ (2 Kings xvii., 26-7). Doubtless they identified their own god with the Phrygian, and did not keep up any separate cult : otherwise it would be incredible that no trace of it should have remained. And the adoption of the religion would involve the adop- tion of all ideas and customs associated with it. They must also have taken over much of the materia! civilisation of daily life. One indication of this process of assimilation would be the assumption of Graeco-Roman names, and the evidence which we have shows that such names were gradually assumed. Thus in the central Haimané we have a dedication (No. 76) to the god Mén by a Celtic woman Bella and her husband Tropos, a Celt with a Greek name. Again we find two brothers Barbollas and Vastex with another brother Helios and a father Gaius (No. 48); or Zmerton with wife Meliginna (apparently a Celtic name) and children Domna, Dada, and Hermes (No. 49).
Not that the Gauls gave up their old domestic customs: for, as Mommsen has pointed out,! the strict paternal power foreign to Hellenic law subsisted in Galatia even in the time of Pius. Their position amongst the Phrygian population I conceive to have been similar to that of the Kurds in these same districts at the present day. One finds Kurdish and Turkish villages side by side and the peasants have much the same civilisation, but they preserve original differences in their social customs and there is no intermarrying.
In another point also the modern facts present an interesting parallel. There can be no doubt that down to the end of the fourth century at least, the rustic population retained the Gallic language. We have the oft-quoted testimony of Jerome, who had travelled in Galatia as well as in Gaul, that the Galatians spoke not only Greek but also a language like that of the Treveri, the changes that had occurred being no greater than had taken place in Punic as spoken in Africa or in Latin itself in different countries.” M. Perrot (followed recently by Van Gelder) tried to throw discredit on Jerome’s statement,® basing his contention mainly on the readiness with which the Gauls took to city life and adopted Hellenic manners, as is proved by their holding priesthoods and performing municipal functions and by the disappearance of Celtic names in the first half-century of the Roman occu- pation. When the editor of the Revue Celtique pointed out that Lucian, in
1 Roman Prov., Eng. tr. p. 341. sen, Ramsay, and Mitteis. 2 Preface to Comment. ii. in Epist. ad Galatas 4 De Galatia prov. Rom. (1867), p. 87-90, (p. 480). 168-170; Revue Celtique, tome i. =Mémoires
3 Jerome’s statement is accepted by Momm- α᾽ Archéologie (1875), p. 229 ff.
EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM. 317
narrating the doings of the false prophet Alexander of Abonouteichos in Paphlagonia (who professed to give responses to questions written in sealed tablets without opening them), tells us that εἴ tus (βάρβαρος) τῇ πατρίῳ ἔροιτο φωνῇ Συριστὶ ἢ Κελτιστί, the impostor had to delay his responses until some one turned up who could interpret,) M. Perrot tried to overcome the difficulty by replying that the Celts referred to were not Galatians but merchants or legionaries brought to the coast of the Black Sea by commerce or military service from Gaul or Britain. For how could Lucian apply the term βάρβαρος to citizens of Ancyra or Pessinus who were as civilised as citizens of Pergamos or Smyrna? and how could the prophet have to wait long for an interpreter, when Galatian merchants were always going to and fro between Galatia and the coast ?
M. Perrot’s arguments are insufficient to support his thesis, for he omitted to notice the distinction between the Hellenized Gauls of the cities and the rustics of the country.? Nor is the persistence of Celtic an isolated ease. The Lydian language had indeed disappeared in Lydia, but still survived in the Cibyratis (Strabo p. 631); Phrygian lived on as a spoken tongue through the Roman period, as is shown by the varieties that occur in the formulas of execration on the tombstone and by the fact that sometimes the whole inscription is written in Phrygian (cf. J.H.S. 1898 p. 121); we remember also that at Lystra in the middle of the first century after Christ it was ‘the speech of Lycaonia, not Greek, that rose to the lips of the people in a moment of excitement (Acts xiv., 11).
It was with the Galatians as it is with the Kurds at the present day. They have been settled for centuries in the Haimané country, but they still retain the Kurdish language. Turkish is used as the medium of intercourse with the outside world ; but Kurdish is the language of domestic life, and often the women do not know Turkish at all. In the same way the Gauls spoke Greek with their neighbours, but Celtic amongst themselves and in their own homes. The rural parts of Galatia were not thoroughly Hellen- ized nor were the different nationalities fused together until Christianity began to spread there and to enforce its language in the fourth or fifth century. That the process was a gradual one is sufficiently shown by the contempt expressed for the Galatians in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa (Hist. Geog. p. 288 and note); and the picture drawn by the orator Themis- tius of ‘Greek Galatia’ in the fourth century,—the keenness with which the people sought after Hellenic culture and welcomed the philosopher, their eagerness to master Plato or Demosthenes or Thucydides (Orationes p. 299 A, B),—refers rather to the city centres than to the country in general.
1 Lucian, ᾿Αλέξ. # Ψευδόμαντ. c. 51. who wrote, wrote in Greek ; the Gaulish lan- 2 *Galatian* merchants would be Greek- guage was a proof of barbarism and a reason for speaking natives (Phrygians, Greeks and Jews). shame. .and it may be doubted whether any 3 Cf. Annual Brit. School 1898, p. 60. one could write who spoke only Gauw.ish’ (Art. 4 Yet Celtic would not appear much, if at all, on Galatia, quoted above), ou the tombstones, for, as Ramsay says, ‘ All
318 EXPLORATION IN GALATIA CIS HALYM.
They greatly err who would look to Galatia Proper for the scene of the early activity of the Christian Church.
We must not conclude our account ot exploration in Galatia without expressing our thanks to the supporters of the Asia Minor Exploration Fund, whose liberality enabled Mr. Crowfoot to join the expedition, and to Mr. H. S. Shipley, H.B.M. Consul at Angora, through whose mediation we received every facility from the Vali Pasha and his subordinates throughout the vilayet.
J. G: C, ANDERSON.
ERRATUM (p. 104).
By an inexcusable oversight no. 90 is attributed to Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius. It belongs, of course, to Septimius Severus and Caracalla, J. α. ἐν AN
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-9,
WHILE the discovery of pre-historic remains proceeds apace on Greek soil, there has been for two or three years a certain pause in the exploration of purely Hellenic sites. Olympia, Epidaurus, the Athenian Acropolis, Delos, the Argive Heraeum, and Delphi kept the ball rolling merrily for some twenty years, but compared to those great enterprises in the strictly classical field the present is a day of small things. For some time past the German Institute has undertaken no considerable excavation. The French have only just got to work again at Goulds in Crete. The Greeks have made their most striking discoveries in cemeteries of the early period, to which the British School also has devoted all its energies for two years, Only the Americans have remained faithful to the classical tradition in their heavy and costly excavation of Corinth, which has not been rewarded, however, with much that belongs to any period before the Roman.
The Athenian Museums reflect this state of things. Nothing of great importance has been added to the classical collections during the past year, except the painted metopes and terra-cotta antefixes of the Temple of Apollo at Thermon in Aetolia, discovered by M. Soteriades, and these are not yet shown to the public. Of things found some years back, an instalment of the Heraeum vase fragments and terra-cottas has lately been put on exhibition ; but the metal objects from the same site are still in the workroom, where are also, and will be for another twelvemonth at least, the splendid vase- fragments from the Acropolis, at which Dr. Zahn has been working patiently for two years. Nor have the pre-historic exhibits been notably increased as yet, but for another reason—that there is no longer room to display them, The Mycenae hall is quite full, while the private rooms used by M. Tsountas and by. the British School are becoming overcrowded with pre-historic objects. A very suitable overflow space could be obtained by removing elsewhere the interesting, but very miscellaneous, Egyptian collection which fills the inner Mycenae hall; but even this space would be filled almost as soon as cleared, and the Greek Government, if it must maintain its present attitude towards the exportation of antiquities, cannot long escape the obligation to add a new wing to the Museum.
In the pre-historic field, the British School may claim to have taken the leading part during the past year in that it has continued, with as much success as in 1898, its exploration of the early Melian city at Phylakopi. The uncovering of the strata was interrupted in 1898 at a group of well- built chambers, in which the ‘Flying Fish’ fresco (B.S.A., iv. Pl. 3) was found. Excavations were pushed in 1899 eastwards from that point, the result of six weeks’ work being to lay bare all that remains of the city for a distance of about 270 feet, measured back from the sea-
320 D. G. HOGARTH AND R. C. BOSANQUET.
cliff which bounds the site on the north. There still remains, however, a deep unexcavated belt between the field of operations during the past two seasons and the great southern fortification; and in this it has been demonstrated by several trial pits that remains of all three settlements exist as well preserved as those that have already been uncovered. It is also not improbable that some part of the city will be found to extend beyond the fortifications into the barley fields which now skirt the base of the hillock south and east.
The outcome of the past season’s work has been to confirm the broad distinction of the three settlements, of which constructions had been identified in previous seasons, but not to throw any more light on the primitive ‘first settlement’ whose existence was inferred from very early sherds which had turned up in the north-east corner of the site. No construction belonging to this earliest settlement has yet come to light, and it seems as though the deposit of primitive sherds referred to must have been an accidental ‘ midden,’ left by primaeval cave- or booth-dwellers of the cist-grave period, while as yet there was no town at Phylakopi. Within the three main divisions allowance must be made for more than one minor reconstruction of divers parts of the town; but the broad threefold distinction holds good. With their growing experience of the site, the excavators of this past season have been able to distinguish far more clearly than before the plans of the two uppermost cities, and to discern the lines of the streets and water conduits. On the whole the houses of all three periods were found in better preservation in the part of the site dug this year than in other parts; and one notable construction of the latest town was uncovered, namely, a ‘ Megaron,’ small, but very complete in ground-plan, and having alongside it on the east a self-contained group of chambers, divided from it by a passage—an arrangement recalling the ‘men’s and women’s apart- ments’ at Tiryns. Though no vase equal to the ‘Fishermen’ (B.S.A,, iv. Pl. 2.) and no architectural ornament like the ‘ Flying Fish’ fresco were dis- covered, a fine representative set of vases and fragments, including many rare forms and decorative motives, drawn especially from organic life, was brought to Athens. Conspicuous among the finds are a unique scaly object in coarse clay, suggestive of a model of a palm-leaf hut furnished with a central pigeon tower, and holes in the roof on either side of this tower; and an ivory ring engraved with a draped female making offering on an altar. An investigation of the cemeteries to the south and south-west of the city resulted in finding only one partially virgin tomb, containing a ‘kernos’ and about fifteen plain vases of the earlier part of the second period. For the last fifty years the native diggers have not been able to make anything of the Phylakopi tombs, and it is to be feared there is little more to be done with them.
The explorations of M. Tsountas in graves at Chalandri on the neigh- bouring island of Syros and in Siphnos belong really to a previous year, but have not yet been reported in this Journal. His large find of pre-historic objects presents many very singular and interesting features, not the least
ρ΄.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-9. 321
interesting being the measure of its independence of the discoveries in neigh- bouring Melos. The Syros vases, though obviously covering a long period, begin before the Phylakopi series begins, and end long before that ends. Mycenaean importations from the mainland are conspicuous by their entire absence; and though the vase forms are essentially the same as the Melian, they have undergone special modifications, due in large measure to the influence of the stone forms, which access to the Naxos and Paros marbles rendered common in the central Cyclades. ‘The impression made by this find on the beholder is of a more purely insular culture than the Melian, more detached both from the Greek mainland and from Crete. M. Tsountas was fortunate enough, also, to obtain from his graves some very well- preserved skulls, presenting startling varieties of type which are now being studied by the learned Athenian craniologist Dr. Clon Stephanos. Some faint traces of a settlement attached to these graves was found ; it lies on a headland and is fortified towards the land side by a wall with five towers. A similar fortification with outer and inner wall appears on the hill of Hagios Andreas, near Apollonia, in Siphnos. Meanwhile Dr. Zahn has carried on the exploration of early cemeteries at Kamara and in Thera, finding many vases ; a prehistoric settlement has come to light in Paros, and has been partly cleared by the German School, represented by Messrs. Rubensohn and Hiller von Giartringen; and M. Stavropoulos has been able to discover a ¢holus tomb in Mykonos that had been rifled at some early period.
Crete, the ‘Promised Land’ of Aegean research, we shall hope to have to deal with at length next year: but there are some earnests .of future dis- covery to chronicle briefly now. Two remarkable early tombs, chanced upon by peasants, fortunately came under the notice of Mr, Arthur Evans last May, ere their contents could be dissipated. The one was found at Milato, on the north coast just west of the Gulf of Mirabello: this was a chamber tomb of purely ‘Mycenaean’ character containing two painted clay chest-coffins (‘larnakes’) which had each enshrined a single skeleton, and about twenty painted .vases disposed in three groups. An impressed glass rosette was found, but no metal—at least none remained when Mr. Evans entered the tomb, though the chests and vases were then still im sitw. The most remark- able features are a figure, with rays springing from the shoulders, painted on the end of one of the chests, and a large owl-face vase set in an open-work clay stand. The other tomb, though containing two or three ‘Mycenaean’ vases, belongs to the subsequent Cretan geometric period at the opening of the iron age. It was found at a spot called τὸ πλάϊ τοῦ κάστρου high above the village of Kavusi, at the bottom of the Gulf of Mirabello and near a remarkable Mycenaean fortress. It is of the ‘tholus’ type and its contents (which had been extracted from the tomb before Mr. Evans came on the scene) include 117 vases, some good bronze objects (e.g. a lotus-handled bowl and a spear-head), and a quantity of iron implements, among them a double- headed axe, a pick, and some swords. There were two skulls in the grave. The objects found in both these tombs were bought by Mr. Evans for the
322 D. G. HOGARTH AND R. C. BOSANQUET,
Candia Museum and lodged there. Not far away the same explorer came upon a well-preserved Mycenaean potter's kiln with fragments of ‘larnakes’ still in it; and at different points in the island were found as usual fine seal- stones and gems, the most remarkable being a ‘ Mycenaean’ lentoid, showing geese with lotus blooms, and an agate Mycenaean ring with wild goats (aypiut) harnessed to a chariot. Near Varvélais in the Sitia district (Praesos) were unearthed, about a year and a half ago, a number of interesting early terra-cottas, of which several were bought by M. De Margne of the French School at Athens, and a few, including a new archer type and a reminiscence of Egyptian Hathor, were left for Messrs. Evans and Hogarth to see last spring. Finally, a very remarkable ‘ Mycenaean’ bronze breast-plate, now in the hands of M. Triphyllis at Retimo, remains to be noticed. It shows four female draped figures, the two central ones holding a wreath over a bird, below which is a ‘sacred tree. The two outer figures are apparently dancing. It is probably a ritual scene, and may help to elucidate the nature of early Aegean cults. No detailed information is yet to hand of the Italian excava- tions at Gortyna, or the French at Goulds. But it is reported that the latter site has proved to be that of the inland Zato, and has yielded, curiously enough, not pre-historic, but classical things, among them a fragment of a civic treaty. The results at Gortyna have so far been disappointing.
The authorities of the British Museum have again been prosecuting work in early cemeteries of Cyprus in the hope of finding another treasure like that of Enkomi. Their first venture was at Old Paphos, whose earlier graves, lying mostly south and south-east of the town, were not much explored by the excavators of the Aphrodite Temple in 1888. But unrifled tombs are very hard to hit upon in Cyprus, and nothing was made of Paphos. Trials were then instituted near Larnaka and one virgin tomb was found containing a gold diadem, with repoussé ornament, and a cylinder, both exceptionally fine Cypriote (or Phoenician?) work. This success was, however, not maintained. But Mr. F. B. Welch, who was in charge of this work, had better fortune later, when accompanying Messrs. Anderson and Munro in Asia Minor. A good deal of Aegean and Cypriote ware was found by the party, especially at Turkhal, Bolus, Boghazkeui, and the Midas City. The last Report of the Palestine Exploration Fund contains drawings of pottery found at Tell Zakaria (= Gath ?), which is undoubtedly Aegean,
Coming to the historic period, we note that fresh light has been obtained rather from the outskirts than the centre of Hellas. In Athens itself very little excavation has been undertaken during the past year, For want of free space, Dr. Dérpfeld has had to leave the Old Agora alone, and to confine himself to running a series of trenches up the west slope of the Acropolis towards the first sweep of the carriage road. But no enlightenment resulted from these excavations. Trenches on the north side of the gap between the Pnyx and Museum hills revealed remains of a tower in the circuit of the city wall; and systematic exploration of the area of the Olympieium has brought drums, drains, and a few inscrip-
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-9. 323
tions of no interest to light. The soil on that site has now been cut away to a depth of about four feet over all the precinct, leaving the actual temple area standing up as an island with the surviving columns on its extreme south-eastern edges. The effect is not very pleasing or appropriate ; and one would like to be better assured of the continued stability of those columns, now that their foundations have been so greatly exposed, and even to a slight extent undercut. A small group of rock tombs was discovered in the process of reconstructing a house on the west side of Stadium St., opposite the entrance to the royal stables. The burials ranged from the later geometric period to the fourth century, but were accompanied by nothing of more than ordinary character—a gold taenia, some Dipylon vases, polychrome Jecythi, black and red figure ware, and an iron sword. The precinct of the Sunium temple has been explored by M. Stiies, and a stoa and a propylon have been found, together with an honorific Decree, which is said to prove that the famous monument on Cape Colonna is not after all Pausanias’s shrine of Athena, but one of Poseidon, known from Aristophanes to have been worshipped at Sunium. Outside the enclosure, remains of a second temple of abnormal plan were traced, and this must be the Athena shrine.
The German Institute in Athens has purchased the house which it has hitherto only rented, and will provide better accommodation for its public meetings by building on a new room. The present library is no longer sufficient for the needs of the Institute, more especially since, at the death of Achilles Postolakas, it inherited his valuable collection of several thousand volumes. The Austrians have secured a site near the Museum for their pro- jected Institute, but have not yet begun to build.
Progress has been made with the great collection of vase fragments from the Acropolis and with the finds from the Kabeirion near Thebes, two tasks for which the German Institute has made itself responsible, but in both cases the prospect of publication appears to be somewhat remote.
At Delphi the French devoted the later summer of 1898 to uncovering a part of the Gymnasium, which lies just below the issue of the Castalian spring. -They found remains of a terraced building with four colonnades facing south, and added a few inconsiderable inscriptions to their great Delphic store, but no notable sculpture nor anything else of importance. M. Homolle announces that, for the present at any rate, this excavation will not be proceeded with, partly because the limits of the expropriated lands have been reached, partly because he does not expect such results from the lower town as would make further expenditure worth while. Towns often yield as much to careful digging as temples ; but in view of the mass of unpublished material, not only from Delphi, but also from Delos, which has accumulated on their hands, it is not to be regretted that the French should take a breath- ing space. Meanwhile the recent journey of M. Laurent in Thrace has led to the revival of a project for a Byzantine Corpus.
The Austrian excavations at Lousoi in northern Arcadia, resumed for a very brief space last June, have resulted, it seems, in almost nothing, the
324 D. G. HOGARTH AND R. C. BOSANQUET.
site having been too thoroughly plundered. We shall have to rest content with the identification of the little Artemis temple, alluded to in last year’s Report.
In saying, however, that little work has been done in most centres of European Hellas, we must except Corinth: for there the American School has carried on its laborious exploration on a larger scale even than in 1898. The result has been to open out an extensive area to the south-east of the well-known temple (which has itself been cleared out and greatly improved in appearance), to give Corinth a rank among the ‘show sites’ of Greece, and to obtain valuable fixed topographical points. The identification of the Peirene fountain, announced last year, has been amply confirmed this season by the further discovery of a large circular basin in the centre of a space flanked by three exedrac. The fine paved road, found to the west of this, has been shown to lead southwards through the ruins of a propylaeum into a large open area, which there is every reason to hope will prove to be an Agora. It is unfortunately, however, only too probable that this will be a thoroughly Romanised Agora, as the Peirene proved to be a Romanised Peirene. So far, nothing important of a better period has turned up, except a chance geometric burial: torsos, at best Hellenistic, and inscriptions of Roman period have alone rewarded the explorers. It is no fault of theirs: this excavation has been steadily pushed through soil of great depth in the only direction to which the indications pointed : but so far the remains of the brilliant period of Corinth make entire default. It is possible that the centre of the Hellenic city was elsewhere: and that Pausanias, in describing what existed in his time, was describing a city which had suffered more topo- graphical change than he knew, but change for which the history of Corinth in the early Roman period might well prepare us.
At several points, however, in the outer though not the outermost circle of Hellas, important work has been done, or is about to be done :—in Aetolia and Thessaly, in Lower Egypt, in the Islands, and Asia Minor,
At Thermon, the capital of the Aetolian League, the excavations of the Greek Archaeological Society were continued by M. Soteriades and resulted in the discovery of an early temple, thought to have been dedicated to Apollo, which furnishes new evidence regarding the development of Doric architec- ture. It had stone foundations and regularly built stone steps, but the columns were originally of wood like those of the Heraeum at Olympia (later, stone columns were substituted), and the metopes were filled by painted terra-cotta plaques, some of which are well-preserved. Among the subjects which have been identified are Perseus carrying the Gorgon’s head and a huntsman laden with game, the figures being some twenty inches high Stone columns, and a pa nted plaque of less archaic style representing three seated deities, indicate a later reconstruction. The remains of the terra-cotta decoration of the cornice and roof, in particular a series of male and female heads, some of which served as water-spouts, are of great interest. The plan of the building recalls that of the so-called Basilica at Paestum. It is peri- pteral, with five columns at the end and fifteen at the side, those at the
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-9. 325
corners included, and is divided longitudinally into two naves by a row of columns. This is the longest of Greek temples in proportion to its breadth, the shrine of Hera at Olympia not excepted. The temple is assigned to the end of the seventh, or beginning of the sixth century, and it is suggested that it may have been built under Corinthian influence. In any case it is a valuable addition to our knowledge of a method of construction of which the Treasury of Gela at Olympia, as restored by Dorpfeld, was hitherto almost the only example. The excavations were resumed this summer, and several more of the painted metopes came to light.
In Thessaly something has been done towards determining the nature of its many tumuli. The interest revived lately in Thessalian things by the discovery of beehive tombs at Elassona, under Olympus (with in- scriptions showing that a hero-cultus long survived there), and at Almyro on the Gulf of Volo, received a smart fillip from Mr, C. D. Edmonds’ fortu- nate excavation of the Pilav Tepé tumulus east of Velestino (Pherae). Here in May were opened out a roughly cut rock chamber, containing the bones of a ram, and a square pit, sealed by a painted slab, and containing an untouched burial of the third century B.c. The ashes of the deceased were enclosed in a fine silver urn decorated with a moulded head of the young Herakles, while beside the urn lay plain gold diadems, wreaths of copper wire and gilt paste beads, and a curious perforated vase. The character of these objects belied the expectation which the size and position of the tumulus had raised, that it would prove to contain, if not a pre-historic burial, the ashes of a Tyrant of Pherae: but Mr. Edmonds’ discovery supplies a useful reminder that Thessalian tumuli are worth exploring and may be of all dates.
Naukratis, in the Egyptian Delta, recalls the names of Messrs. Petrie and Gardner to every one who has followed the progress of Hellenic discovery. The past season has supplied an important sequel to their work in the identifi- cation of the famous ‘Hellenion.’ No positive evidence of the position of this great sanctuary of the pioneer cities of Greek trade in Egypt was found by Mr. Petrie, and he was forced to identify with it a great enclosure at the south end of the city, despite the fact that all that part of the mounds produces nothing but Egyptian remains, and the enclosure in question con- tained no other building than a many-chambered fortress of Egyptian type. The British School at Athens was led to reopen work at Naukratis last spring by news of serious encroachments, which threatened to absorb the mounds altogether into the cultivated area; and the Director chose the extreme north-east as the scene of operations, attracted by a recently uncovered granite jamb and by sundry other indications. In the event, he found himself in the south-west angle of ἃ great temenos, much denuded, but still contain- ing remains of buildings at three levels, and many inscribed sherds, a few of these being dedicated ‘To the Gods of the Greeks, and the rest to many individual deities, Aphrodite, Herakles, Zeus, Artemis (7), Poseidon (?), Hera (?), the Dioscuri, and Apollo (of Chios). The enclosure walls are much more considerable than any others found by the previous explorers at the Greek end of the city, and the space within them is much greater. There can
326 D. G. HOGARTH AND R. C. BOSANQUET.
remain no reasonable doubt that this area was that ‘largest, most famous, and most frequented temenos,’ which Herodotus described (ii. 179). Stone foundations of an early building were found, and, at a low level, a good 6th century relief and a deposit of 5th century terra-cottas, besides much good broken pottery, native and imported, and minor objects, specimens of which were shown in London last July. The earliest temple seems to have become watcr-logged, and in Ptolemaic times a complete reconstruction was effected, the new building being raised on an artificial mound of sand. At present the whole site is terribly wet on the lower levels, and it is impossible to work near the edge of the cultivated area, which now occupies at least half of the original ‘ Hellenion’; but the south-east corner of the great enclosure is dry enough and still covered by high mounds, the removal of which ought to be taken in hand shortly as the last operation of salvage on the site of Naukratis.
The other great Greek settlement in Egypt, Alexandria, has occupied German attention for some months. It is the old story again—money, given originally for the discovery of the Soma of Alexander the Great, diverted to something less impossible, this time to research in the open spaces east of the modern town, where the Ptolemaic palaces ought to be, and some remains of a colonnade, possibly Ptolemaic, had been accidentally happened upon by Dr. Schiess Bey, the Director of the German Hospital. Dr. Noack was put in charge of the work, and he dug a series of great pits in the Hospital precinct, only to find, at an average depth of more than ten metres, remains of small chambered buildings of which it was hard to say whether they were late Roman or early Arab. Removing thence to the seashore below the Jewish cemetery, he was more fortunate, for he came on a street and a canal, the first actually laid bare in old Alexandria ; and by this he has been, we believe, encouraged to continue in another year. No important finds of moveable objects were made ; and certainly the general result of this explora- tion, which occupied about five months, would seem to confirm the view of Messrs. Hogarth and Benson (Report on Prospects of Excavation in Alexandria, E.E.F. Arch. Report, 1896) that Alexandria affords one of the most expensive and the least remunerative sites for research in the Levant.
The Greek Archaeological Society undertook excavations last autumn in the island of Rheneia. The necropolis of Anti-Delos, as it used to be called, was known to antiquity hunters long before the birth of the Greek Kingdom, and early travellers speculated on the possible identity of the tombs, which they saw there, with the interments removed from Delos by command of an oracle in 426 B.C., soon after the plague at Athens. ‘The Athenians, says Thucydides (iii. 104), ‘took away the dead out of all the sepulchres in Delos, and decreed that henceforward no one should die or give birth to a child there, but that the inhabitants when they were near the time of either should be carried across to Rheneia.’ In September of last year M. Stavropoulos was so fortunate as to come upon an undisturbed enclosure which certainly seems to date from the purification of Delos during the Peloponnesian war. An area of 500 square metres, equivalent to a square of
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-9. 327
seventy feet, had been enclosed by a wall, and was found to contain a deposit of bones about a foot and a half deep, reduced by pressure to a sort of concrete. Vertical slabs of stone divided the plot into square compartments, and horizontal slabs separated the compartments into layers. Over all was a covering of similar slabs. In many cases the offerings originally buried with the corpse had been transported with the bones. There were bronze and terra-cotta figures, much broken pottery, and a certain number of complete vessels, ranging from the Mycenaean to the red-figure period. Vases of the latter class were found in a series of about thirty sarcophagi of porvos stone which probably contained the interments of the period immediately preceding the purification. It is obvious that this circumstance may throw light on the chronology of fifth century vase painting. So far as is known, nothing was found to explain Thucydides’ remark that more than half the bodies thus translated were identified as Carians ‘ by the fashion of their arms and the mode of their burial.’
The excavations conducted by the Germans at Mesa-Vuno in Thera have been continued on a small scale, and have resulted not only in a further find of prehistoric vases, but of a number of interesting metrical rock inscriptions, relating to one Artemidorus, a member of the garrison placed in the island by Ptolemy III. Under Dr. Rubensohn the Acropolis of Paros has been further explored. The Asklepieion and the precinct of Eileithyia, found in 1898, have been thoroughly cleared and some interesting historical inscriptions and ex-votos, including an archaic Apollo, have come to light.
R. Herzog visited Cos in the summer of 1898 in the hope of identifying the site of the Asklepieion. In this he was not successful; but he obtained more than a hundred and fifty unpublished inscriptions, which will be published as a supplement to Paton and Hicks’ Jnscriptions of Cos under the title ‘ Koische Forschungen und Funie.’
An interim report on last year’s excavations at Ephesus is given by R. Heberdey in the second Juhreshefte of the Austrian Institute. The theatre was almost completely cleared. The auditorium looks west, and has a total breadth of 460 feet, and sixty-six rows of seats, divided into three tiers by horizontal corridors (διαζώματα). The orchestra and stage buildings have been modified and reconstructed several times, and did not receive their present form until the second century A.D. The lowest seat is nearly six feet above the level of the orchestra, and is divided from it by a marble-paved passage nine feet broad. The Roman stage was nine feet high and twenty feet deep and projected into the orchestra. Its floor has collapsed, but the three rows of piers which supported it, the flights of steps which led up to it from the orchestra, and part of the richly decorated scenae frons, which rose behind it, are still standing. Beneath these complex remains are embedded con- siderable portions of the original Greek scena, just as within the Roman orchestra traces have been noted of an earlier orchestra circle of somewhat smaller radius, the circumference of which would coincide with the lowest seat if, as is probable, the seats originally extended down to that level.
Some interesting pieces of sculpture were found, including statues of
328 D. G. HOGARTH AND R. C. BOSANQUET.
Zeus, of a Muse, and of an Amazon, and a fine relief of a horseman, a fragment of a battle-piece. Special mention is made of the spirited design and realistic treatment of a frieze which decorated the background of the stage representing Hrotes in combat with wild beasts. Though it is shattered into hundreds of fragments it will be possible to reconstruct a considerable part of it. Progress has also been made in determining the original plan of the Agora, which proves to have been quite symmetrical originally, and in tracing the main streets of the town. Numerous inscriptions have been found. One of special interest, discussed by Professor Benndorf in the same periodical, is cut on a stone of the so-called ‘Prison of Paul, which is really a small fort built to command an angle of the city walls. It records the terms of a lease of the surrounding ground given by the city at the time of the building of the walls by Lysimachus, with express reservation of the site marked out for these walls and a vacant strip on either hand of them, and of the munici- pality’s right to make roads, open quarries and lay water-pipes as might prove to be necessary during the progress of the work. The main interest of the document is topographical. Besides giving the names of two hills over which the wall passes, it confirms the view, already accepted, that at the beginning of the third century the sea extended to the foot of these heights and that the alluvial ain which now civides the city of Ephesus from τ᾿ .6 sea has been iormed by the Cayster within historic times.
In the Prussian excavations at Priene the principal results, besides those reported last year, were the discovery on the terrace above the theatre of the principal church of the town, dating from the time of Justinian, and the excavation of a well-preserved temple of Demeter and Kore, of part of the stadium, and of an adjoining Greek gymnasium. Brilliant as the success of these excavations has been in other respects, it is disappointing that no trace has been found of the old Ionic city. Nothing hitherto discovered is earlier than the Hellenistic period, and the excavators are forced to conclude that the original city occupied a different site. The Prussian operations have now been transferred to Miletus, a rich but notoriously difficult site. It has been found possible, by means of deep cuttings, to drain a part of the marshes which are the principal obstacle to excavation, and the early finds are said to be promising. Although there has been no formal resumption of work at Pergamon an opportunity was taken last autumn, during the progress of a survey, to fix the position of the main gate of the Hellenistic city, and the foundations were cleared sufficiently to enable a plan to be made.
The journey of Messrs. J. G. C. Anderson and J. A. R. Munro in Asia Minor during the summer of 1899 had some important results. Mr. Anderson first travelled alone over Eastern Galatia and Western Pontus, and on a short excursion into Cappadocia examined the curious marble temple near Rumdigin. He has determined the position of several sites, 6.5. Pimola, Euagina-Verinopolis, and Verisa, and found a long inscription near Chorum, which gives the ‘correspondence’ between Abgar of Edessa and Christ, showing variations from Eusebius’ text. Neoclaudiopolis has been fixed, instead of Neapolis, at Vezir Keupru, and much light has been thrown by the
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1898-6, 429
discovery of numerous milestones on the Roman road system in Galatia and Pontus. Mr. Munro has fresh evidence for placing Hadrianeia at Balat, and has found a probable site for Hadrianutherac, And last but chief he haa lighted at Kurshunlu in the Troad on a long letter from Antigonus, which gives some account of negotiations among the Diadochi preliminary to the Peace of 311 8.c. It is published elsewhere in this Journal,
It may not be out of place in conclusion to refer briefly to the rapid extension of German archaeological activity in the Nearer Kast. An Imperial grant of 10,000 marks has been given for exploration in Egypt ; and the foundation of the German Palestine Association, with objects like those of our Palestine Exploration Fund, has been followed by that of the Deutsche Orientgesellschaft, which sprang into existence in January 189%. Starting with 500 members and an influential committee, it has given earnest of its activity by sending a well-equipped expedition to make excavations at Babylon. The Kaiser has shown his personal interest in the undertaking by a grant of 20,000 marks from the Dispositions funds. The expedition is headed by an experienced architect and explorer, Dr. Koldewey (formerly with Dr. Von Luschan at Sinjerli), who reconnoitred the site two years ago. Under him are an Assyriologist, a civil engineer, and a carpet- dealer, whose command of Arabic and Jong experience of the East qualify him to act as business manager to the party. The caravan reached Babylon early in the past spring, and work has now been begun on the
part of the site known as El Kas’r. 7. G. Hocartn.
RK, C. Bosanquet.
H.S.—VOL, XIX. Z
10
Ξ -
Seely tel doe < salu heer a re
Ὁ» Ὁ (ey se ΠῚ
Ὄ 7
> M— SPN ao eee sop eS ae ΠΙ Ὁ th a ae}
9
-»τ
A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO
oO m=O, ZZ τ Mu) 2 “el
yy S 2 - Soi AS ΣΦ 4 > =< - Θ᾽ 1O5M. Θ᾽ Se
ΦΟΙἉΙ͂Σ
of > eet τα gee ie
Ξ Vite, OO Ἐν τ Ὁ = Mize = MKC ΘΕ =) CG
Tear
OM 2m mone) 2-6. 2 © - ves
ΘΟ, ΟΡ =< Ὁ
4 Kx - vit
me Mm © Soe 2 bain =.=
— a 2 Ὃπ Ὁ SS OF:
ἮΙ ΝΜ - << 2 ΠΟ ἢ
A =e ae Se OI
FEO) {π| (ey fey (eye (6) ae =<
==> ey) ΘΕ SM am Se am
Ὄ 35 52 Sl Ink |
> Meat a π΄.» Sam Ὸ"“ ΞΜ ΞΕ Ξι
>2Zzdd«<
po) 1M! S28 Unie =< fuk to) ZY Ὁ So Tl 'Ξ TMP ἢ oo Mz Oz = Ὁ mn a ξῷ ς-
M Εἰ ssw Mm a 19
= 2M 5Ξ --:-
—- Z
Ὄ 24 Ὁ
Cea © se 2 acy =
= [ul ΜΠ toy ἢ aM!
τ 2 A, 2p Θ᾽ ὍΣ 1 Ara — MEMS Ξι =< ΞτΣ RO Sai
ΡΡ' ΤΟΣ a = >) >
pe
=< <M Mie
τοὶ, Spe dar = Ee Pal i 1A Te <7, Pata bm
© oO τέσ ον (PS πὶ m Of τὸ Ὁ ΜΒ Ὸ Σ᾽ -) see SS SIO] be Pee
N Φ ΘΖ; > 2 πὶ Θ᾽ | MOM A. ΖΦ: os A ὺνν.
ΕΙΣ ὩΣ
=
Zz.
Se ΠῚ π|ρ τς ΠῚ Viet cue ΠῚ» oe A τ Μ -
OL > Pim” J ot > sie Ρ Ὁ, Fr 2 <
NK
SCEPSIS, 311 B.c.
θα τ, 9»
= ΞΖ» SS -- θ»»» Ὁ ῦ»
= 22M = Θ᾽.» πὶ > aM me Ss = ΞΜ ΖΡ aloo
<<) eee Ss Se So = Sa Sine πὶ << o>
SSeS Sb ls - π|ρ 9) ὩΣ» ΠΣ ple yy nn) tal wah pe We) Bs
meeHaada22znu4eeonmMoe-
i eee) SO 5 TT) WG)! ουξΞο τ ΘΟ ta ΟΖ a ie
7G) =O St) Mi) Sale Maes eee
toe. Se 5
M)D 4
>. M IM apis. -ζ Ξ) eat Sa Ξ
zw MM Se > πὶ" conn =» ©
Eee
Fy +4 OO. Ἐπὶ oA ὃς, ΖΦ er oHy © 2 ae, < ον S χει πὶ OC. >" VF Dy. O Ξ SAS oe
» ©) NMC. τ =
- 0
wm] & > ss =] eos - Mee
τῇ Ξε -- ΦὦὄΘ i= tee σ πΞι ἐς 6. = »
Ona! > sree Oe
ΞΘ ΞΟ ΞΕ Ξ
Ξὸ πον a Ὁ». «-
Rw a
Mae Oe Se Be oS Se »». “1 -1ὲ
-."ῃ-ὉΌ--:Ζ2 - πο --
ΡΞ ΙΝ
oOo oO
om
ΜΘ» © 3+ SM oe Ze oe ὃς
Θ. τ - Φ Se Ὁ» ΤῸ UM me “MSA Ξ =. Ὁ “a τὸ .Π|
oc oOoM Pp OM AM
x» <~ -- < Oo > M
- π᾿
ΒΞ ἘΠῊΝ Ὁ). ὍΣ
a Se oe wn SS SS mM = mm Oo > ΠΙ τ᾿
— 2,2, < he uM a > Me
- Ὁ ἘΠ Mh ese ae) [ES
=
Ό mM = sf 31 Ὁ ΠΏΣ τ ΦΌΜΕΞ . τον OE
--ι Φ’ ' ΦΖ «as
Ὁ OSIM. Θ᾽ nm = 4 = eS
pS Se ΞΞῪΣ δ-΄ SS Ὁ OD ZZ eM SE Sy - FE ee oom ee om Oo. Me!
ξ΄ sM ἘΞ o> pH cM 2 oz >
ΞὉ > .»- » πὶ - Πὶ
Mav 22. 2 Φ > ὦ =
= 3M ΓΞ κὰκ το τ ΠΟ FO es
A LETTER
=M ΟΡ = Β ΑΙ Ε O
ἘΞ Oo. 2M ὁ M, 3. -ἰ
Pal ἘΞ Ὁ ἘΠ ἘΞ aS LIT BBO
© 16 FEM -Ὁ 9 SX 2 12 + 60 Ὁ συ, π Ὁ Ὁ νὸς ἌΡΕΙ. St ς πὶ Ξ “ΖΦ - SO Pee 2S SoS tS oS OX Ὁ τ om IM τι" ἢ» δὶ
> 2m
<mm >
ia Θὲ > &
>
— mM Im aot ὦ ap TH te, (©) WS Ὁ
> a aM
mh Own Θ᾽ ΟΞ (© 4M aa. Ξι- 2 oe se SS A 21 OM US Ὁ eZ A> UM. -OnmsO-“a KS
a -
FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 nic.
rl -Ὄ ο Μ
ῃ
ἘΦ ἰῷ». 55 ΞΙ π᾿
> Ka > SS = ae ee Ξ ἢ ee ΞΩῪΣ
“2120 2 3M ess 24264 42M O — % SD © Ze Ge a ὰ "ῷ a So > LS el eo Cp > =< La »ξέυπ Ὁ» MS ΜΙ» Ss Ss Ζ < +6 So =< Ὁ =z Si] SIgD 2242 22> b> 0 20 τὸ o< 535 ἘΞ MO OS - Ὁ m “ΜΞ ΜΘ +O t=O Um Ὁ τ6-Ξἑςξ ee > SO EM SS ee Ξ -ὀ3 - πὶ ἘΞ ἋΣ, ee »».»
»
ΠῚ τον ἢ} ean Mig 2 ee IM >> 3M SS νυ» LO OZ μι LO I, zs st » "Ὁ ν» νῷ ὅπ =
oi See Se Sl a FI σὴ 55 <b op -M Sinem πε ὦ = a KS ἘΣ
> RC ele «> OM το <=) S > 251 se O 2 >-O - :ο Ὁ» π ae an
τῷ Ὁ» ΘΖ ΞΕ j—
Ρ
- Mm
πὶ TO ὦ» Spe, δ. Oe he ὭΣ
Φ io Ὁ SA sn 2© ρ ἘΠ ΜΌΖΦΖΙ =
δ, Ὁ 45 “ΠῚ
M > at Ze 5: -O-1M Ὁ rZ oz “ΜΝ...
PT EM) ce eS ne OM ἐπὶ a> oR ue oP ΞἹ..- pe ἐς - ἘΜ τ SS “ΖΦ CO ee SS OS
> SJe> 12 Ὁ (O%> 6 0 6m > 6M OO UM PM OAS EE XO. - Ὁ πι =e he Se Dw ση
> VTZAZAPYSZ-MmM-A-MIAMPSFMMEOmMmMmoz-Rreernrarzswzo>
= Sot GA ΠῚ Μ SS 6M eS Cy ΚΠὶ «Meet See Le
Z> ἃ »» S ὦ. Zh -o oe =
<~Are
Ὁ» Ὁ] lS ue oe M0 ἐξ (5 ΞῚ - 0 τ τῷ M -πι TYS, Ὁ. 4 Ὃ Moh > > So ey ἢ Ὁ
O ie oN ἘΖ ke CE -ξ Ὁ. SD ἐΣ- “τς OTT 3M = ΡΜ > ap
M2 & Ὁ ΧΟ Mm = .— oO
bho
Oo OZ Pe .-
> 2'> © DS =< > ™
Pi ΘΟ, OPS >= hS m M CO τὸ
Mi t© .M G20 ΝΜ,’ "Us bemMr—
> ΞΟ.» Ζ.-ν»» τ ee τὶ Φ Φ ος »»υΠΌΖ.,-- Ὁ ©&-0*2'z>_> S27 a. YUM ». ΖΦ eyes. ὁ. Ἐπὶ:
- Tl. a 00
ΕΣ
Sat Ti νὰ ὦ Ὅ ἮΙ
πα, Ἰὼ πῆ ἃ & Ὁ 22 ΟἹ »
ἔφ, he πρό Sy. a oe ὁ Ξ ἣν
331
ms M>r>rorerre>vba<
CUA Ἃ Si ~o 2
se [Ὁ ὑπ᾿ τς» MS :-.» oe CH A ΟΖ, -..»»»».υὕΘνῶντς- = 4 Zz
Ὁ > = ὁ» © ὋΣ
Φ»»Μ» Ὁ. -
ΜΙ ὩΣ ν᾿ > _O gr om .».Ω.»». “Ξένε -Μ Χ ὃ > PP ΘΟ Σ A> OP 22 ae
τ Ο
ΟΡ ΕΘ Ate Ὁ 76> > 2 >
A
Y
=H
A
Y
N Al
Δ Γ
O A
10
wT Ss
aoe Ih Σ Ὁ
4~_ ms > Or ἘΞ Bame τὸς O- pO Ss ΟΝ ὌΥΠΙ
a ὧ Ww SS, E 2"
CoO br Or oC ζῷ ὧ = 2 OM 2 =
=
= oe MZ
+r oO =. <~ OD» O ἀν; ἀν oe ee > > MPM
=
Zz mr wR + 1 ὧν RS
= 2b py »ὲς »» Om Aart - PAG TS Ze Dene Mem Oo
x ξε GG, Sly Ke ale τῆς DS OA πὶ
> 7TKH>XKAOOCHO MO
I 2 τῶν ly ἘΞ
AmM>wHrO2ZmMmM >
= 2 Mi Sy ὦ Ὁ» S
>
4
z Ay KR m © Py ΞΞ, ἰ -ν A Me OF εἰς =H ZO. τ. Ze sx Or >
SS ty oe ZS. πὶ. oe Sy G ὃ» »ὸὶ TD St Ot S Nass ΞΡ 2
<<. © ZY = .ζ
A
>
-
ὡ»
>) LY ae eS ΠῚ
be ©. Sy See Se eM 53 ye. Fee Ξοὸ Np Fe = Ss Oe “A TW Seo My Mr Mu Sy BS Gr EE πὶ ΖΦ, We Se. Gs Ge Pe Sy Gy τῷ ξὸ 3 π|- ;»» Sy -ἰ. St M- Bee Oh te .-
1 ee My Se Θὲ “Ὁ
J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
ὦ PK a ΜΡ!» τὉῷὁ wa 2 meme >. Ὁ = 6
Ο
>
SY Zu =) Ox >t =
> mm τοῦ ee Mo == SD Su Se Wi ae Ss Sto
-ῷ > Gu Ὅς m= Ζ: M ΠΣ Oo: =
Ξι ©. t 2
T E A I Τ Δ Λ Α [9]
O | K A O H A Ι Y
ee)
—- © ..
>
Se ὅν, hy ὃν ὃ» Ξὸ Ὁ. > Me Se MS Se ' Ὁ» SOR DS) DIO
M
Zi SO, Meni ar »ς αἰ Μὴ Ae χὸ ΞΡ ΣΟ [π΄ Π|ὲ πὶ
πον MN ;»
M> So SS 5 Dr Ζ
4 =. 5: Θ. >> ™ am MM
ποῦ πὰ sik 2 OD STN =
Me or =
A
MN DE 5 ee
AHZT INEQPQMEN NOMOZA 1 Y Mam rPeErPAZOME OA MENTQNZIYMOE A O'l = EA Aree ON KAITPAY A ONAILAAEZOME MOAOT 1 ASH See FPAQDA EP Pa A AYTQ LEM OE >ADEZTTAAK OZKAZEAR ΣΙ ΜΑΧΌΝΙΑΥ KQNANTISPA NE!PHNHSE ENA TA EAS FONOS THRE = INMEDLAAQN EN ATNEDAS NAT AY ROE"G NHZOHNATIAE OTT EAE Y S82 E ! P HN & T δαδαν ΠΩΣΔΑΝΑΝΤΙ MPEPPALME APINALPOAI AOOPTE AR H SAIKAILATAAMA EQY=ZIANKA OPIANKA I NEZOAI ΑΥ̓ΤΩ͂Ι
Say ae ae ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ae 7 TO
oS) <— >
nS St oe
> Fe St Of Ὁ ΞΡ: S Se = Se Ξπι|ΠΣΦ ee -τ- Ξ ΞΡ
>
Ο --
290 ΠῚ
Μ ἼΟΜ -πτ- 7
ἈΠ Ot Mia ae a ἶπ
So SSeS 26 ow KR AS -Φ Ὁ 1 Se -Ξ
Ae a Ὁ ΠῚ thie
a at Se ne ae es oe ae
Ξε ΠΡ Pole a Po
1 > Met
A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 nc.
Or
10
~j - —
N T Q N τ
= 2 = οὐδ = SS πὶ δ.» A s4H0) >is ee ee se
ΓῚ
- Ο Φ OF Ἰ"» - - πὶ <M ΠῚ
πολλὴν δὲ σπουδὴν] ἐποιού[μ]εθα [περὶ τῆς τῶν
Gut
Ὁ Ml
Ὡς kee Og
oO
y= ΘΟ: στ. ΜΚ. Ἢ om
set Θ᾽ =
OA N
<~mM~<~< A
Nee > Ms — ποθ. Ζτ Ο Ὁ ἢ ΞΖ eS MMS Ms
Ὧν Ξε Mw =
A,
Ao<M Ze 4 > <> mM CO -
ἘΞ ΠΙΕΈΜ 2) FOS Meet
Of = 93
eo On SS US DS se oo aie ᾿Ξ
IK
+ Pee HO sain cei a ἘΠ».
=> Mo i
A
+ Ὃ ΠῚ
» ry
(Of ὦν ἢ ΡΥ ΡΟ
= dis "ἡ Meo Ὁ Ἢ
“Ἑλλήνων ἐλ]ευθερίας, ἄλλα τε οὐ μικ[ρ]ὰ δι[ὰ τοῦτο συνχ]ωροῦντες καὶ χρήματα πρὸς δια- -πομπάς : κα]ὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων συναπεστείλαμεϊν
μετὰ Anud ?|pyou Αἰσχύλον.
-εἶτο, ἐν τ]ούτοις τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑλλη[σ- ΄ > 4 \ , Ἁ /
-πόντου] ἐπ[ο]ιούμεθα' Kai εἰ μὴ κωλυταί TL-
-νες ἐγένοντο, τότε ἂν συνετελέσθη ταῦτα.
νῦν δὲ] γενομένων λόγων Κασσάνδρωι καὶ {1το-
-λεμαίωι ὑπὲρ [δ]ήαλύσεων, καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς πα- -ραγε]νομένων IIpereddov καὶ ᾿Αριστοδήμου
e \ 4 , ς lal / Φ > , ὑπὲ]ρ τούτων, καίπερ ὁρῶντές τινα ὧν ἠξί-
-ov] Κάσσανδρος ἐργωδέστερα ὄντα, ἐπεὶ τὰ
Ρ Y =
ὦ»
ἕως δὲ συνωμολογ-
ΛΟ “ἃ Ὁ
ἄν ΤΠ ὩΣ, ΝΣ ΝΣ -Ἴ» τ-| m
Ὁ > OZ oo 2
333
TE POI ON XPY NEKA N ΚΑΙΦΙ ONTA ATR ΓΕ
i."
NAAQ vacat
OM 0AO if :0 N
ΓΓῸ ΡΟΝ ΑΜ ΑΛΩ Az ΚΑ ΔΈ ἃ
334 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
πἸερὶ τοὺς “EXAnvas συνωμολογεῖτο, ἀναγ-
15 -κ]αῖον ὥιμεθα εἶναι παριδεῖν, ἵνα τοῦ τὰ ὅ- «λα συντελεσθῆναι τὴν ταχίστην" ἐπεὶ πρὸ πολλοῦ γ᾽ ἂν ἐποιησάμεθα πάντα διοικῆσα[ι τοῖς “Ελλησιν καθὰ προειλόμεθα [:] διὰ τὸ δὲ μακρότερον τοῦτο γίνεσθαι, ἐν δὲ τῶι χρο-
90. -vitew ἐνίοτε πολλὰ καὶ παράλογα συμβαί- -νειν, φιλοτιμεῖσθαι δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τὰ πρὸς το[ὺς “EdAnvas συντελεσθῆναι, ὠιμεθα δεῖν μηδὲ μικρὰ κινδυνεῦσαι Ta ὅχα μὴ διοικηθῆναι" ὅσην δὲ σπουδὴν πεποήμεθα περὶ ταῦτα φανε-
« ~
1 wt
r rd f -pov οἶμαι ἔσεσθαι Kai ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ξ΄ ’ a lo) 5 ᾽ £ ἅπασιν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν διοικημένων. ὄντων δ᾽ [ἡ- “-“ lal ͵
-μῖν τῶν πρὸς Κάσσανδρον καὶ Λυσίμαχον συν-
/ ‘ / », > -τετελεσμένων, πρὸς [᾿ρεπέλαον ἔπεμψαν av-
- Ν [4
-τοκράτορα: ἀπέστειλεν Πτολεμαῖος πρὸς ἡ- 30. μᾶς πρέσβεις ἀξιῶν καὶ TC πρὸς αὐτὸν διαλυ-
“ . / nr -θῆναι, καὶ εἰς THY αὐτὴν ὁμολογίαν γραφῆναι... ἘΠ » \ > \ \ ε A \ ΄ ἡ [με[1]ς δὲ οὐ μικρὸμ μὲν ἑϊ ω]ρῶμεν τὸ μεταδιδό-
U e \ e 4, > ’ /
-vat φιλ]οτιμίας ὑ[ π]ὲρ ἧς πράγματα οὐκ ολίγα
᾽ ΄ \ / \ > , ἐσχ[ ἤχαμεν κ]α[}] χρήματα πολλὰ ἀνηλώκαμεϊν,
35 καὶ τα[ζῦτ]α τῶν πρὸς Κα[σήσανδρον κ[αὶ Λ]υσί[μα-
-χον ἡμῖν διωικημένων, καὶ εὐχερεσ[τέρας
> 6 fel \ οὔσης τῆς λοιπῆς π]ραγματείας" οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ὑπολαμ[β]άνειν καὶ τῶν πρὸς τοῦτον συντελεσθέ[ν]των τὰ πρὸς Πολυπέρχοντα
“ ΕΝ »"“ / >’ Lod
40. θ]ᾶσσον av διοικηθῆναι, μηθένος αὐτῶι συν- -ορκοῦντος, καὶ διὰ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν ὑπάρ- “ed cal δ e -“ e -χουσαν ἡμῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν, ἅμα δὲ Kal ὑμᾶς ὁ- -ρῶντες Kali] τοὺς ἄλλους συμμάχους ἐνοχλου- -μένους ὑπό τε τῆς στρατείας καὶ τῶν δαπανη- 45. -μάτων, ὠιμεθα καλῶς ἔχειν συνχωρῆσαι καὶ
\ , , \ \ rn tals δ͵αλ[ύσ])]ες ποήσασθαι Kai πρὸς τοῦτον'
΄ XN of / au σ[υνο]μοχλογησόμενον δὲ ἀπεστείλαμεν 'Apio-
, \ > / WIE , iG , -τό[δήημον καὶ Αἰσχύλον καὶ Hynovav. οὗτοί τε δὴ παρεγένοντο λαβόντες τὰ πιστὰ, καὶ οἱ
50 παρὰ ΤΙτολεμαίου, οἱ περὶ ᾿Αριστόβουλον, ἣλ- -θον ληψόμενοι Tap’ ἡμῶν. ἴστε οὗν συντετε- -λεσμένας τὰς διαλύσεις καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην γε-
i]
6 Ὁ -γενημένην. γεγράφαμεν δὲ ἐν τῆι ὁμολογίαι ὀμόσαι τοὺς “ὥλληνας πάντας συνδιαφυλάσ-
ὅδ᾽ -σειν ἀλλήλοις τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτίο-
͵ ec. / , ’ id a \ a ’ -ν]ομίαν, ὑπολαμβάνοντες Eh ἡμῶν μὲν ὅσα ἀν- -θ]ρωπίνωι λογισμῶι διαφυλάσσεσθαι ἂν τα[ῦ- \
-τ]α, εἰς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον, ἐνόρκων γενο-
, A em / ΄ \ lal > a
-μένων τῶν TE ᾿λλήνων πάντων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς
A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 ue. 335
͵ w Lal
60 πὴ]ράγμασιν ὄντων, μᾶλλον ἂν Kal ἀσφαλέστε-
-ρ]ον διαμένειν trois” EXXnow τὴν ἐλευθερίαν.
Ν , ΄ κ]αὶ τὸ συνδιαφυλάξειν δὲ προσομνύναι ἃ ἡ- a / \ , -μ]εῖς ὡμολογήκαμεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐκ ἄδο- ’ A ᾽ / a ¢hin ΄ a
-Eov οὐδὲ ἀσύμφορον τοῖς Ιλλησιν ἑωρῶμεν ad ’ “ ,Ἦν' ‘ "-" 65 ὄν. καλῶς δή μοι δοκεῖ ἔχειν ὀμόσαι ὑμᾶς
\ ε a > , , Ἢ τὸν ὅρκον ὃν ἀφεστάλκαμεν' πειρασόμεθα δὲ \ Ν -“ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν ὅτι ἂν ἔχωμεν τῶν συμφε- τρόντων καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις “λλησιν πα- A , ΄
-ρασκευάξειν. ὑπὲρ δὴ τούτων καὶ γράψαι μοι
10 ἐδόκει καὶ ἀποστεῖλαι Λκιον διαλεξόμε- , \ ¢ a \ r e / e -vov' φέρει δὲ ὑμῖν Kai τῆς ὁμολογίας ἧς πε- ποήμεθα καὶ τοῦ ὅρκου ἀντίγραφα. ἔρρωσθε.
[ἀφέσταλκεν
ΑἸκιοίν :] ὃς [πρότερόν τε ἣν τῆι πόλει περὶ
1 lav εὔνους καὶ [τὴν πρ]ο[θυμίαν ἀεὶ διαφυ-
τλάσσων διατελεῖ, καὶ ἀ[ξιοῖ] αὐτῶι ἐμφα-
-ν][ξ]ειν ὧν ἂν δέηται ἡ πόλις: ἀφέσταλκ[ε
δ]ὲ καὶ τὰς ὁμολογίας τὰς πρὸς Κάσσαν-
-dpov καὶ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Λυσίμαχον av-
-τῶι γεγενημένας, καὶ τῶν ὅρκων avTiypa-
τῴα, καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν “Ελλήνων εἰρήνης
καὶ αὐτονομίας τὰ πεπραγμένα: δεδό-
10 -χΊθαι τῶι δήμωι: ἐπειδὴ ᾿Αντέγονος τῆι τε more καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις “Ελλησιν μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος γεγένηται, ἐπαινέσαι μὲν ᾿Αντέγονον, καὶ συνησθῆναι αὐτῶι ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις: συνησθῆναι δὲ
1ὅ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοῖς “Ελλησιν, ὅτι ἐλεύθε- plot καὶ αὐτόνομοι ὄντες ἐν εἰρήνηι εἰς] τὸ λοιπὸν διάξουσιν: ὅπως δ᾽ ἂν ᾿Αντί- -yovos τιμηθῆι καταξίως TOM πεπραγμέ- -vov, καὶ ὁ δῆμος φαίνηται χάριν ἀποδι-
20 -δοὺς ὧν προείληφεν ἀγαθῶν, ἀφορίσαι αὐτῶι τέμενος, καὶ βωμὸν ποῆσαι, καὶ ἄγαλμα στῆσαι ὡς κάλλιστον' τὴν δὲ θυσίαν κα[ὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τῆν στεφανηφορίαν καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν παν[ήγ]υριν γίνεσθαι αὐτῶι
25 καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτ[ος καθ]άπερ καὶ πρότεροϊν συνετελεῖτοί[: στεφα]νῶσαι δὲ αὐτὸν χρυ- -σῶι στεφάνωι [ἀπὸ στατήρ]ων χρυσῶν éxa- -τόν: στεφανῶσ[αι] δὲ καὶ [Δημ]ήτριον καὶ Φέ- -λίππον ἑκάτερον χρυσοῖΐς πεν]τήκοντα"
Cr
336 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
90. ἀναγγεῖλαι δὲ τοὺς στεφάνους τῶ]: [ἀ]γῶϊ νι ἐν τῆι πανηγύρει: θῦσαι δὲ καὶ [εὐα]γγέ- -λια τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αντιγόν[ου ἀφεσταλμένοιϊς :] στεφανηφορῆσαι ole
\ \ , a Ἁ Δι» ΄ καὶ τοὺς πολίτας ἅπαντας": τὸ δὲ ἀνάλω-
oS Or
-μα δοῦναι τὸ εἰς τ]αῦτα τὸν ταμίαν" πέμψαι δὲ καὶ αὐ τ]ῶι ξένια: τὰς δὲ ὁμολο- -γίας καὶ τὰς ἐπ[ι]στολὰς τὰς παρ᾽ ᾿Αντιγό- -νου καὶ τοὺς δΐρ]κους οὺς ἀπέστειλεν ἀναγράψαι εἰς [σἸτήλην καθάπερ ᾿Αντίγο- 40 -νὸος ἐφέστειλε[ν, κ]αὶ θεῖναι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς" ἐπ[ιμελη]θῆναι δὲ τὸν γραμ- -ματέα: δοῦναι [δὲ] καὶ εἰς ταῦτα τὸ ἀνάλω- -μα τὸν ταμίαν: [ὀμόσαι δὲ τοὺς πολίτας πάντας τὸν ὅρκον τὸν ἀφεσ]ταλμένον κα- 45 -θάπερ ᾿Αντί[γονος ἐφέστειλεν :] τοὺς δὲ nupnué[vous ......
Riding down the valley of the Scamander on Sept. 24th of this year, I turned aside to see the ruins on Kurshunlu Tepe, the identity of which with the ancient Scepsis has lately been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the inscription discovered there by Dr. W. Judeich (Festschrift fiir Heinrich Kvepert, p. 231). At the village of Kurshunlu I was so fortunate as to light upon the pair of inscriptions printed above. They are engraved on two marble slabs, which were unearthed on the top of the hill, apparently not many days before my visit. The neighbouring town of Bairamitch has recently suffered from a destructive fire, and much building is going on there. The villagers of Kurshunlu find a good market for stones from the ancient site, which they are quarrying in all directions.
Both slabs are broken at top and bottom, although the end of the longer inscriptioi is preserved intact. The larger measures 4 feet 1 inch high, 1 foot 9 inches broad, 3 inches thick, and is broken across the middle into two halves. The smaller measures 2 feet 5 inches high, 1 foot 64 inches broad, 22 inches thick. It is broken into three pieces, the divisions of which are sufficiently obvious in our uncial text. Both inscriptions are engraved in exactly the same style, στοιχηδόν, each letter framed between double hori- zontal and vertical lines ruled in squares. The beginnings of the lines of text are regular, but the ends sometimes stop short of, sometimes stray over, the margin. Occasionally, near the ends of lines, the files of letters are confused by overcrowding; either two letters are pressed into one square, or the squares are simply ignored; B 21 is an extreme instance. The work- manship of B is on the whole less good than that of A; B. 24, for example, is a very badly spaced line, but perhaps there the cutter committed a ditto- graphy and then corrected it. The letters are on an average about three- eighths of an inch high, Their forms are those usual in the early Hellen- istic period, the golden age of Greek epigraphy : there are no fully developed
ee !lUr CC
A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 s.c. 337
apices, but there is a rhythmical stress in the strokes, which gives to the cutting almost the character of fine penmanship. The writing is on the whole exceptionally well preserved, especially on the larger slab; only round the edges of the several stones is it often chipped or worn away. Neverthe- less it may be worth while for some future traveller to examine the inscrip- tions again. I had difficulty in persuading the owner to let me copy them ; they were taken away from me twice; I worked at speed feeling that my hold on them was precarious, and had scant opportunity for revision. A more leisurely inspection might perhaps giean a little more at the beginnings of both and at the end of the smaller.
As to orthography, we may notice the forms πεποήμεθα (A. 24, 71) ποήσασθαι (A. 46) ποῆσαι (B. 21) as against ἐποιούμεθα (A. 1, 7) ἐποιησά- μεθα (A. 17); ἀφεστάλκαμεν (A. 66) ἀφέσταλκε (B. 4) ἀφεσταλμένοις (B. 33) ἐφέστειλεν (B. 40) as against ἀπέστειλεν (A. 29, B. 38) ἀπεστείλαμεν (A. 47) ἀποστεῖλαι (A. 70) συναπεστείλαμεν (A. 4); if my copy may be trusted, διοικημένων (A. 26) as against διωικημένων (A. 36); and apparently ἐσχήχαμεν (A. 34). The punctuation is singular and obscure. In my cursive version I have disregarded it except in filling up the lacunae.
To come to the matter of the inscriptions, the first is a letter from Anti- gonus ‘ Monophthalmos’ addressed presumably to the people of Scepsis. It explains the course of certain negotiations with Cassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, which led to a peace and to the recognition of the freedom of the Hellenes. The second is a decree passed by the people in answer to the letter. It welcomes the peace, confers honours on Antigonus and his sons, and provides that the letter and other documents shall be engraved on stone and set up in the temple of Athena. There can be no doubt about the occasion. It is quite obvious that letter and decree can only refer to the peace of 311/0 B.c. Diodorus describes that peace in the following terms (xix. 105): ἐπ᾽ ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθήνησι Σιμωνίδου ..... οἱ περὶ Κάσσανδρον καὶ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Λυσίμαχον διαλύσεις ἐποιήσαντο πρὸς ᾿Αντίγονον καὶ συνθήκας ἔγραψαν. ἐν δὲ ταύταις ἦν Κάσσανδρον μὲν εἶναι στρατηγὸν τῆς Εὐρώπης, μέχρι ἂν ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ ἐκ Ῥωξάνης εἰς ἡλικίαν ἔλθη, καὶ Λυσί- μαχον μὲν τῆς Θράκης κυριεύειν, Πτολεμαῖον δὲ τῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῶν συνοριζουσῶν ταύτῃ πόλεων κατά τε τὴν Λιβύην καὶ τὴν , Ἀραβίαν, ᾿Αντί- γονον δὲ ἀφηγεῖσθαι τῆς ᾿Ασίας πάσης, τοὺς δ᾽ “EXXAnvas αὐτονόμους εἶναι. There is no word of Seleucus either in Diodorus or in our inscriptions. His omission is sufficiently explained by his position at the moment, and by the clause about Antigonus. The inscriptions furnish no fresh information about the actual terms of the peace—-for that we must wait until the ὁμολογίαι are discovered, which were inscribed and set up with these records (B. 34). Writing to a Greek city Antigonus dwells exclusively on the freedom which he has won for the Greeks, and the trouble and sacrifices which it has cost him. So evident is his anxiety to justify himself that it almost suggests that he had promised a great deal more than he found it possible or con- venient to perform (cf. A. 16-8). His own guarantees for the maintenance
338 J. ARTHUR R. MUNRO.
of Greek autonomy are cautiously hypothetical (A. 56-61), and as a matter of history his violation of it was a main pretext for the renewal of the war. Yet this shadowy boon is welcomed by the people of Scepsis with an effusion which is not all simulated. One would like to know what they thought of their incorporation so soon afterwards in Antigonus’ new foundation of Antigoneia. It is significant that Lysimachus, when he reconstituted that colony as Alexandria Troas, let the Scepsians go home (Strabo 607).
If Antigonus tells us little about the terms of the peace, he has much to say on the course of the negotiations. It must, however, be confessed that his account is far from lucid. He seems to have begun with a review of his past efforts to secure the freedom of the Hellenes. ‘The conference on the Hellespont’ (line 6) can scarcely be any other than the meeting with Cassander in the year 313/2, noticed by Diodorus xix. 75: τῷ δὲ Κασσάνδρῳ (Avtiyovos) συνελθὼν εἰς λόγους ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης περὶ τὸν ᾿Ελλήσποντον ἀπῆλθεν ἄπρακτος, οὐ δυναμένων αὐτῶν οὐδαμῶς συμφωνῆσαι. The opening lines, with the mission of Aeschylus and his colleague, may refer to powr- parlers preliminary to the conference. The words κωλυταί tives seem to point to others than Cassander himself, although we cannot say that anyone else was represented at the meeting. If the independence of the Greeks were in question, we can understand that Ptolemy and Polyperchon would do their best to throw obstacles in the way of a settlement. In the peace of 311 Ptolemy’s claims to the cities of Libya and Arabia are expressly recognized.
Line 9 brings us to the final negotiations which led to the peace. It is not quite clear who made the first overtures. Diodorus might be taken to imply that it was the allies. Antigonus’ language is ambiguous, but rather suggests that he did. In any case fresh overtures were made to, or by, Cassander and Ptolemy ; and two envoys, Prepelaus and Aristodemus, came to treat with Antigonus. These ambassadors cannot, as one might suppose at first sight, represent Cassander and Ptolemy respectively, for Prepelaus is well known to us already as Cassander’s right hand man, and Aristodemus appears lower down as an envoy to Ptolemy. Moreover Ptolemy does not come into account until line 29. Aristodemus must represent Lysimachus, whose participation in the negotiations is proclaimed in line 27, and implied in lines 12-3. He can hardly be the same as Antigonus’ agent, Aristodemus the Milesian. With these envoys Antigonus concluded an agreement, although he had to concede more to Cassander than he altogether liked. There follows a very difficult passage (lines 26-31). After Antigonus has settled with them, Cassander and Lysimachus send a plenipotentiary to— Prepelaus! Prepelaus has just before figured as Cassander’s envoy, and is known to history ouly as his lieutenant. We have no reason to suppose that he held an independent sovereign position at this or any other time. With all the diffidence demanded by our ignorance of the circumstances, I venture to suggest that something has dropped out of the text between πρὸς and IIperéXaov. That the αὐτοκράτωρ is anonymous is in itself a little sus-
A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 5.6. 339
picious, for Antigonus names almost all the envoys whom he mentions, and the historical difficulty is very grave. If we may assume that Πτολεμαῖον has dropped out, we at once get an explanation of the slip—the stone- cutter’s eye went on from the wrong II—and at the same time soften the very abrupt entry of Ptolemy in the next line. We get a rational sense, for Cassander and Lysimachus would naturally send explanations to their ally and try to bring him into the new combination, and the sentence, although rough, is not too bad for Antigonus. Another possible solution would be to insert Πολυπέρχοντα, cf. line 39. However that may be, Ptolemy sends to ask to be admitted to the treaty. Apparently he held aloof until he saw that he was likely to be left out in the cold. Antigonus affects to make a great favour of admitting him; he musters some miscellaneous reasons for consenting; perhaps he felt a little ashamed of surrendering the Greek cities. How Polyperchon was disposed of we are not told. It is implied that he was allied with Ptolemy, to whom he must have gone over before the expedition of Telesphorus in 3138/2 (Diod. xix. 74). Aristodemus, Aeschylus, and Hegesias are sent to receive Ptolemy’s pledges. Probably they represent Lysimachus, Antigonus, and Cassander respectively. Ptolemy's envoy Aristobulus can hardly be his fellow-historian, who was a citizen of Cassandreia. Each potentate seems to have made himself responsible for the adherence of the Greek cities within his own province (lines 53-5). Antigonus writes to the people of Scepsis to announce the conclusion and terms of the peace, and to ‘recommend’ it for their acceptance.
A few details call for notice. Lines 3-4: δια[πομπὰς]} gives a good sense, cf. Thue. vi. 41. διαζλύσεις] or δια[δόσεις] would also fill the space. Line 5: I have restored [Anud]pxouv in view of the Samian inscription (Curtius, Znschriften von Samos, 8, Hicks 148, Michel 367), in which a Lycian of that name, the son of Taron, appears as guardian of Antigonus’ daughter- in-law Phila. Line 10: παραγενομένων, of ambassadors, cf. line 49. Line 21: ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν, cf. line 56, Antigonus was already over seventy years of age. Line 41: οἰκειότητα, in a general sense, as old comrades in arms. Antigonus and Ptolemy do not appear to have been in any way connected by marriage at this time.
Antigonus writes a rough Macedonian soldier's Greek. If this letter be compared with his extant letters to the people of Teos, the identity of style will be at once manifest (v. Lebas and Waddington, Pt. V. 86, Hicks 149, Michel 34). Not only is the vocabulary and phraseology the same—e.g, ἀποστέλλειν, συνομολογεῖν, συντελεῖν, ὑπολαμβάνειν, and the everlasting οἰόμεθα δεῖν---Ὀπὺ the same grammatical constructions and cast of sentences constantly recur—take for example the accumulation of infinitives. It is clear that Antigonus dictated his own despatches.
The decree of the people of Scepsis presents few points that require comment. In line 3 probably the subject of ἀξιοῖ is Antigonus, and αὐτῶι refers to Akios. The ταμίας (lines 35 and 43) and γραμματεὺς (line 41) are here evidently public officers subordinate to the δῆμος. They are probably
340 A LETTER FROM ANTIGONUS TO SCEPSIS, 311 B.c.
the same in the decree about the festival of Dionysus (Schliemann, 7707, p. 235, Judeich, Festschrift fiir H. Kiepert, p. 236, cf. p. 238). On the temple of Athena (lines 40-1) compare Xenophon, Hell. i. 1, 21: ὁ δὲ Δερκυλίδας θύσας τῇ ᾿Αθηνᾷ ἐν τῇ τῶν Σκηψίων ἀκροπόλει κιτιλ. Our inscriptions are said to have been found on the summit of Kurshunlu Tepe, probably the very spot on which they originally stood.
J. Arruur R. Munro.
>
AN INSCRIBED SCARAB,
AAI AAYC
THE above inscription appears on a very rudely formed scarab of translucent noble serpentine, which was acquired by Professor Petrie in Egypt; I publish it here with his permission; for the identification of the material I am indebted to Professor Bonney, The name Λαῖλαψ' is only known as the name of a dog. It occurs as the hound of Procris in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 111. 771, and also among the hounds of Actaeon, did. ITT. 211, and in Hyginus Fab, 181. It is possible that this rude scarab may have been hung, as an ornament or amulet, on the neck of a hound; but perhaps such a decoration is more suitable to a pet dog; in that case the imposing name may have been given in playful irony.
The ¢ at the end is superfluous ; it may be an abbreviation of some sort ; or possibly may be due to the hand of a foreigner who did not appreciate the significance of the Greek y. The lettering is of the late Hellenistic or of the Roman age.
ἘΣ ΟΣ
ERRATUM.
In a note on p. 1 of this year’s issue of the J.H.S., I have stated my ignorance of what had become of the Apollo restored by Flaxman, which, together with the head of Athena I then published, was separated from the rest of the Disney sculptures when they were presented to the Fitzwilliam Museum. It has been pointed out to me by Mr. H. A. Chapman of the Fitzwilliam Museum that this Apollo is now again added to the Disney Collection, having been purchased by the Fitzwilliam Museum in 1885, See Chapman Handbook to Fitzwilliam Museum, p. 37, and also Furtwingler, Statuencopien, p. 49-50.
E. A. Ὁ
se 3s Tein errr awrrcoa ls τὸ SORRR
ad ὦ δ δὲν ee 1... bo4 101 οὐ ὀθασαῦθ 5 7 yp ἔδε ϑωυῦλα, CRD foo Ui. Kirt p δ εν an ci ὁ Site Tee i> eo Pe™ 4 cog, al, ©, ὩΣ δε δ ee Be τὰ- Lepedcs Φεῤαφέδει ee “ἀρογαδίω» te. οὐδ νόμον Same bee! oo the aoe Ok oily Gm ay aera νῶν hey ὦ goals OEM ᾿ ἀκα πα ενᾷ eee. Berne
ἼΑ ΧῸ J
TAS
- μι ὦ ΠΕΣ σὲ 1,08 “ao ὃ of earpte δολλη Panett 7 vttwl τασιεῖ τ΄ αν, ee juts ῳὠἤηφί wited 4
7
_
all
ali a onfiethiaed off <a | cowtemrey Ad dee ΘΝ δἰ ae ἥ
clin, ὦ τι υὼξ ἀμ als εὐ ψοδῖ “ρον ἶδε 7} ὦ, διιιλέγδδι οι
εν} αἱ eed! ss al) te amr i] pl ᾶ lo ΦΑΝ, ἐν
ΠῚ νὴ ὠμκφῖλ ἣν Cure eli pei emia ἐμ ITT Att
φω σεις οὐ εἰ} 3 ἴων ἃ hi tay At ΠΝ il ¥ Loo o tm τὴν off oo talpnia τὸ πεσνν OF a
ab =a ἐ ἢ 94 ay ui eed uta (ee ὦ avilavoab ἃ
La oly oy μόν, vol etas "δ et ques ὅς. ΦοϊἸν se pe @T Geel ἐδ wip δόμα © bate φῇ what νότια by late! ΨΑΙ i aul «ὦ ‘i ,. wtaaetin bi bal ij ta « pereoa ial or | Ψ jews! oat Yo
J
Sa
a °TAALS 7 bos > Rey au ὁδί οὖν dad ἢ Lott ἢ το! oe οὖν ὃ. ὁ α 88 4 end We bal ὧὖν Ge ee ee ee ἔσαν αἰ δ Μὰ! Τ᾿ i (alt pate ὡΛΚλάψηλνᾶς qecautl οὐ We bert lt Gwe laS-qeee toe si! ap «= bee eine ἐπῶν ὁρμή ἐΐ ue astlieglh ᾧ eww) ate τὴ μα ἕν ole τ νων πὸ αν ῆ εἰν ἑκὼν μενα salle oat “ὦ Le? Am aunt eolTves®? af yd basiasg amd Δ᾽ ἔκ ὦ 4 φιτ ρα“ καμιὰ wil els bee τ ἡ eee '
i | a Ps _ ᾿ 7 — ΝΣ " ᾿" Ν = os aD a! "
) q 7 |
INDEX TO VOLUME XIX.
I—INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
A
Apcarvs of Edessa, 328
Abrostola, 309
Aegean ware from Asia Minor and Palestine, 322
Aeschylus, envoy of Antigonus to Ptolemy, 339
Aeschylus, tragedian, his stage-scenery, 253 ; attitude towards the Erinyes, 244
“ Affected ἢ Tyrrhenian amyhorae, 147
Agatharchus, scene-painter, 253
hon and Aristophanes, xxxiii. Gea (Yokaru), inser., 306 ae ja, ane 114 ios, envoy of Antigonus to Scepsis, 339
Akkilaion, 30 ἜἝ x
Ak-Oren, see Savatra
Akreina, 71 f.
Aladja-atli, inscr., 93
Al Baladhuri, 33
Alcamenes, Athena of his school, 5 f., his Athena Hephaestia, 6 f.
Alemaeon, name on vases, 202
Alemaeonidae and the campaign of Mara- thon, 190
Alexander the Great, lion-hunt, repre- sentation of, 273 f.
Alexandria (Egypt), excavations, 326
Aliassos (ἢ) 165, 106
Al Marzbanain = Marsovan ? 32
Al Tabari,29 -
Altar, conical, with bird, on Galatian relief, 42, dedicated to deceased, 127
Amaksiz-keui (Galatia), lion-relief, 45
Amasis, potter, 135 f.
Amenhotep, son of Hapu, 16
Amenothes, 14, 16
Amorion, Leo and the Arabs at, 21 f., dis- trict of, 292
Anastasiopolis, see Lagania
Ancyra (Galatia) antiquities, 45 ; route to Iuliopolis, 53; roads to Caesareia and Archelais, 100; inscr., 97
Androna, 96
_ Angora (Ancyra, Galatia), reliefs, 45, inscr.,
97, Roman road eastwards from, 98 Animals on “‘ affected” amphorae, 151 Antigonus Monophthalmos, letter to Scepsis
concerning peace of 311 B.c., 330
Aphrazeia, 111 Aphrodite on coins of Nagidus, 164 Apollo ὅσιος, 79, 80 ; Lykeios xxxix. ; statu- ette in Disney Collection 1, 341 Arabs, siege of Constantinople, a.p. 717-718, 19 f. Archaeology in Greece, 1898-9, 319 Archelais, road from Ancyra, 100 Archer on Athenian lekythos, 184 Archigallus, 280, 281 Aristodemus, envoy to Ptolemy, repre- sentative of Lysimachus? 338 Aristophanes and Agathon, xxxili. Arrius (L.) Pudens, cos. 165 a.D., 92 Arsindji, inser., 116 Asklepieion in Paros, 327 Asklepios-Imhotep, 16 ; Soter, 80, 82 na, 105, 106 Assar Kaya, Phrygian fortress, 55 Assarli-Kaya (Bloukion ?) 94 Athena, temple of, at Scepsis 340 ; at Sunium, 323 statue from Crete in Louvre, 6 f. head of, from Disney Coll., belonging to Mr. Nelson, 1; in Fitzwilliam Mus., 2 ; Glienicke head, 6 f. Hephaestia, 6 ἢ. Hygieia, representations of, 164 Athens, coins with Hygieia, 167 excavations, 1898-9, 322 f. Museums in 1898-9, 319 National Museum : krater with Selene (4294), 269, Pl x.; lekythi from Eretria (1935), 169, Pl. ii. ; (1932), 174; (3506) with Helios and Heracles, 265, Pl. ix. At-kafasi, inser., 124 Avshar, inser., 106
B
BaETYL-WORSHIP, 236 f. Baghtchedjik, inser., 113
Bairam keui, inser., 62
Balat, site of Hadrianeia, 329 Balbadon (ἢ) 117
Balik-koyundji, inscr., 93
Basra (Peion ?) 94
Bazirgian Hiyuk, site of Nyssa? 110
344
Berlin Museum: kylix with Selene, 268 ; lekythos (3291) from Eretria, 173, 178, Pl. ili. ; lekythos (3160) with Charon, 183
Bey keui, inscr., 75
Bireme on Dipylon vase, 200
Black stones, worship of, 236 f.
Bloukion, 94
Boghaz keui, Aegean and Cypriote ware from, 322
Bolus, Aegean and Cypriote ware from, 322
Bourguignon Coll., amphora with death of Polyxena, 214, 215
Breastplate, ‘Mycenean,’ at Retimo, 322
Bridge over the Siberis at Sykeon, 66 ἢ,
-briga=hill or fortress, 64
British Museum : Dipylon vase from Thebes, 198, Pl. viii. ; b.f. psykter (B 148) 141, Pl. vi. ; r.f. lekythos with ᾿Αλκμέων καλὸς, 202 ; bronze Athena Hygieia (1055), 165, PI. vil.
Bronton, Zeus, 73, 80
Busbeek, his mission to Asia Minor, 85
C (see also K)
CaESAREIA, road from Ancyra, 100
Caesennius (A), Gallus, legate of Galatia, 103
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, head of Athena, 2; statuette of Apollo 1, 341
Cap worn under helmet, 3
Cassander, negotiations with Antigonus, 337
Celtic influence in Galatia, 313 ; names, 315
Cenaxis Palus, 58 f.
Chalandri, excavations, 320
Chalcidian type of psykter, 141
Chariots on Dipylon vases, 198 ; seen from the front on vases, 267
Charon on lekythos at Munich, 182; at Berlin (3160), 183
Chorum inser. with ‘ correspondence” of Abgarus, 328
Circles on plinth of tombs on Eretrian lekythi, 171
Colour in sculpture and architecture, 256
Constantinople besieged by Arabs, a.D 717- 718,19f.; Imperial Museum, sarcophagus from Sidon in, 277, Pl. xi.
Corinth, excavations, 1898-9, 324
Craterus, lieutenant of Alexander, 273 f.; his son Craterus, 274
Crentius (Krentios), 54 f.
Crescent moon as symbol of Selene, 270
Crete, tombs at Milato and Kavusi, 321; finds in 1898-9, 321 f.
Cyprus, connection with Galatia, 40 f.; Cypriote style in pottery from Asia Minor, 38, 322
D
DactyL, monument of, 238 Dalisa, 32
INDEX TO VOLUME XIX.
Deinoi of Samian fabric, 144
Deiotarus, his castella at Bloukion and Peion, 94
Delos, purification of, 326
Delphi, the Erinyes and the omphalos 205 f.; excavations, 1898-9, 323
Demarchus (1), envoy of Antigonus, 339
Der el Bahari, graffiti from, 13
Diacria, 187
Dikmen Kalé, Gaulish castellum, 64
Dilimnia, 101
Dionysos on “affected ” amphorae, 153 ; with Sileni and Maenads on Wiirzburg am- phora, 137; on B.M. b.f. psykter, 142
Diphros carried by maid on funeral lekythos, 175
Dipylon vase from Thebes, 198; funeral character of Dipylon vases, ibid,
Doghan Oglu, inser., 81
Dorie, early, temple at Thermon, 324
Dorylaion-Angora-Eccobriga, Roman road, 84
Dumrek, inscr., 87 Durgut, inscr., 294
E
Eccosrica, 99; pottery from, 38 f.
Eglavama, 126
Eileithyia, precinct in Paros, 327
Eiskyklema, 252
Ekkyklema, 252
Eldjik, inser., 88
El Kab, graffiti from, 16
Emir Ghazi, inser,, 57
Emir Gidl, inser. near, 101
Emir Yanan, inscr., 59
Emrem Sultan, inser., 70
Eos pursifing Kephalos, type of lekythos adapted from, 203
Ephesus, excavations, 327
Eretria in the Persian War, 186; eiskyklema at, 252 ; lekythi from, 169 f., 202
Erichthonius as snake, Athena holding, 8 f.
Erinyes, the, 205 f.
Eski-il, inser., 133
Eski-sheher, Justinian’s bridge at, 66
Euagina-Verinopolis, 328
Eudc kias, 126
Eudoxias-Synodion, 88
Eulandre ‘ugustopolis, 52
Eumenides 208 f.
Evans, Mr. Arthur, gem with Alexander’s lion-hunt belonging to, 277, Pl. xi.
F
FRINGE of himation on vases by Amasis, &c., 138
Funeral ceremonies on Dipylon vases, 198 ; games, ibid ; lekythi, 169 aa
INDEX OF SUBJECTS,
G
GALATIA CIs HaALyM, explorations in, 34, 280 f. ; Galatian civilisation, 312
Gallus. See Caesennius
Gauls in Galatia, 313 f.
Gavius (M.) Orfitus, cos. 165 a.p., 92
Gergis, Sibyl and sphinx on coins, 235
Germa, Colonia, 84 f.
Geudje, inscr., 78
Geuktche-aiva (Geuk-tchai), inser., 84
Geuz-Oren=Selmea, 298
Ghost-Erinyes, 206 f.
Glaze-outline lekythi, 179
Goddess, nude, idols of, 36
Gorbeous, 102
Gordion, 94
H
HapJiI-ToGHRUL, inscr. near, 91
Hadrianeia, site, 329
Hadrianutherae, site, 329
Harra, site and inscr., 293
Hegesias, envoy of Cassander? to Ptolemy 339
Helios and Heracles on lekythos at Athens, 265, Pl. ix. ; Helios-cult in Galatia, 80, 81
Hellenion at Naukratis, 325
Hephaestia, Athena, 6 f.
Hephaestus of Alcamenes, 6 ἢ,
Heracles and Helios, encounter of, 265
Hermes on ‘affected’ amphorae, 153; con- ducting Selene, 271
Herodotus’ account of Marathon, 192
Hippias at Marathon, 187
Horseman on Dipylon vase from Thebes, 199
Horses, divination by, x1.
Hygicia, type of, 167
I
Ipot from Sykeon, 34 Igde-agatch (Yokaru), inscr., 81 f. Iki kilisse, inscr., 72 f.
Inevi, inscr., 130
Insuyu, inser., 129
Ionic Ὁ. f. pottery, 135 f.
Isamos beacon, 115
Isgaonda, 294 Ishekli, inscr., 109
J JULIOPOLIS, 69 ; route from Ancyra, 53 Justinian’s bridge at Sykeon, 65 K (see also C)
KaDI-KEUI, inser., 95 Kadyndjik, inscr., 89
H.S.—VOL. XIX.
345
Kamara, excavations, 321
Karadja kaya, inser., 87 Kara-yeyikler, inser., 81
Karali, inser., 104
Karanli Kalé, site of Eudokias, 127 Katrandji Inler, inser., 112
Kavusi (Crete), tom) near, 321 Kaya Boghaz, inser., 132
Kayé keui, inser., 76
Khitab al ‘Uyun, 20 ἢ,
Khursunlu, inser, 293
Kinna, 114
Kiraz Olu, inser., 112
Kizil Boyukli, inser., 77
Kizil Kuyn, inser., 300, 302 Kolokunthai (Attica), inser., xxxix. Kongoustus, 132
Kotchash, inser., 89
Kozanli, inser., 117 f., 123 f. Krentios, 54 f.
Kronos and the baetyl, 240 Kurshunlu Tepe (Troad), inser., 330 Kushdjali, inser., 128
Kutchuk Beshkavak, inscr., 127 Kutchuk Hassan, inser., 303 Kuyuli Zebir keui, site and inser., 285
L
LAELAvs, dog’s name, 341
Lagania-Anastiopolis, 64
Larcius (A.) Macedo, 59, 103
Larnaka (Cyprus), tomb, 322
Lato (Crete), site, 322
Lek keui, inscr., 288
Lekythi, funeral, 169
Leo III., Emperor of Constantinople, 21 f.
Leochares and Lysippus, Alexander’s lion- hunt represented by, 273 f.
Lion, Galatian reliefs, 45
Lion-hunts in Oriental and Greek art, 276
Lousoi (Arcadia), excavations, 323
Louvre: Athena from Crete, 6 ; relief from Messene with lion-hunt, 277, Pl. xi. ; ‘‘affected amphora” (Εἰ 23), 157
Lysimachus, negotiations with Antigonus, 337
Lysippus and Leochares, Alexander’s lion- hunt represented by, 273 f.
M
Macedo, sce Larcius.
Maenads on “affected” amphorae, 153. See also Dionysos
Manegordos, 54 ἢ.
Manlius Vulso, march of, 311
Marathon, campaign of, 185 f.
Maslama, brother of the Caliph Solomon, 21 £
Masut keui (Germa), 85 f.
Megalopolis, supposed scaena ductilis at, 258
A A
346
Meidan (Lycaonia) inscr,, 289
Melos, excavations, 1898-9, 319
Mén in Galatia, 80, 81, 96, 123,.299
Mesa-Vuno (Thera), excavations, 327
Messene, relief with lion-hunt from, 276, ΕἸ. τ:
Midas-City, Aegean and Cypriote ware from, 322
Milato (Crete), tomb at, 321
Miltiades’ policy at Marathon, 192
Miskamos, site and inscr., 293
Mnizos, 61
Mousga, 88 ἢ,
Mukhalitch, district of, 71
Munich, lekythos with Charon, 182
Myrika, 95
N
Naaibvs, coins with Aphrodite, 164
Naples, Museo Naz., kotylos with scene of augury, 227; lekythos (111609) with scene of oath-taking, 228, 229
Nara, 78
Naukratis, excavations, 325
Nelson, Mr., head of Athena belonging to, Tet Ps
Neoclaudiopolis, site, 328
Northampton (Marquis of), amphora in his collection, 146
Nyssa, 109
O
OATHS taken at graves, 230
Omphalos, as altar, tomb and seat of oracle, 225 f.
Onchestos, the custom at, xxxix,
Ophites, 224
Oracular character of omphalos, 227 f.
Orendjik, site of Dilimnia? 101
Orfitus. See Gavius
Ornament, Anatolian, 51
Oroandeis, 311, 312
Orsologia (Rosologia), 103
Ρ
PAINTING in 5th cent. B.c., nature of, 254
Palmettes on funeral lekythi, 172, 179, on Tonic b.f. amphorae, 151
Panels, reserved, on Ionic vases, 136
Papira, 92
Parlassan (Galatia), inser., 107, 108
Parnassos (Galatia), 107
Paros, excavations, 321, 327
Peion, 94
Perga, semi-eikonic stone of mother-goddess on coins, 233
Perta, 132
Periacti, 259
INDEX TO VOLUME
XIX,
Persians at Marathon, 185 f.
Perspective in 5th cent. B.c., 254
Petobriga, 63
Phikion, 234
Phylakopi.
Pidron, 74
Pilav Tepé, tunulus (Thessaly), 325
Pilgrim’s route between Ancyra and Iuli- opolis, 53
Pimola, site, 328
Piribeyli, site and inscr., 306
Pissia, site and inscr., 306, 307
Pitnissos, 117
Polyperchon, ally of Ptolemy, 339
Poseidon, temple at Sunium, 323 ; pos, xl.
Pottery from Galatia, 37 ; Ionic b.f. pottery, 135 f.
Prasmon, 60, 61
Prepelaus, envoy of Cassander to Antigonus, 338
Priene, excavations, 328
Prokopios’ account of Justinian’s bridge at Sykeon, 66
Proseilemmene, the, 125
Psibela-Verinopolis, 131
Psykter, types of, 141
Ptolemy I., negotiations with Antigonus, 337
Pudens. See Arrius
Pyrrhos, statues of Hygieia and Athena, 167
See Melos
Taraxip-
R
Rays, double rows of, on Ionie vases, 137, 150, 163
Rheneia, cemetery, 326
Roads in Asia Minor, 50, 52 f.
Rosologia, 103
Royal Road, 50
Rumdigin (Cappadocia), temple, 328
5
Sr. ΤΉΒΟΡΟΝ of Sykeon, 65, 69
Samos, pottery in sev enth century B.c., L44
Sarilar (Sykeon), pot and idol from, 34 f. ; inscr., 68
Sarmalia, 98
Savatra (Ak-Oren), site and inser., 280
Scarab inscribed Adidas, 341
Scenery on Greek stage, 252
Scepsis, letter of Antigonus to, and decree, 330
Seifi Oreni, site and inscr., 303
Selene, on Berlin kylix, 268; on krater at Athens, 269, Pl. x.
Selmea, site and inser., 298, 302
Semnae. See Eumenides.
Sendjirli (N. Syria), excavations, 44
Septerion, 223
Serai Keui, inscr., 58
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Serpent-bodied nymphs, 217; form of Erinyes, 213 ; worship, 222
Shedit Hiiytik, inser., 106
Shekerli, inser., 115
Shimshit, inser., 57
Ships on Dipylon vases, 198; evolution of Greek ship, xli.
Siberis, Justinian’s bridge over, 65
Sidon, sarcophagus from, with Jion-lunt, i Be at Be
Sileni on “affected” amphorac, 153. also Dionysos
Siphnos, excavation, 320
Slave-girl on funeral Iekythos, 176
Smithis, 17
Soatra. See Savatra
Solomon, Caliph, 20 f.
Solomon son of Mu‘adh, Arab veneral, 19, 24 f.
Sphingion, 234
Sphinx, relation to the tomb, 235
Stage-scenery, 252
Stelae on Eretrian lekythi, 172
Stepterion, 223
Steunos, cave, 52
Sultan Mezarlik, inscr., 122
Sunium, excavations, 323
Suwarek, inscr., 280
Sykeon, antiquities from, 34 f.; Justinian’s bridge, 65 ; inser., 67 f.
Synodion. See Eudoxias
Syros, excavations, 320
See
it
Tarsus, medallions from the treasure of, 9170: Fl. Si,
Tatta, Lake, district of 114 f., 280 f.
Tchakal keui, inser., 102
Tchakirlar, inser:, 59
Tchardak, inscr., 74
Tcheltik, site of Tolistokhora near 310
Tcheshmeli Zebir keui (site and inser.) 282
Tchorgia Hiiyiik, site of Eglavaina? 126
Tembrogios, Imperial (?) estate on the, 75
Tesserakontapechys, 26 f.
Theatre at Ephesus, 327 ; see also Stave
Thera, excavations, 321, 327
Thermon, excavations, 324
Theseus and Minotaur on b.M. b.f. psykter 142
Tizke keui, inscr., 63
Tolistokhora, 309
Tol keui, inser., 105
Tombs on funeral lek ythi, 170
347
Tombstones, Galatian, 313
Topakli, inser., 69
Toprak Kale, site of Konyoustos 1 134
Trinities of female deities, 218
Trireme, evolution of, xli.
Tulas=Tonosa? 32
Tiontlus—omphalos 227 f.
Turkhal, Aegean and Cypriote ware from, 322 ‘
Tut-agatch, inser., 78-81
Tuzum Hiiyiik, site of Perta?
Tyscon, suggested site, 312
Tyszkiewiez Coll., relief of Sotias, 218
133
U
‘Umar son of Hubaira, 27, 30
V
Valeaton = Balyatia, 71 Veledler = Abrostola 7 Verinopolis, 131 Verisa, site, 328 Veteston, 111
Vezir Keupru, site of Neoclaudiopolis, 328 Vindia, 61
310
W
Water, rendering of transparency on vase, 269
Winged eidola 219, Evinyes ibid.
Women, treatment of type on ‘affected’ amphorae, 153
Wiirzburg, amphora by Amasis at, 136 f.
Y
Yalandjak (Galatia), relief of lion from, 45 Yamak, inser., 113
Yarashili, site of Kinna !? 115, inscr., 116 Yarik«ji, inser., 78
Yarre (Galatia), relief from 40, site 50 Yokaru. See Agz-atchik, Igde-agatch Yunak, inser., 301
Yiirme, 85, 88
Yuzgat, inser., 99
Z
Zelir keui, site and inser., 282 Zibatra, 32
I1.—GREEK INDEX.
᾿Ακρεινηνὺς Ζεύς, 72
᾿Αλκιμ(ήη)δης καλὸς Αἰσχυλίδου, 180
᾿Αλκμέων καλός, 202
᾿Ανδρωνηνὸς Μήν, 96
᾿Αξιοπειίθ.. .) καλὸς ᾿Αλκιμάχί(ουν, 180
᾿Απόλλωνι, ὁσίῳ, 79, 80 ; ᾿Απόλλωνος Λυκείου, XXXIX.
ἁρμοστὴή ? 302
ἀρχίγαλλος, 280, 281
᾿Ασκληπιὸς Σωτήρ, 80, 82
Βάβου, feminine name, 77 Βροντῶν, Ζεύς, 73, 89 διάκων = διάκονος, 150 Δίφιλ(ος) καλό(ς), 179 vn. διφροφόρος, 176
εἰσκύκλημα, 252 ἐκκύκλημα, 252 *Eppokdeios, genitive, 13
Ζεὺς ᾿Ακρεινηνός, 72; Bpovrav, 73, 80; Ζημ- poutnvis, 281; Μέγιστος, 80, 129, 182, 133 ; Napnvos, 78, 79 ; Σαρυενδηνύς, 73
Ζημρουτηνὸς Ζεύς, 281
Ζιζιμμηνή, 280
Ἥλιος in Galatia, 80, 81 ἥρως, 231
θεοῖς ἐπηκόοις, 79 θεοῖς καταχθονίοις, 91 θεῷ, τέκνῳ, 127
ἸΙσγαονδηνύς, 294
κελητίζειν, 199
κέτωσαν = καιέτωσαν 1 112 κομεῖν, Χ]].
κοπιατής, 98
Κροκόδειλος, 13 ΛαγεινάτἼ]ης. 129 Aathays, 341
Avketos ᾿Απόλλων. XXXIX
Μέγιστος, Ζεὺς, 80, 129, 132, 133
Μὴν ᾿Ανδρωνηνός, 96 ; ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος, 80 5 Πλουτοδώτης, 81 ; Σελμεηνύς, 299 ; Σωτήμ, 80
Μήτηρ Θεῶν Ζιζιμμηνή, 280
Μήτηρ Τετραπρόσωπος, 303
Ναρηνὸς Ζεύς, 18, 19
da=@a! 112 τ ’ , 4 ) ὕσιος ᾿ἈΑπόλλων, 80; ὁ. καὶ δίκαιος Μή, 80
Οὐάναξος, 300, 304
παραγωδιᾶται, 80 Πλουτοδώτης, Μήν, 81 Ποταμῷ εὐχήν, 76 πραγματευτής, ὃ πρύηκος --πρόοικος, 298 πρόοικος, 298
Σανβάθειος, 281
Σαρυενδηνὸς Ζεύς, 73
Σελμεηνὸς Μήν, 299
σκιαδηφόρος, 176
Σμίθις, 17
Στεῦνος, 119
Σωτὴρ, ᾿Ασκληπιός, 80 ; Μήν, ibid.
Τετραπρόσωπος Μήτηρ, 303 “γγιαίνων καλός, 180
Χόριλα, 232 χῶμα γῆς---ο,ρφαλός, 226 f.
w, form of at Delphi in 3rd cent. B.c.
RULES
OF THE
Society for the Promotion of Pellenic Studies.
1. THE objects of this Society shall be as follows :—
I. To advance the study of Greek language, literature, and art, and to illustrate the history of the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine, and Neo-Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and unedited documents or monuments in a Journal to be issued periodically.
II. To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts, plans, and photographs of Greek inscriptions, MSS., works of art, ancient sites and remains, and with this view to invite travellers to communicate to the Society notes or sketches of archzological and topographical interest.
111. To organise means by which members of the Society may have increased facilities for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archzologica]l researches in countries which, at any time, have been the sites of Hellenic civilization.
2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-Presidents, a Council, a Treasurer, one or more Secretaries, and Ordinary Members. All officers of the Society shall be chosen from among its Members, and shall be ex officio members of the Council.
3. The President shall preside at all General, Ordinary, or Special Meetings of the Society, and of the Council or of any Committee at which he is present. In case of the absence of the President, one of the Vice-Presidents shall preside in his stead, and in the absence of the Vicc-Presidents the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer
the Council or Committee shall appoint one of their Members to preside. b
x
4. The funds and other property of the Society shall be administered and applied by the Council in such manner as they shall consider most conducive to the objects of the Society: in the Council shall also be vested the control of all publications issued by the Society, and the general management of all its affairs and concerns. The number of the Council shall not exceed fifty.
5. The Treasurer shall receive, on account of the Society, all subscriptions, donations, or other moneys accruing to the funds thereof, and shall make all payments ordered by the Council. All cheques shall be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Secretary.
6. In the absence of the Treasurer the Council may direct that
cheques may be signed by two members of Council and countersigned by the Secretary.
7. The Council shall meet as often as they may deem necessary for the despatch of business.
8. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent to each Member of the Council, by a summons signed by the Secretary.
9. Three Members of the Council, provided not more than one ΟἹ
the three present be a permanent officer of the Society, shall be a quorum.
το. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a majority of votes. The Chairman to have a casting vote.
11. The Council] shall prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted to the Annual Meeting of the Society.
12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to each Member of the Council of the ordinary days of meeting of the Council, and shall have authority to summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the Council on a requisition signed by at least four Members of the Council.
13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the Council, shall be elected by the Society in each year.
14. A General Mecting of the Society shall be held in London in June of each year, when the Reports of the Council and of the Auditors shall be read, the Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year elected, and any other business recommended by the Council discussed
xi
and determined. Meetings of the Society for the reading of papers may be held at such times as the Council may fix, due notice being
given to Members.
15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, Secretaries, and Council shall be elected by the Members of the Society at the Annual Meeting.
16. The President and Vice-Presidents shall be appointed for one year, after which they shall be eligible for re-election at the Annual Meeting.
17. One-third of the Council shall retire every year, but the Members so retiring shall be eligible for re-election at the Annual Meeting.
18. The Treasurer and Secretaries shall hold their offices during the
pleasure of the Council.
19. The elections of the Officers, Council, and Auditors, at the Annual Meeting, shall be by a majority of the votes of those present. The Chairman of the Meeting shall have a casting vote. The mode in which the vote shall be taken shall be determined by the President and Council.
20. Every Member of the Society shall be summoned to the Annual Meeting by notice issued at least one month before it is held.
21. All motions made at the Annual Meeting shall be in writing and shall be signed by the mover and seconder. No motion shall be submitted, unless notice of it has been given to the Secretary at least three weeks before the Annual Meeting.
22. Upon any vacancy in the Presidency, occurring between the Annual Elections, one of the Vice-Presidents shall be elected by the Council to officiate as President until the next Annual Meeting.
23. All vacancies among the other Officers of the Society occurring between the same dates shall in like manner be provisionally filled up by the Council until the next Annual Meeting.
24. The names of all candidates wishing to become Members of the Society shall be submitted to a Meeting of the Council, and at their next Meeting the Council shall proceed to the election of candidates so proposed: no such election to be valid unless the candidate receives
the votes of the majority of those present. 62
xl 25. The Annual Subscription of Members shall be one guinea, payable and due on the Ist of January each year ; this annual subscription may be compounded for by a payment of £15 15s., entitling compounders to be Members of the Society for life, without further payment. All Members
elected on or after January 1, 1894, shall pay on election an entrance fee of one guinea.
26. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or of the Life Composition, entitles each Member to receive a copy of the ordinary publications of the Society.
27. When any Member of the Society shall be six months in arrear of his Annual Subscription, the Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him of the arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof within six months after date of such notice, such defaulting Member shall cease to be a Member of the Society, unless the Council make an order to the contrary.
28. Members intending to leave the Society must send a formal notice of resignation to the Secretary on or before January 1 ; otherwise they will be held liable for the subscription for the current year.
29. If at any time there may appear cause for the expulsion of a Member of the Society, a Special Meeting of the Council shall be held to consider the case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of the Members present shall concur in a resolution for the expulsion of such Member of the Society, the President shall submit the same for con- firmation at a General Meeting of the Society specially summoned for this purpose, and if the decision of the Council be confirmed by a majority at the General Meeting, notice shall be given to that effect to the Member in question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member of the Society.
30. The Council shall have power to nominate British or Foreign
' Honorary Members. The number of British Honorary Members shall not exceed ten.
31. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members of the Society, and
when elected shall be entitled to the same privileges as other Ordinary Members.
32. No change shall be made in the Rules of the Society unless at least a fortnight before the Annual Meeting specific notice be given to every Member of the Society of the changes proposed.
ΧΗ
RULES FOR THE USE OF THE LIBRARY AT 22, ALBEMARLE STREET.
I. THAT the Library be administered by the Library Committee, which shall be composed of not less than four members, two of whom shall form a quorum.
II. That the custody and arrangement of the Library be in the hands of the Librarian and Assistant-Librarian, subject to the control of the Committee, and in accordance with Regulations drawn up by the said Committee and approved by the Council.
III. That all books, periodicals, plans, photographs, &c., be received by the Librarian, Assistant Librarian or Secretary and reported to the Council at their next meeting.
IV. That every book or periodical sent to the Society be at once stamped with the Society’s name.
V. That all the Society’s books be entered in a Catalogue to be kept by the Librarian, and that in this Catalogue such books, &c., as are not to be lent out be specified.
VI. That, except on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and on Bank Holidays, the Library be accessible to Members on all week days from eleven A.M. to six P.M. (Saturdays, 11 A.M. to 2 P.M.), when either the Assistant-Librarian, or in her absence some responsible person, shall be in attendance. Until further notice, however, the Library shall be closed for the vacation from July 20 to August 31 (inclusive).
VII. That the Society’s books (with excepiions hereinafter to be spetified) be lent to Members under the fo!lowing conditions :—
(1) That the number of volumes lent at any one time to each Member shall not exceed three.
(2) That the time during which such book or books may be kept shall not exceed one month.
(3) That no books be sent beyond the limits of the United Kingdom. VIII. That the manner in which books are lent shall be as follows :—
(1) That all requests for the loan of books be addressed to the Librarian.
(2) That the Librarian shall record all such requests, and lend out the books in the order of application.
(3) That in each case the name of the book and of the borrower be inscribed, with the date, in a special register to be kept by the Librarian.
(4) Should a book not be returned within the period specified, the ᾿ Librarian may reclaim it.
χὶν (5) All expenses of carriage to and fro shall be borne by the borrower. (6) All books are due for return to the Library before the summer vacation. IX. That no book falling under the following categories be lent out under any circumstances :— (1) Unbound books. (2) Detached plates, plans, photographs, and the like. (3) Books considered too valuable for transmission. (4) New books within one month of their coming into the Library. X. That new books may be borrowed for one week only, if they have been more than one month and less than three months in the Library.
XI. That in the case of a book being kept beyond the stated time the borrower be liable to a fine of one shilling for each week after application has been made by the Librarian for its return, and if a book is lost the borrower be bound to replace it.
The Library Commtttee. Mr. TALFOURD ELY. PROF. ERNEST GARDNER. PROF. PERCY GARDNER. Miss JANE HARRISON, LL.D. MR. WALTER LEAF, Litt.D. MR. GEORGE MACMILLAN (fon. Sec.). MR. ERNEST MYERS. MR. J. L. MYREs. Mr. ARTHUR HAMILTON SMITH. (Hon. Librarian). Mrs. S. ARTHUR STRONG, LL.D. SIR E. MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B., D.C.L.
Assistant Librarian, MISS FANNY JOHNSON, to whom, at 22, Albemarle Street, applications for books may be addressed.
SESSION 1899—1900.
General Meetings will be held in the Rooms of the Royal Asiatic Society, 22, Albemarle Street, London, W., for the reading of Papers and for Discussion, at 5 P.M. on the following days :—
1899. Thursday, November 2nd. 1900. Thursday, February 22nd. Thursday, May 3rd. Thursday, June 28th (Annual). The Council will meet at 4.30 p.m. on each of the above days.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES. OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1899—1900.
President. PROFESSOR. R. Ca JEBB, Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D., M.P.
Vice-Presidents.
PROF. 5, H. BUTCHER, Litt.D., LL.D.
PROF. INGRAM BYWATER, Litt.D.
REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL, LL.D.
MR. ARTHUR J. EVANS.
MR. SIDNEY COLVIN.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirtt.D.
MR. WALTER LEAF, Lirt.D.
MR.D. B. MONRO, Litt.D., LL. D., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
MR. A. S. MURRAY, LL.D.
PROF. H. F. PELHAM, President of Trinity College, Oxford.
MR, F. C. PENROSE, F.R.S. D.C.L., LL.D.
PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L
MR. J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D.
REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.
SIR E. MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B., D.C.L.
PROF. R. Y. TYRRELL, Litt.D., D.C.L.
Council.
MR. J. G. C. ANDERSON. PROF. W. C. F. ANDERSON. REV. A. G. BATHER.
MR. R. CARR BOSANQUET. MR. A. B. COOK.
MR. H. G. DAKYNS.
MR. LOUIS DYER.
MR. TALFOURD ELY.
LADY EVANS.
PROF. ERNEST A. GARDNER. MR. B. P. GRENFELL.
MISS JANE HARRISON, LL.D. MR. J. W. HEADLAM.
MR. 6. F. HILL.
MR. D. G. HOGARTH. SIRHENRYH. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S. MR. H. STUART JONES.
MR. F. G. KENYON, Lirt.D. MR. WILLIAM LORING.
MR. 6. E. MARINDIN.
MR. R. G. MAYOR.
MR. J. A. R. MUNRO.
PROF. G. G. A. MURRAY.
MR. ERNEST MYERS.
MR. J. L. MYRES.
MISS EMILY PENROSE.
REV. 6. H. RENDALL, Lirt.D. REV. G. C. RICHARDS.
PROF. WILLIAM RIDGEWAY. MR. CECIL SMITH, LL.D.
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
MRS. S. ARTHUR STRONG, LL.D. MR. H. B. WALTERS.
Hon. Treasurer. MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD.
Hon. Secretary. MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN, 51. MARTIN'S STREET, W.C.
Assistant Secretary. MR. W. RISELEY.
Hon. Librarian. MR. ARTHUR H. SMITH.
Assistant Librarian. MISS FANNY JOHNSON.
Acting Editorial Committee.
PROF. ERNEST GARDNER, |
MR. G. F. HILL. |
MR. F.G. KENYON,
Consultative Editorial Committee. PROFESSOR JEBB | PROFESSOR BYWATER | SIR E. MAUNDE THOMPSON | MR. SIDNEYCOLVIN PROFESSOR PERCY GARDNER, and MR. Ὁ. G. HOGARTH (ex officio) as Director of the British School at Athens.
Auditors for 1899-1900.
MR, ARTHUR J. BUTLER.
MR.STEPHEN SPRING-RICE, C.B.
Bankers. MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK ἃ CO., 15 LOMBARD STREET.
CAMBRIDGE BRANCH
OF
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF *HELLENIC.STUDIES:
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE FOR 1899-1900.
Chairman. ProF, R. C. Jess, Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D., M.P.
Vice-Chairman. Mr. J. E. Sanpys, Lirr.D.
Committee. Mr. J. G. FRAZER, LL.D. [ Mr. FE. E. SIKEs. Pror. Ernest A. GARDNER. Mr. ARTHUR TILLEY. Mr. ΠΈΝΕΥ JAcKson, Lirr.D. Mr. A. W. VERRALL, L1T?T.D. Mr. Μ. Ια. JAMEs, Litt.D. Mr. C. WALDSTEIN, Lirt.D.
Pror. W. RIDGEWAY.
Hon. Secretary.
Mk. ARTHUR BERNARD COOK, TRINITY COLLEGE.
———————
xvii
HONORARY MEMBERS.
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES, ὦ ™. le Sécrétatre du Not des Hellenes, Athens, Greece.
Dr. Friedrich August Otto Benndorf, K. Α΄. aslerr. archawologisches Institut, Vienna.
Sir Alfred Biliotti, K.C.B., W.B.M. Consul for Crete.
Prof. D. Comparetti, /stttuto di Studii Superiort, Fiorence.
M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.
Prof. A. Conze, Kaiserl. Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Cornelius-tr., 11., Berlin.
Prof. Wilhelm Dérpfeld, Ph.D., Director of the German Archeological Institute, Athens.
Monsieur L’Abbé Duchesne, Ecole Francaise, Rome.
Monsieur P. Foucart, 13, Rue de Tournon, Paris.
Prof. Adolf Furtwangler, 716 University, Munich.
Monsieur J. Gennadius, 21, Hyde Park Place, W.
His Excellency Hamdy Bey, Keefer of the Museum of Antiquities, Constantinople.
Monsieur Joseph Hazzidaki, National Museum, Candia, Crete.
Prof. W. Helbig, Vit/a Lante, Rome.
Monsieur Homolle, Director of the French School, Athens.
Monsieur P. Kavvadias, Ephor-General of Antiquities, Athens, Greece.
Prof. A. Kirchhoff, The University, Berlin.
Prof. U. Kohler, Zhe University, Berlin.
Prof. S. A. Kumanudes, Zhe University, Atheis.
Prof. A. Michaelis, Vuzversity, Strassburg.
Prof. E. Petersen, /ustituto Archeologico Germanico, Monte Tarpeo, Rome.
LIST OF MEMBERS.
* Original Members. % Life Members.
The other Members have been elected by the Council since the Inaugural Meeling.
Abbott, Evelyn, Balliol College, Oxford. ft Abercrombie, Dr. John, 23, Upper Wimpole Street, W. Abram, Edward, 1, Middle Temple Lane, E.C. Adam, James, Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Adams, Miss Mary G., 43, Campden Hill Square, Kensington, W. Agnew, Philip L., 18, Gloucester Square, W. Ainger, A.C., Eton College, Windsor. Ainger, Rev. Canon, Master's House, The Temple, E.C. t Ainslie, R. St. John, Zhe School, Sedbergh. Aitchison, G., 150, Harley Street, W. Alford, Rev. B. H., St. Luke’s Vicarage, Nutford Place, W. Allbutt, Professor T. Clifford, M.D., F.R.S., Chaucer Road, Cambridge. Allen, T. W., Queen’s College, Oxford. Amherst, Lord, Didlington Hall, Brandon, Suffolk. Anderson, J. G. C. (Council), Lzwcoln College, Oxford. Anderson, J. R., Lairbeck, Keswick, Anderson, Prof. W. C. F.(Council), Firth College, Sheffield. Anderton, Basil, Pudlic Library, Newcastle-on- Tyne. *Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, Zhe Oratory, S.W. Apostolides, S., Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge. tArkwright, W., Adbury House, Newbury. Asquith, Raymond, Balliol College, Oxford. Asquith, W. W., Clifton College, Bristol. Awdry, Herbert, Wellington College, Berks. Bagley, Mrs. John, Washington Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, Bailey, J. C., 118, Ashley Gardens, S.W. Baker, F. B., The College, Great Malvern.
xviii
Baker, H. T., Mew College, Oxford.
Baker, Rev. William, D.D., Merchant Taylors’ School, E.C *Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S. Ww. *Balfour, Right Hon. G. W., M.P., 24, Addison Road, W.
Ball, Sidney, St. John’s College, Oxford. +Barlow, Miss Annie E. F., Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.
Barlow, Mrs., 10, Wimpole Street, W.
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 23, Cliveden Place, Eaton Square, 5. W.
Barnsley, Sidney H., Pzmbury, near Cirencester.
Barran, J. N., Weetwood, Leeds.
Bather, Rev. Arthur George (Council), 8, Kingsgate Street, Winchester.
Bayfield, Rev. M. A., Eastbourne College, Eastbourne.
Beare, Prof. J. Isaac, 9, Trinity College, Dublin.
t Beaumont, Somerset, Shere, near Guildford.
Beebee, M. J. L., New Travellers Club, 97, Piccadilly, W.
Bell, E. W. W., 3, Géldridge Road, Eastbourne.
Bell, Rev. G. C., The College, Marlborough. tBenn, Alfred W.,70, Via Cavour, Florence.
Benschoten, J. C. van, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., U.S.A.
Bennett, 5. A., Hill House, Ewelme, Wallingford.
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bevan, E. R., Duneaves, Harrow.
Bickford-Smith, R. A. H., 207, Edgware Road, W.
Bienkowski, Prof. von P., Retoryka, 15, Krakau.
t Bikelas, Demetrius, 50, Rue de Varenne, Parts.
Bishop, Major Tuke, Royal London Yacht Club, Savile Kow. +Bissing, Dr. von, 12, Shatva Doubret, Cairo.
Blomfield, Sir A. W., A.R.A., 6, Montagu Place, Montagu Square, W.C.
Blumenfeld, Ralph Drew, 64, Cheyne Court, Chelsea, S. W.
Bodington, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Bond, Edward, M.P., Elm Bank, Hampstead, N.W.
Bosanqguet, Rev. F. Ὁ. T., Zhe Hermitage, Uplyme, Devon.
Bosanquet, R. Carr (Council), British School, Athens.
Bosdari, Count Alessandro di, 20, Grosvenor Square, W.
Bougatsos, Christos Ch., Alexandria, Egypt.
Bousfield, William, 20, Hyde Park Gate, S.W.
Boyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Principal of Hertford College, Oxford.
Boys, Rev. H. A., North Cadbury Rectory, Bath.
Bramley, Rev. H. R., The Precentory, Lincoln.
Bramwell, Miss, 73, C#ester Square, S.W.
Branteghem, A. van, 29, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.
Brinton, Hubert, Eton College, Windsor.
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor.
Brooke, Rev. A. E., King’s College, Cambridge.
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A.,1 Manchester Square, W.
Brooks, E. W., 28, Great Ormond Street, W.C.
Brooksbank, Mrs., Leigh Place, Godstone.
Brown, Horace T., F.R.S., 52, Mevern Square, South Kensington, S W.
Brown, Horatio F., Ca Torresella, Zattere, Venice.
Brown, Prof. G. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh.
Brown, Walter, 2, Albert Square, Great Yarmouth.
*Bryce,The Right Hon. James, D.C.L., M.P., 54, Portland Place, W.
Bulwer, Sir Henry, K.C.B., 11, South Street, Park Lane, W.
Burge, Hubert M. University College, Oxford.
Burgh, W. G. de, University Extension College, Reading.
Burnet, Prof. J.,1, Alexandra Place, St. Andrews, N.B.
Burrows, Prof. Ronald, University College, Cardiff.
Burton, Sir F. W., 43, Argyll Road, Kensington, W.
Bury, Prof. J. B., LL.D., Trinity College, Dublin.
xix
‘Butcher, Prof. 5. H., Litt.D., LL.D. (V.P.), 27, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh. f Bute, The Marquis of, K.T., St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, N.W. Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridge. *Butler, The Rev. H. M., D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W. Buxton, Mrs. Alfred W., 32, Greist Cumberland Place, W. Bywater, Prof. Ingram, Litt.D. (V.P.), 93, Oaslow Square, S.W. t Bywater, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S.W. Calcutta, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, 7he Palace, Calcutta. {Calvocoressi, L. M., Messrs. Ralli Bros., Mellor’s Buildings, Exchange Street East. Liverpool. Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis, LL.D. (V.P.), 33, Campden House Chambers, W. Campbell, Mrs. Lewis, 33, Campden House Chambers, W. Capes, Rev. W. W., Bramshott, Liphook, Hants. Carapdnos, Constantin, Député, Athens. Carey, Miss, 13, Colosseum Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W. *Carlisle, A. D., Hatleybury College, Hertford. Carlisle, Miss Helen, Houndhill, Marchington, Stafford. f Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson, Castlecraig, Dolphinton, N.L. tCarr, Rev. A., Addington Vicarage, Croydon. Carr, H. Wildon, 25, Cumberland Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W. Carter, Prof. Frank, A/cG7ll University, Montreal. Carthew, Miss, 15a, Kensington Palace Gardens, W. Cartwright, T. B., Case, Miss Janet, ς Windmill Hill, Hampstead, S.W. Cates, Arthur, 12, York Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W. Cave, Lawrence T., 13, Lowndes Square, S.W. Chambers, C. Gore, Hertford House, De Parry’s Avenue, Bedford. Chambers, Charles D., The Steps, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. Chance, Frederick, 51, Prince’s Gate, S.W. Chavasse, A. S., Kempsey, Worcestershire. +Chawner, G., King’s College, Cambridge. f{Chawner, W., Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Cheetham, J. C. M., Eyford Park, Bourton-on-the- Water, R.S.O., Gloucestershire. Cheetham, J. Frederick, Lastwood, Staleybridge. Christian, J. Henry, 18, Devonshire Place, Portland Place, W. Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham. Christie, A. H., 15, Hamzlton Terrace, N.W. *Christie, R. C., Rzbsden, Bagshot, Surrey. Churchill, E. L., Eton College, Windsor. Clark, Charles R. R., 20, Cowley Street, Westminster, S.W. t Clark-Maxwell, Rev. W. Gilchrist, Clunbury Vicarage, Aston-on-Clem, Salop. Clarke, Joseph Thacher, 3, Co/lege Road, Harrow, N.W. Clarke, Somers, 48, Albert Court, Kensington Gore, S.W. {Clauson, A. C., 12, Park Place Villas, Paddington, W. Clay, C. F., 51, Tavistock Square, W.C. Clerke, Miss Agnes, 68, Redcliffe Square, S.W. Cobbold, Felix T., The Lodge, Felixstowe, Suffolk. *Cobham, C. Delaval, 1.3.47. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus. Cole, A. C.,64, Portland Place, W. Colfox, William, Westmead, Bridport. Collins, Miss F. H., 3, Bramham Gardens, South Kensington, S.W. Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C. Compton, Rev. W. C., The College, Dover. Connul, B. M., Zhe Yorkshire College, Leeds. *Constantinides, Prof. M., Coundouriotes Street, Munychia, Petraeus, Athens. Conway, Sir W. M., The Red House, 21, Hornton Street, W. Conybeare, F. C., 13, Norham Gardens, Oxford. Cook, Arthur Bernard (Council), 7rznzty College, Cambridge.
XX
Cookson, C., Magdalen College, Oxford. Cookson, Sir C. A., K.C.M.G., 96, Cheyne Walk, S.W. Corbet, His Honour Eustace K., Native Court of Appeal, Cairo. Cordery, J. G., C.S.1., 63, Goldington Road, Bedford. Corgialegno, M., Courtenay, Miss, 34, Prompton Square, S.W. Courtney, W. L., 53, Belszze Park, N.W. Cowper, The Right Hon. Earl, K.G., Panshanger, Hertford. Craik, George Lillie, 2, Wes¢ Halkin Street, S.W. Crewdson, Wilson, Zhe Barons, Reigate. Crooke, W., Westleigh, Arterberry Road, Wimbledon, S.W. +Crossman, C. S., The College, Winchester. Crowfoot, J. W.,, Bishop's Hostel, Lincoln. Cust, H. J. C., St. James’ Lodge, Delahay Street, S.W. Cust, Lionel, The Crescent, Windsor. Cust, Miss Anna Maria, 63, Edm Park Gardens, Fulham Road, S.W Cust, Miss Beatrice, 13, Eccleston Square, S.W. Dabis, Miss, Holloway College, Egham, Surrey. Dakyns, H. G. (Council), Hégher Coombe, Haslemere, Surrey. Danson, F. C., B., Liverpool and London Chambers, Liverpool. Darbishire, B. V., Zrvénity College, Oxford. David, Rev. W. H., Kelly College, Tavistock. Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N.W. +Davies, Prof. G. A., University College, Liverpool. Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming. De Saumarez, Lord, Shrudland Park, Coddenham, Suffolk. Dickson, Miss isabel A., Dunnichen House, Forfar. Dill, Prof. S., Montpelier, Malone Road, Belfast. Dobson, Miss, 77, Harcourt Terrace, Redcliffe Square, S.W. Donaldson, James, LL.D., Principal of The University, St. Andrews. Donaldson, Rev. S. A., Eton College, Windsor. Draper, W. H., 33, Brunswick Square, W.C. Drummond, Allan, 7, Euuismore Gardens, S.W. Duchataux, M. V., 12, Rue de’ Echauderie, ἃ Reims. Duff, Prof. J. Wight, Durham College of Science, Newcastle-on- Tyne. Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg. Duke, Roger, 8, Neville Terrace, Onslow Gardens, S.W. Dunlap, Miss Mabel Gordon, c/o Messrs. Brown, Shipley & Co., Founder's Couri, Lothbury, E.C. Durham, The Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of, Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland. Dyer, Louis (Council), Sunbury Lodge, Banbury Road, Oxford. Earl, Mrs. A. G., Ferox Hall, Tonbridge. Earp, F. R., King’s College, Cambridge. *Edmonds, C. D., Zmmanuel College, Cambridge. Edwards, G. M., Szduey Sussex College, Cambridge. Egerton, Mrs. Hugh, 11, 7226 Street, Chelsea, S.W. +Egerton, Sir Edwin H., K.C.B., H.B.M. Minister, British Legation, Athens, Greece. Egerton, Miss M., Whitwich Hal/, York. Eld, Rev. F. J., Polstead Rectory, Colchester. FEllis, Prof. Robinson, Trinity College, Oxford. Elwell, Levi H., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. Ely, Talfourd (Council), 73, Parliament Hill, Hampstead, N.W. Eumorfopoulo, N.,1, Kensington Park Gardens, W. Evans, A. J. (V. P.), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Evans, Sir John, K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S., Mash Mills, Hemel Hempstead. + Evans, Lady (Council), Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead. Eve, H. W., 37, Gordon Square, W.C, Ewart, Miss Mary A., 68, Albert Hall Mansions, S.W.
ΧΧΙ
Fanshawe, Reginald, 53, Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol,
Farnell, L. R., Exeter College, Oxford.
Farrar, Rev. Canon A. S., Durham.
Farside, William, Thorfe Hall, Robin Hood's Bay, Yorkshire. *Fearon, Rev. W. A., D.D., The College, Winchester.
Fenning, W.D., Hatleybury College, Hertford.
Field, Rev. T., Radley College, Abingdon,
Firminger, W. K., 50, Chowington Road, Calcutta.
Fisher, H. A. L., New College, Oxford.
Fisher, Miss Edith S., 21, Chapel Street, Belgrave Square, S.W.
T Fitzmaurice, Lady Edmond, 2, Green Street, Grosvenor Square, W.
Flather, J. H., 52 Bateman Street, Cambridge.
Fletcher, F., Zhe School, Rugby.
Fletcher, H. M., 9, Stanhope Street, W.
Flower, Wickham, O/d Swan House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W. tForbes, W. H., Lalliol College, Oxford.
Fowler, Harold N., Ph.D., Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. *Fowler, Rev. Professor, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Fowler, W. Warde, Lincoln College, Oxford.
Franklin, T. M., St. Hilary, Cowbridge, S. Wales.
Frazer, J. G., LL.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Freeman, C. E., Parkhouse, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells.
Freeman, W. George, 163, Parkdale Road, Plumstead.
*Freshfield, Douglas W. (Hon. Treasurer), 1, Az7/ie Gardens,Campden Hill, W. { Freshfield, Edwin, LL.D., 31, Old Jewry, E.C.
Freston, Henry W., Parkfield, Prestwich, Lancashire.
Fry, Right Hon. Sir Edward, Fazland House, Failand, near Bristol.
Fry, F. J., Cricket St. Thomas, Chard.
Fullerton, W. Morton, Rue Viguon, Paris. tFurley, J.S., 10, College Street, Winchester.
Furneaux, L. R., Rossall School, Fleetwood.
Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Repton Hall, Burton-on-Trent.
Gardner, Miss Alice, 716 Old Hall, Newnham College, Cambridge. ¢Gardner, Prof. Ernest A. (Council), Radnor Cottage, Sandgate. *+Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (V.P.), 12, Canterbury Koad, Oxford.
Gardner, Samuel, Oakhurst, Harrow-on-the-H1ill.
Gardner, W. Amory, Groton, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Garnett, Mrs. Terrell, 3, Queen Anne’s Gate, .5. "7.
Gatliff, Hamilton, 11, Haton Sguare, S.W.
Geddes, Sir W. D., Principal of the University, Aberdeen.
Geikie, Sir Archibald, F.R.S., 10, Chester Terrace, Regen’s Park, N.W.
Gibson, Mrs. Margaret D., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road Cambridge.
Giles, P., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Gilkes, A. H., The College, Dulwich, S.E.
Gilliat, Rev. Ε., Harrow, N.W.
Glover, J. A., 25, Highbury Place, N.
Godden, Miss Gertrude M., Ridgfeld, Wimbledon.
Gonino, Miss G., 90, Warwick Street, Warwick Square, S.W.
Goodhart, A. M., Eton College, Windsor.
Goodwin, Prof. W. W., D.C.L., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
Gow, James, Litt.D., High School, Nottingham.
Gower, Lord Ronald, 27, Trebovir Road, Earls Court, S.W.
Granger, F. S., University College, Nottingham.
Graves, A. S., St. Martin’s, Cambridge.
Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradfield College, Berks.
Green, G. Buckland, Zhe Academy, Edinburgh.
Greene, Herbert W., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Green, Mrs. J. R., 14, Kensington Square, W.
Xxil
Greenwell, Rev. Canon, F.R.S., Durham. Grenfell, B. P. (Council), Queen's College, Oxford. Griffith, G., Harrow, N.W. Griffith,Miss Mary E., 4, Bramham Gardens, S. W. Grundy, George Beardoe, 27, St. Margaret’s Road, Oxford. Gurney, Miss Amelia, 69, Zanismore Gardens, S.W. + Gutch, Clement, King’s College, Cambridge. Hadow, W. H., Worcester College, Oxford. Haigh, A. E., 2, Crick Road, Oxford. Hales, Rev. C. T., Aysgarth School, Newton-le-Willows R.S.O. Yorks. Hall-Dare, Francis, Hall, Rev. F.H., Oriel College, Oxfora. Hall, Rev. F.J., Morthaw Place, Potter’s Rar, Herts. Hall, Ε΄ W., S¢ John’s College, Oxford. Hall, Harry Reginald, British Museum, W.C. Hall, Miss S. E., 37, York Street Chambers, Bryanston Square, W. Hallam, G. H., Zhe Park, Harrow, N.W.
+Hammond, B. E., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Hardie, Prof. W. Ross, The University, Edinburgh. Hardwich, J. M., 716 School, Durham.
f Harrison, Miss J. E., LL.D. (Council), Newnham College, Cambridge. Harrower, Prof. John, The University, Aberdeen.
Hart, H. G., School House, Sedbergh, Yorks. Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham. Haussoullier, B.,8, Rue Sainte-Cécile, Paris. tHaverfield, F. J., Christ Church, Oxford. Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Oxford Terrace, W. tHay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, W. Hay, A. T., The College, Brighton.
+ Haynes, Miss Lucy, 7, Thornton Hill, Wimbledon,
Hayter, Angelo ἃ. K., 74, Adelaide Road, N.W.
Headlam, C. E. S., Zrinity Hall, Cambridge.
Headlam, J. W. (Council), 6, E/don Road, Kensington, Vv Headlam, W. G., King’s College, Cambridge.
Heard, Rev. W. A., Fettes College, Edinburgh. Heathcote, W. E., Round Coppice, Ivor Heath, Uxbridge.
Heberden, Ὁ. B., Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford. Hedgcock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W. Henderson, Arthur E., Rowmeti Hissaz, Constantinople. Henderson, Bernard W., Merton College, Oxford.
Hereford, The Lord Bishop of, The Palace, Hereford. Heyer, G., Aing’s College School, Wimbledon, S.W.
Hicks, Rev. E. L., 21, Leaf Square, Pendleton, Manchester. Higgins, Alfred, 16, Azug Street, Portman Square, W. fHill, Arthur, Brztzsh Vice-Consul, Athens, Greece.
Hill, George F. (Council), Brztzsh Museum, W.C. Hobhouse, Rev. Walter,
Hodgson, F. C., Abbotsford Villa, Twickenham.
t Hodgson, J. Stewart, 7, H7// Street, Berkeley Square, W. Hogarth, David G. (Council), 23, A/erander Sguare, S.W. Holiday, Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill, Hampstead, NII’. Holland, Miss Emily, 27, Homefield Road, Wimbledon. Hopgood, Harold b., 17, Spring Gardens, S.W.
Hopkinson, J. H., University College, Oxford.
Hoppin, J. C., c/o 7. 5. Morgan & Co., 22, Old Broad Street, E.C. Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Windsor.
+ Hort, Arthur F., Adoyne, Harrow.
Housley, Samuel J., Gyusdal, Waterloo Road, Epsom.
How, W. W., Merton College, Oxford.
XXlil
Howorth, Sir Henry H., K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S. (Council), 30, Col/ingham Place, SU Huddart, Rev. G. A. W., Kirklington Rectory, Bedale, Yorks. Huddilston, J. H., Ph.D., Berea, Ohio, U.S.A. Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, //o/ford Road, Hampstead, N.W. Huish, Marcus B., 21, μέσσον Vellas, Kensington, W. Hulse, Miss Caroline M. Humphreys, Robert Henry, Royal Societies Club, 63, St. James Street, S.W. Hunt, A. S., Queen’s College, Oxford. Hutchinson, Sir J. Τὶ, (Chief Justice of Cyprus), Micosta, Cyprus. Hutchinson, Miss W. U. L., 69, Longridyve Road, S.W. Hutton, Miss Ὁ. A., 49, Drayton Gardens, S.W. Huyshe, Wentworth, ‘ Daly Graphic’ Office, Milford Lane, Strand, ΠΟ, Image, Selwyn, 6, Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, W.C. tlonides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, W. lonides, Luke A., 47, Marloes Road, Kensington, W. Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, 29. Alecklenburgh Square, W.C. Jackson, Henry, Litt.D., 7rénzty College, Cambridge. Jackson, Miss Rose, Longdene, Haslemere. Jackson, Rev. W. W., Rector of Exeter College, Oxford. James, A. C., Eton College, Windsor. *James, The Rev. H.A., D.D., School House, Rugby. James, Lionel, S¢. Peter’s College, Radley, Abingdon. James, M. R., Litt.D., Azug’s College, Cambridge. James, Rev. 5. R., The College, Malvern. Jeans, Rev. G. E., Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.
*Jebb, Prof. R. C., D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., M.P. (President), Springfield, Newnham, Cambridge.
Jenkinson, F.J.H., 7r¢uzty College, Cambridge. Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 39, Addison Road, Kensington, W. Jevons, F. B., Zhe Castle, Durham. Jex-Blake, Miss, G7zrton College, Cambridge. Joachim, Miss M., Highlands, Haslemere, Surrey. Jobling, G. C., 5, Park Villas, Cheltenham. Jones, H. Stuart (Council), 77zuzty College, Oxford. Karo, George, 19, Péazza del Carmine, Firenze, Italy. Keene, Prof. Charles H., Queen’s College, Cork. Keep, R. P., Ph.D., Free Academy, Norwich, Conn., U.S.A. Kelly, Charles Arthur, 30, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, S.W. Keltie, J.S., LL.D., Glendevon House, Compayne Gardens, Hampstead, N.W. Kennedy, Rev. John, Grammar School, Aldenham, Elstree, Herts. Kenyon, F. G. (Council), Brztish Museum, W.C. Ker, Prof. W. P., 95, Gower Street, W.C. Kerr, Prof. Alexander, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. Keser, Dr. J., 11, Harley Street, Cavendish Square, W. Kieffer, Prof. John B., 232, Lancaster Avenue, Lancaster, Pa., U.S.A. King, J. Ε., Grammar School; Manchester. King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford. King, Mrs. Wilson, 19, Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. Knowles, James, Queen Anne’s Lodge, St. James’ Park, S.W. - Kohler, Olivia C., Gzrton College, Cambridge. Krohn, H. A., 103, Cannon Street, E.C. Lambros, Spiridion, Athens. Lang, Andrew, LLWD., 1, Marloes Rd., Kensington, W.
*Lang, Sir R. Hamilton, K.C.M.G., Zhe Ottoman Bank, Constantinople. Lathbury, Miss, 19, Lingfield Road, Wimbledon, S.W. Lautour, Miss de, 85, Harcourt Terrace, Redcliffe Square, S.W. Lawrence, Sir Edwin, Bart., M.P., 13, Car/ton House Terrace, S.W. Leaf, Mrs. C. J., Beechwood, Tunbridge Wells, Leaf, Herbert, 7he Green, Marlborough.
χχὶν
+ Leaf, Walter, Litt. D., (V.P.,), 6, Sussex Place, Regent’s Park, N.W. Lecky, Mrs., 38, Onslow Gardens, S.W.
Lehn, The Baroness Rosenérn-, College Hall, Byng Place, |W.C. Leeper, Alexander, Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne. Legge, F., 6, Gray’s Jnn Square, W.C.
Leigh, Rev. A. Austen, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge. Leigh, W. Austen, 2, Vorfolk Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Lewis, Harry, 5, Argy// Road, Kensington, W.
+ Lewis, Mrs. 8. S., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road, Cambridge.
Lewis-Poole, D., Royal Societies Club, 63, St. James’ Street, S.W.
*Leycester, Mrs. Rafe,6, Cheyne Walk, S.W. Lindley, Miss Julia, το, Kidbrook Terrace, Shooter's FGI Ks; Sits. Lindley, William, το, Kidbrook Terrace, Shooter's Hill Rd., S.£. Lingen, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.B.,13, Wetherby Gardens, S.IV. Lingen, Lady, 13, Wetherby Gardens, S.W. Lister, Hon. Reginald, British Embassy, Constantinople. Litchfield, R. B., 31, Kensington Square, W. Lloyd, Miss A. M., Caythorpe Hall, Grantham.
+Lock, Rev. W., Keble College, Oxford. Loeschcke, Dr. von., Universitat, Bonn. London, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, The Palace, Fulham, S.W. Long, Prof. Albert Limerick, Robert College, Constantinople. Lorimer, Miss H. L., Somerville College, Oxford.
Loring, William (Council), 2, Hare Court, Temple, E.C.
*Lubbock, The Right Hon. Sir John, Bart., M.P., High Elms, Hayes Kent. Luce, Rev. E., 9, Payal Crescent, Brighton.
Lupton, J. M., Zhe College, Marlborough.
Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Lythgoe, A. M., 15, Warland Buildings, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Hazleybury College, Hertford.
Macan, R. W., University College, Oxford.
McAnally, H. W. W., War Office, Pall Mall, S.W.
McDaniel, J. H., Hobart College, Geneva, N.Y.
Macdonald, George, The University, Glasgow.
Macdonald, Miss Louisa, Women’s College, Sydney University, Sydney, N.S.W. Macdonell, W. R., LL.D., Coleat, Bycullah Park, Enfield.
MacEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, 25, Woodside Place, Glasgow.
Macgillivray, J. Pittendrigh, Ravelstow Elms, Murrayfield, Edinburgh. McKechney, Mrs. W. C., 3, Berkeley Place, Wimbledon, S.W.
Mackennal, Miss E. M., Beechwood, Bowdon, Cheshire.
Mackenzie, Duncan, British School, Athens.
Mackenzie, R. J., 12, Great Stuart Street, Edinburgh.
MacLehose, James J., 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow.
Macmillan, Mrs. Alexander, Bramshott Chase, Shei »mill, Surrey.
*Macmillan, George A. (Hon. Sec.), St. Martin’s Street, W.C.
Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 19, Earls Terrace, Kensing.. 1, W. +Macmillan, W. E. F., Azug’s College, Cambridge.
tMacnaghten, Hugh, Eton College, Windsor.
Macnaghten, The Right Hon. Lord, 3, Vew Sguare, Liv -Jn’s Inn, W.C, McPherson, Miss Florence, Bank House, Maghull, Liverpool. Maculloch, Mrs. Matilda, Winterbourne, Weybridge.
t+ Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen's College, Oxford.
*Mahaffy, Rev. Prof.J. P., D.D., D.C.L., Trinity College, Dublin. Maidstone, The Viscountess, Hurstmonceaux Place, Hailsham, Sussex. Mano, Constantin, Balliol College, Oxford. ᾿ Manos, Grégoire, Greek Legation, Vienna. |
+ Marindin, G. E. (Council), Broomfield, Frensham, Farnham. .
tMarquand, Prof. Allan, Princeton College, New Fersey. | :
ee rt—“‘CS~—L
XXV
Marsh, E., 28, Bruton Stree/, W. Marshall, R., 31, 713. Waldrons, Croydon. Marshall, gta Highfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds. Martin, Charles B., Ze College, Oberlin, Ohio, U.S.A. t Martin, R. B., M.P., το, H/77/ Street, W. ft Martyn, Edward, 77/lyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway. Mason, H.C. F., Hatleybury College, Hertford. Matheson, P. E., New College, Oxford. Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadneedle St., E.C. Mayor, H. B., Clifton College, Bristol. Mayor, Rev. Prof. Joseph B., Queensgate House, Kingston Hill, Surrey. Mayor, R. G. (Council), Education Department, Whitehall, S,W. Measures, A. E., Avng Edward VJ. School, Birmingham. Merry, Rev. W. W., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford. Milliet, P., 95, Boulevard St. Michel, Paris. Millington, Miss M. V., 27, Morland Square, IV. Milne, J. Grafton, /amsfield House, Canning Town, E. Milner, His Excellency Sir Alfred, G.C.B., Government House, Capetown, S. Africa. Minet, Miss Julia, 18, Sussex Square, Hyde Park, W. Minns, Ellis H., Weston, Southampton. Mitchell, C. W., 195, Queen’s Gate, SW’. tMocatta, F. D., 9, Connaught Place, Edgware Road, W. Moline, Miss J. R., 172, Church Street, Stoke Newington, N. Monk, C. J., M.P., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W. Monro, D.B., Litt.D., LL.D. (V.P.), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. Monson, His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir E. J., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., H.B.M. Ambassador, British Embassy, Paris. Moore, G. 1:., 77intty College, Cambridge. Morgan, Miss Sarah,c/o Miss Colville, Overdale, Shortlands, Kent. Morice, Rev. F. D., Mount Hermon, Woking. *Morley, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 31, Princes Gardens, S.W. Morris, J. Ε., Zhe Grammar School. Bedford. Morrison, F. A. C., 3, Great Charles Street, Birmingham. ft Morshead, E. Ὁ. Α., The College, Winchester. Moss, Rev. H. W., The School, Shrewsbury. Mount, Rev. C. B., 14, Nerham Road, Oxford. ft Mount, J. T., Eton College, Windsor. Mudie, Mrs., Budleigh, Maresfield Gardens, Hampstead, N.W. Munro, J. A. R. (Council), Lzucol/n College, Oxford. Murray, A.S., LL.D. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C. Murray, Prof. G. G. A. (Council), Barford, Churt, Farnham. *+Mycrs, Ernest(Council), Brackenside, Chislehurst. +Myres, J. Linton (Council), Christ Church, Oxford. Naef, Conrad J., The Admiralty, S.W. Nairn, J. A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Neil, R. A., Pembroke College, Cambridge. Newman, W.L., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham. Nicholson, Sir Charles, Bart., 7ie Grange, Totteridge, Herts. O’Connor, Arthur, M.P., 5, Zssex Court, Temple, F.C. Ogilvy, Miss Alison, 62, Queen’s Gardens, Hyde Park, W. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Dr. Max, 14, Wharfedale Street, Farl’s-Court, SW. Ommanney, Admiral Sir Erasmus K., 29, Connaught Square, W. Ormiston, Miss F. M., Gzr/s’ High School, Leeds. tOxford, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, Cuddesdon Palace, Wheatley, Oxon. Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming. Pallis, Alexander, Zavoi, Sefton Park, Liverpool. tParry, Rev. O. H., 5, Salem Hill, Sunderland. Parry, Rev. R. St. J., Zrintty College, Cambridge,
xxv]
Paton, James Morton, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., USA, Paton, W. R., British Post Office, Smyrna. Pears, Edwin, 2, Rue de la Bangue, Constantinople. Peckover, Miss Alexandrina, Bank House, Wisbech. Peers, C. R., 107, Grosvenor Road, S.W. Peile, John, Litt.D., AZaster of Christ's College, Cambritge. Pelham, Hon. Mrs. Arthur, 15, Dake Street, Manchester Square, W. Peiham, Professor H. F. (V.P.), President of Trinity College, Oxford. Pember, E. H., Q.C., Vicar’s Hill, near Lymington, Hants. *Penrose, F. C., F.R.S., D.C.L., LL.D. (V.P.), Colebyjield, Wimbledon, SW. Penrose, Miss Emily (Council), Royal Holloway College, Egham. + Percival, F. W., 2, Southwick Place, Hyde Park Square, W. Perry, Prof. E. D., Columbia University, New York City, U.S.A. Philips, Mrs. Herbert, Sutton Oaks. Macclesfield. Phillimore, Prof. J. S., The University, Glasgow. Pirie, Miss A. A., Suanybank House, Old Aberdeen. Pirie, Miss Emily, Countesswell House, Aberdeenshire. f Platt, Prof. Arthur, 23, Powys Sguarc, WW’. Pollard, A. T.,-Czty of London School, Victoria Enbankment, E.C. Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 48, Great Cumberland Place, W. + Pond, Prof. Ὁ. A. M., University College, Auckland, New Zealand. Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A. t Postgate, Prof. J. P., Trinity College, Cembridge. Powell, Sir F. S., Bart., M.P., 1, Cambriage Square, Hyde Park, W’ Powell, John U., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford. Poynter, Sir Edward J., P.R.A., 28, Albert Gate, S.W. Pretor, A., Belfield, Weymouth. Prickard, A. O., New College, Oxford. Proctor, R. G. C., British Museum, W.C. Prothero, Prof. G. W., 24, Bedford Square, W.C. fPryor, Francis R., Woodfeld, Hatfield, Herts. Psychari, A., 38, Boulevard de Courcelles, Parts. Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill, East Grinstead, Sussex. Radford, Dr. W. T., Sédmouth. f Raleigh, Miss Katherine A., Zerrich Horse, Tring. *Ralli, Pandeli, 17, Belgrave Square, S.W. + Ralli, Mrs. Stephen A., 32, Park Lane, WW’. f Ramsay, Prof. W. M., D.C.L. (V.P.), The University, Aberdeen. Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor. Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Hauts. Reece, Miss Dora, 26, Dullingham Mansion, Pitt Street, Kensington, W. Reid, Prof. J. S., Litt.D., Cazus College, Cambridge. f Reinach, Salomon, 31, Awe de Berlin, Parts. Rendall, Rev. F., 82, Philbeach Gardens, S.W. + Rendall, Rev. G. H., Litt.D. (Council), Charterhouse, Godalming. Rendall, Montague, The College, Winchester. Richards, Rev. G. Ὁ. (Council), Orzel College, Oxford. Richards, F., Azugswood School, Bath. Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford. Richmond, Sir W. B., K,C.B., R.A., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith, W. Ridgeway, Prof. W. (Council), Fen Ditton, Cambridge. Ridley, Sir Edward, 48, Lennox Gardens, S.W. Rigg, Herbert A., 13, Queen’s Gate Place, S.W. Robb, Mrs., 46, Rutland Gate, S.W. Roberts, Rev. E.S., Caius College, Cambridge. Roberts, Professor W. Rhys, University College of North Wales, Bangor. Robertson, Rev. Archibald, Azug’s College, Strand, W.C. Robinson, T. P. G., Ashfield, Rothsay Place, Bedford. Robinson, W. S., Wellington College, Berks.
XXVvIl
Rochester, The Right Rev.the Lord Bishop of, Bishop's House Kennington ParkRoad,S.E. Rome, W., Oxford Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W.
Rosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of, K.G., 38, Berkeley Square, W.
Rotton, J. F., 3, Boltons, West Brompton, S.W. Rous, Lieut.-Colonel, Worstead House, Norwich,
TRouse, ΝΥ. H. D., 4, Bilton Road, Rugby,
Rubie, Rev. Alfred E., The Royal Naval School, Eltham, S.E. Riicker, Miss 5. C., 4, Vanburgh Terrace, Blackheath.
Runtz, Ernest, 22, Moorgate Street, E.C.
Rushbrooke, W. G., 13, Cathcart Hill, Highgate, N.
Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, LL.D. 19, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S.W.
TRyle, Rev. Prof. H. E. D.D., Prestdent of Queens’ College, Cambridge. Samuel, Mrs. Sylvester, 80, Ons/ow Gardens, S.W.
Samuelson, Sir B., Bart., Breckenbrough Hall, Thirsk, Yorks.
tSandys, J. E., Litt.D.(V.P.), St. John’s College, Cambridge.
ftSandys, Mrs., AZerton House, Cambridge.
Savage-Armstrong, Prof. G. F., Queen’s College, Cork.
T*Sayce, Rev. Prof. A. H., LL.D. (V.P.),4, Whitehall Court, S.W.
. TScaramanga, A. P., 18, Barkston Gardens, S. Kensington, S.W. Schilizzi, John S., 6, Cromwell Houses, S. Kensington, S.W.
Schultz, R. Weir, 6, Wandeville Place, W.
Schuster, Ernest, 12, Harrington Gardens, S.W,
Scouloudi, Stephanos, Athens, Greece.
Scull, Miss Sara A., 1100, 277. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Seaman, Owen, Zower House, West Hill, Putney, S.W. Seebohm, Hugh, 7he Hermitage, Hitchin.
Seltman, E. J., Azughoe, Great Berkhampstead, Herts.
Selwyn, Rev. E. C., School House, Uppingham.
Sendall, Sir Walter J.. K.C.M.G., Colonial Office, S.W. Seymour, Prof. Thomas D., Yale College, Newhaven, U.S.A. Shadwell, C. L., Oriel College, Oxford.
Sharkey, J. A., Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Sharpe, Miss, Harold House, Lansdowne Road, W, Shewan, Alexander, Seehof, St. Andrews, Fife. Shuckburgh, E. S., Granchester, Cambridge.
Sidgwick, Arthur, Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Sidgwick, Prof. Henry, Litt.D., 77Znzty College, Cambridge. Sikes, Edward Ernest, S?. John’s College, Cambridge. Simpson, H. B., 18, Brompton Square, S.W.
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., 77énzty College, Glenalmond, Perthshire. Smedley, J. F.,62, Warwick Street, Belgrave Road, S.W,
TSmith, A. Hamilton (Council), 121, Bedford Court Mansions, Bedford Avenue, W.C. Smith, Cecil, LL.D.(Council), 18, Zarl’s Terrace, Kensington, W. Smith, F. E. J., 2, Tanfield Court, Inner Temple, E.C.
tSmith, Prof. Goldwin, 716 Grange, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, H. Babington, C.S.I , Stokeleigh, Queen’s Road, Weybridge. Smith, R. Elsey, 7, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, W.C.
Smith, Reginald J., Q.C., 11, Hyde Park Street, W.
Smith, 5. C. Kaines, Magdalen College, Cambridge.
Smith, W. G., S¢. John’s College, Oxford.
fSnow, T. C., Sz. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
ftSomerset, Arthur, Castle Goring, Worthing.
Sonnenschein, Prof. E. A., Greenfield Cottage, Harborne, Birmingham.
t Southwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, 7iurgarton Priory, Southwell. Spiers, Phené, Car/ton Chambers, 12, Regent Street, W.
Spooner, Rev. W. A., New College, Oxford. Spring-Rice, 5. E., C.B., 1, Bryanston Place, Bryanston Square, W, Stannus, Hugh, 61, Larkhall Rise, Clapham, S,W,
XXvill
Stanton, Charles H., Fre/d Place, Stroud, Gloucestershire. Statham, H. Heathcote, 40, Gower Street, W.C.
Stawell, Miss Melian, 22, Alargaret Street, W.
Steele, Dr., 33, Via S. Gallo, Florence.
Steele, G. C., Barby Road, Rugby.
+Stevenson, Miss E. C., 13, Randolph Crescent, Edinturgh.
Stewart, Prof. J. A., Christ Church, Oxford.
Stillman. W. J., 12, Campden Hill Gardens, WW.
Stogdon, J., Harrow, N.W.
Stokes, Miss Margaret, Carrig Brene, Lowth, co. Dublin.
Stone, E. W., Eton College, Windsor.
Stone, Rev. E. D., Hillingdon, Uxbridge.
Strachan-Davidson, |. L., Ba//iol College, Oxford:
Stretton, Gilbert W., Zhe College, Dulwich, 5.8.
Strong, Mrs. 5. Arthur, LL.D. (Council), 36, Grosvenor Road, S.W Sturgis, Julian R.. “/vington, Eyethorne, Dover.
Sturgis, Russell, 307, Hast 17th Street, New York.
Style, Rev. George, Giggleswisk School, near Settle, Yorks.
Surr, Watson, 57, O/d Broad Street, E.C.
Swanwick, Miss Anna, 23, Cumberland Terrace, N.W. ft Tait, C. W. A., Clifton College, Bristol.
Tancock, Rev. Ὁ. C., The School, Tonbridge.
Tarbell, Prof. F. B., University of Chicago, Chicago, [ll., U.S.A. Tarn, W. W., 13, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W.
Tarring, C. J., Chief Justice of Grenada, West Indies.
Tatton, R. G., Passmore Edwards Settlement, Tavistock Place, W.C.
Taylor, Rev. Charles, D.D., Waster of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Thompson, A. Douglas, Litt.D., 7ke University, Edinburgh.
*Thompson, Sir E. M., K.C.B., D.C.L. (V.P.), British Aluseum, W.C. Thompson, E. S., Highbroom, Ewhurst, Guildford.
Thompson, F. E., 16, Primrose Hill Koad, N.W. Thompson, Henry F. H., 35, Wimpole Street, W.
Thompson, J. Eyre, 8, Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C. Thursfield, J. R., Fryth, Great Berkhampstead.
Tilley, Arthur, K7zg’s College, Cambridge.
Tottenham, H. R., S¢. John’s College, Cambridge.
*+Tozer, Rev. H. F., 18, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
{Truell, H. P., F.R.C.S.. Clonmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow. Tubbs, Prof. H. ., Uuverstty Coliege, Auckland, New Zealand. Tuckerman, Mrs. Mary F., 6, Corso Vittorio Emanuele, Florence.
*tTuckett, F. F., -venchay, near Bristol.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, //e/singfors, Finland.
fTurnbull, Mrs. Peveril, Samdy-Brook Hall, Ashbourne.
Tylor, Prof. E. B., D.C.L., F.R S., The Museum House, Oxford. Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y., Litt.D., D.C.L. (V.P.), Trinity College, Dublin. Underhill, G. E., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Upcott, L. E., The College, Marlborough.
Valetta, J. N., 16, Durham Terrace, Westbourne Gardens, W.
| Valieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, 117.
Vanderby], Mrs. Philip, 51, Porchester Terrace, W’.
Vardy, Rev. A. R., Aing Edward's School, Birmingham. Vaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Venning, Miss Rosamond, 6, Balcombe Street, Dorset Square, N.W. Verrall, A. W., Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Verrall, Mrs. A. W., Sedwyn Gardens, Cambridge.
Vincent, Sir Edgar, K.C.M.G., M.P., Esher Place, Surre
TViti di Marco, Marchesa di Palaces Ones ἌΝ Ζ a >
ἢ 22 F e Savello, Rome,
Viasto, T. A., Bouevaine, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
Wackernagel, Prof. Jacob, Steinenberg, 5, Bale.
Xxix
Wagner, Henry, 13, //al// Moon Street, W. f+ Waldstein, Prof. Charles, Ph.1)., Litt.D., Azug’s College, Cambridge. Walford, Mrs. Neville, Warlegh, Tamerton Foliot, Crown Hill, R.S.O., South Devon. Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallard, Shoolup Hill, Brondesbury, N.W. Walters, Henry Beauchamp (Council), Pritish Museum, W.C. + Wantage, Lord, K.C.B., V.C., 2, Car/ton Gardens, SW. Ward, Arnold S., Balliol College, Oxford. Ward, John, F.S.A., Lenoxvale, Belfast. Ward, T. H., 25, Grosvenor Place, S.W. Warr, Prof. G. C., 16, Zarl’s Terrace, Kensington, W. fWarre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor. Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford. Warren, E. P., Lewes House, Lewes, Sussex. Waterfield, Rev. R., Zhe College, Cheltenham. Waterhouse, Edwin, /e/demore, near Dorking. Waterhouse, Miss M. E., 59, dge Lane, Liverpool. Watson, Mrs., Burnopheld, Co. Durham. *Way, Rev. J. P., Zhe Hall, Rossall, Fleetwood. tT Weber, F. P., M.D., 19, Harley Street, W. Weber, Sir Hermann, M.D., 10, Grosvenor Street, W. Wedd, N., King’s College, Cambridge. Weir, Miss Edith, 4, Frogual, Hampstead, N.W. Weld-Blundell, Herbert, 7, Park Place, St. James’s, S.W. Wells, J., Wadham College, Oxford. Westcott, Rev. F. B., School House, Sherborne. Westlake, Prof. J., LL.D., The River House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W Wheeler, James R., Ph.D., Columbia College, New York City, U.S.A. White, Mrs. Andrew, American Embassy, Berlin. White, Prof.J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. White, J. N., Rockland, Waterford. White, John Forbes, LL.D., Craigstay, Dundee. White, Miss Rachel Evelyn, Vewnham College, Cambridge. ft Whitehead, R. R., Bor 144, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A. Whitehouse, F. Cope, 8, Cleveland Row, St. Fames’. SAV. Wickes, Miss J. K., Saxonhurst, Northwood, near Rickmansworth. Wickham, The Very Rev. E. C., The Deanery, Lincoln. Wilkins, Rev. George, 36, 7rinity College, D::blin. Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D., Litt.D., Te Owens College, Manchester. Williamson, J. W., Limasol, Cyprus. Wilson, Donald, Wavertree, Beverley Road, Hull. Wilson, H. C. B., New College, Oxford. Wilson, Harry, 447, Oxford Street, W. Windley, Rev. H. C., St. Chad’s, Bensham, Gateshead-on-Tyne. Winkworth, Mrs., Holly Lodge, Campden Hill, W. Wiseman, Rev. Henry John, C/z/ton College, Bristol. Wood, Rev. Dr., 776 School, Harrow, N.W. Wood, Rev. W.S., Uford Rectory, Stamford. Woodhouse, W. J.,1, Garfield Terrace. Garth Road, Bangor, N. Wales. t Woods, Rev. H. G., Festiniog, N. Wales. Woodward, Miss M. C., Lywood, Seaton, Devon. Wright, Prof., John Henry, Camébridge, Mass., U.S.A. Wright, Sir R. S., 14, St. James’s Place, S.W. + Wright, W. Aldis, Vice-Master, Trinity College, Cambridge. t Wyndham, Rev. Francis M.,.S¢. Mary of the Angels, Westmoreland Road, Bayswater, W’. +t Wyse, W., 77znzty College, Cambridge. Yates, Rev. 5. A. Thompson, 43, PAz//imore.Gardens, W, Yorke, V. W., Forthampton Court, Τ᾽ ewkesbury. “Young, Rev. Canon E. M., Rothbury, Northumberland. tYule, Miss Amy F., Zarradale House, Ross-shire, Scotland.
| .
XXX
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC 5 LL DIES.
The University Library, Aéerdeen.
The University College of Wales, Aderystwith.
The Carnegie Free Library, A//egheny, Pa., U.S.A.
The Amherst College Library, Amherst, Mass.
The Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., U.S.A. The Peabody Institute, Baltimore, U.S.A.
The Johns Hopkins Library, Baltimore.
The Enoch Pratt Library, Baltimore.
The Royal Museum Library, erin.
The Royal Library, Berlin.
The Central Free Library, Ratcliffe Place, birmingham (A. Capel Shaw, Esq.) The Mason Science College, Lirmingham.
The Public Library, Bos/on, U.S.A.
The Boston Atheneum, Zosion, U.S.A.
The University Library, Preslau.
The Library of Clifton College, C///fon, Bristol.
The University Library, Cadzfornia.
The Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. ¢The University Library, Cambridge.
The Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.
The Library of St. John’s College, Camébriage.
The Library of King’s College, Cambridge.
ThesFitzwilliam Archaeological Museum, Camébridge.
The Girton College Library, Cambridge.
The University College of South Wales, (γα.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, [linots.
The Lewis Institute, Chzcago, ///inozs.
The University Library, Christiania, Norway.
The Library of Canterbury College, Christchurch, N.Z.
The Public Library, Czxcinnati, U.S.A.
The University of Colorado, U.S.A.
The University Library of State of Missouri, Columbia, Missourt, U.S.A. The Public Library, Detrozt.
The Royal Museum of Casts, Dresden. ¢ The Library of Trinity College, Dudlin.
The National Library of Ireland, Dublin.
The King’s Inns Library, Dud/in.
The Royal Irish Academy, Dz/in.
The University College, Dundee.
The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham. +The Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh.
The Sellar and Goodhart Library, University, Edinburgh. The University Library, Erlangen
The University Library, /rezburg tm Baden, Germany (Prof. Stemp). The Philologische Seminar, Gzessem.
The University Library, Glasgow.
The Herzogliche Bibliothek, Gotha, Germany.
The University Library, Gottingen.
Che Royal University Library, Gret/swala.
The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.
The University Library, Hezde/terg (Dr. Zangmeister).
The School Library, //arrow, NV. W.
The State University of lowa, Jowa, U.S.A.
The Cornell University Library, /thaca, N.Y.
The University Library, Jena.
The Royal and University Library, Konigsberg.
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.
The Leeds Library, Commercial Street, Leeds.
The Public Library, Leeds.
The Bibliothéque Universitaire, 3, Rue des Fleurs, Lille, Nord. The Free Library, Liverpool.
The University College, Liverpool. +The British Museum, London, W.C. .
The Department of Greekand Roman Antiquities, British \useum, London, W.C. The Library of University College, Loudon.
The Athenaeum Club, Pa// Mal/, London, S.W.
XXXi
The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savile Row, London, W.
The Library of St. Paul’s School, West Kensington, London, W.
The London Library, St. James's Square. London, S.W.
The Reform Club, Pa// Mall, London, δ. ΗΖ.
The Royal Institution, A/bemarle Street, London, W.
The Library, Westminster School, London, S.W.
The Oxford & Cambridge Club, Pall Mall, c/o Messrs. Harrison & Sons. 59,Vall Mall, W.
The Foreign Architectural Book Society (T. H. Watson, Esq.), 9, Nottingham Place,
London, W,
Nhe Sion College Library, Victoria Embankment, London, E.C.
The College Library, Dulwich, S.E.
The City Library, Zowel/, Mass., U.S.A.
The Bibliothéque Universitaire, Palais Saint Pierre, Lyons.
The Whitworth Institute, A/anchester.
The Chetham’s Library, Hun/s Rank, Manchester.
The Grammar School, Manchester.
The Royal University Library, Warburg.
The Public Library, Melbourne, Victoria (c/o Messrs. Melville, Mullen & Co.)
The Library of the University of Milan, Mz/an.
The McGill University Library, Montreal (C. H. Gould, Esq.)
The K@6nigliche Paulinische Bibliothek, Munster, /.W.
The Royal Library, AZunich.
The Archeological Seminary, Munich.
The University of Nebraska, Nebraska, U.S.A.
The Forbes Library, Morthampton, U.S.A.
The Free Public Library, Mewark, New Jersey.
The Library of Yale College, Vewhaven.
The Free Public Library, Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S.A.
The Astor Library, Mew York.
The New York State Library, A/éany, New York.
The Library of Columbia University, Mew Yor.
The Hamilton College Library, Clinton, New York.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Mew York.
The Library of the College of the City of New York, New Vorf. {The Bodleian Library, Oxford.
The Library of All Souls College, Oxford.
The Library of Worcester College, Oxford.
The Junior Library, Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
The Library of Balliol College, Oxford.
The Library of Christchurch, Oxford.
The Library of Exeter College, Oxford.
The Library of St. John’s College, Oxford.
The Library of Merton College, Oxford.
The Library of New College, Oxford
The Library of Oriel College, Oxford.
The Library of Queen’s College, Oxford.
The Library of Trinity College, Oxford.
The Library of University College, Oxford.
The Union Society, Oxford.
The University Galleries, Oxford.
The Lake Erie College, Painsville, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Bibliothéque de l’Institut de France, Parts. |
The Bibliothéque de l’ Université de France, Paris.
The Bibliothéque des Musées Nationaux, Paris,
The Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris, Paris.
The Ecole Normale Supérieur, Par#s.
The Library Company, PAzladelphia. .
The Library of the University of Pennsylvania, PAi/adelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
The Vassar Library, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
The Archaeological Seminary, The University, Prague (Dr. Wilhelm Klein).
The University Library, Prague.
The Bibliothéque de l’ Université, Rennes.
The Free Public Library and Museum, Preston.
The Library of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
The American School of Classical Studies, Rome, /taly.
The Rossall Library, Rossal/, Fleetwood (the Rev. W. H. E. Worship).
The School Reading Room, Xugéy, care of Mr. A. J. Lawrence.
The St Louis Mercantile Library, S¢. Louis, U.S.A.
The Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass., U.S.A.
ΧΧΧΙ
The Royal Library, Stockholm (Messrs. Samson & Wallin). The Archacological Museum, 7/e University, Strassburg (per Prof. Michaelis. Che Imperial University and National Library, Strassburg. The Free Library, Syduey, New South Wales.
The University Library, Syracuse, New York.
The University Library, Zoronto.
The Library of the University of Illinois, Urdana, //inots. The Library of Congress, Washington, U.S.A.
The Boys’ Library, Eton College, Winaser.
The Library of Eton College, IVindsor.
The Bibliotheque Publique, Winterthur, (Dr. Imhoof-Blumer). he Free Library, Worcester, Mass... U.S.A.
The Williams College Library, H/¢//iamstown, Mass., U.S.A
t Libraries clatming coptes under the Copyright Act.
LIST OF JOURNALS, ον RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE JOURNAL OF. HELLENIC STUDIES.
American Journal of Archeology (Miss Mary H. Buckingham, 19, Chestirut Strect, Boston, U.S.A.).
Analecta Bollandiana, Société des Bollandistes, 14, Aue des Ursulines, Bruvelles.
Annual of the British School at A/shens.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the French Schoo] at Athens).
Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma (Vrof. Gatti. Museo Capitolino, Rome).
Ephemeris Archaiologike, Athens.
Jahrbuch of German Imperial Archaeological Institute, Corneliusstrasse No. 2 II Berlin.
Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes, Tiirkenstrasse, 4, Veensu.
Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 9, Condu:t Stree/, Il’.
Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique (M. J. N. Svoronos, Musée National, A7¢Zezs).
Mdlanges d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, published by the French School at Rome.
Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute at Athens.
Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute at λυ ες.
Mnemosyne (care of Mr. E. J. Brill), Letden, Holland.
Neue Jahrbiicher (c/o Dr. J. berg), Rosenthalgasse 3, 11.. Levpity
Numismatic Chronicle, 22, Albemarle Street.
Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir das klassische Altertum (carve of Dietrich’sche Verlags- Buchhandlung, G6ttingen). 5
Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society.
Proceedings of the Hellenic Philological Syllogos, Constantinople.
Publications οὗ the Imperial Archaeological Commission, S¢. Petersburg.
Revue Archéologique, Paris (per M. Georges Perrot, 45, rue εἶ" U/m).
Revue des Etudes Grecques, Publication Trimestrielle de l’Association pour ’En- couragement ces Etudes Grecques en France, Parts.
Transactions of the American School, Ashems.
Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society and Journal of Philology,
SESSION 1898-99.
THE First General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on Thursday, November 3rd, 1898, Mr. Penrose, V.P., in the chair.
Mr. Beardoc Grundy read a paper ‘On a Suggested Characteristic in Thucydides.’ As is implied by the title, the paper was more or less tentative. The main points discussed were: 1. What reason induced Thucydides to enlarge with so much detail on the four examples of siege operations to which he devotes special attention, viz, Plataca, Pylus, Sphacteria, and Syracuse? 2. Docs he exaggerate in any of these descriptions? (/.H.S. xviii. p. 218.) Prof. Ronald Burrows and others took part in the discussion.—Mr. H. B. Walters then read a paper ‘On a Vase with the Death of Polyxena,’ recently acquired by the British Museum. The reader gave an account of the general characteristics of the class to which this vase belongs, a series of early black-figured amphorac of the sixth century b.c., known as Corintho-Attic or Peloponnesian. Their style is an imitation of Corinthian, the inscriptions are Attic, and the subjects are derived from Peloponnesian prototypes. The vase discussed gave a new and remarkable rendering of the subject. (/.H.S. xviii. p. 281.)
The Second General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on February 23rd, 1899, Mr. Talfourd Ely in the chair.
Prof. Ernest Gardner read a paper on a head of Athena of the school of Alcamenes, which was formerly in the Disney collection, and had recently come into the possession of Mr. Philip Nelson. (/.#/..S. xix. p. 1.) —Mr. G. F. Hill discussed the paper.
The Third General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on April 27, Mr. Talfourd Ely in the chair.
Prof. W. Rhys Roberts read a paper ‘On Aristophanes and Agathon, the object of which was to examine, in the light of other evidence, the literary estimate of Agathon suggested by Aristophanes in the two extant plays in which reference is made to him. (1) In the ‘ Thesmophoriazusac ’ the space Agathon occupies is considerable, and his poetry is criticised by the indirect process of parody. The substantial justice of the parodies may
εἶ
XXXiV
be inferred from the extant fragments of Agathon preserved from the speech (after the manner of Gorgias) attributed to him in Plato’s ‘ Symposium,’ and from a passage of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1033 R.). In two lines quoted by Athenaeus can be detected each of the three figures of language which are commonly associated with the name of Gorgias, namely, antithesis, parison, and paromoion, or parallelism in sense, form, and sound. (2) In the ‘Frogs’ (I. 83) there is a single line which seems to convey a direct judgment of Aristophanes himself. The praise thus accorded is neither enthusiastic nor altogether unambiguous, but the context seems to warrant the conclusion that Aristophanes, having attained something like the true critical equilibrium as between his liking for a friend and his prejudice against a follower of Euripides, intends to assign him a position of importance as a tragic poct. It is true that Agathon’s name does not occur in the so-called ‘Alexandrian canon’ of five tragedians, but the prominence given to him by Aristophanes (whose caricatures may to some extent be regarded by modern interpreters as oblique compliments), as well as various references of Aristotle to his poetry generally and his ‘ Flower’ in particular, show that he was a poet of some originality and one far removed from the crowd of servile imitators ridiculed in the ‘Frogs’ and elsewhere. It might be added that a systematic treatment of the literary references and criticisms found in Aristophanes was much to be desired.
A Special General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on May 25, Prof. Lewis Campbell,V.P., in the chair.
Prof. P. Gardner read a paper on the scenery of the Greek stage. He began by stating his opinion that there was at all periods in the Greek theatre a raised stage, and proceeded to consider what kind of a background it had. He accepted the tradition that the first painted background was that made for Aeschylus by Agatharchus of Athens, but maintained that this background was not a canvas scene, but a wooden erection painted to resemble the front of a temple or palace. This scence, like the other stage arrangements due to Aeschylus, became stereotyped, and was not altered according to the requirements of particular plays. Those requirements were met, partly by the use of fertactz, three-sided prisms which turned on a pivot and presented to the audience different paintings, which conventionally represented different localities, partly by the use of stage properties—curtains and the like. But in all periods stage scenery was very simple and not realistic. Prof. Gardner enforced these views by an examination of the statements of Vitruvius and Julius Pollux, and in particular by setting forth the testimony offered by inscriptions from Delos, which prove that the painting of the front of the stage building was permanent, and paid for not out of the cost of producing plays, but out of the cost of construction (/. H. S. xix. p. 252). —A discussion followed, in which -Prof. Murray, Mr. A. G. Bather, Mrs. Strong, and the Chairman took part.
XXXV
The Annual Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on June 20, Prof. Jebb, President, in the chair.
The Hon. Secretary (Mr. George Macmillan) read the following report on behalf of the Council.
If there is no very striking event to record during the past Session, the Council may at least claim that the normal work of the Society has been carried on with energy, and that no opportunity has been lost of promoting the objects which the Socicty has in view. The two numbers of the Journal have appeared in due course, and the four General Mcetings (one more than the usual number), have on the whole been well attended. The Index to Volumes IX.—XVI. of the Journal, promised in last year’s Report, has now been issued.
The progress of the Library has again been very satisfactory, the Council having renewed the grant of £75 which was made last session. An important development has taken place in the Department of Photo- graphs and Lantern Slides, to which the Council made a special grant of £20 during the year. The scheme for the extension and rearrange- ment of the Society’s Collection of Photographs, which was announced in last year’s Report, and described in detail in a circular issued in the winter, is now nearly completed, and it is hoped that in the course of the summer both the photographs themselves, and a full subject catalogue, will be ready for consultation by members of the Society.
The Society is greatly indebted to a number of its members who have presented or deposited prints, slides, and negatives, and particularly to Miss Harrison for her large collection of negatives, which has already proved most valuable. There are now some 2,000 prints in the reference collection, and more than 1,000 negatives have been deposited with the Society, in addition to those which are still in private hands, though available for the production of prints and slides for the use of members. Several members have already ordered slides and prints through the Society under the new scheme, which is thus shown to meet a real demand among students and teachers.
The collection is at present best equipped in views of Hellenic sites and buildings in Greece, and in representations of vases ; but is still very weak in the departments of coins, of inscriptions, and of sculpture, terra- cottas, and bronzes, and of Hellenic sites and monuments in Asia Minor and in the West. The photographs and slides are under the special care of Mr. J. L. Myres, to whom the thanks of all members are due for his unwearied energy in collecting and arranging them. Access to this collection may now be counted as one of the most valuable privileges of membership.
In general the Library has been more freely used than ever before, and by an increasing number of individual members. Over 200 visits have been paid by readers to the Society’s Rooms, and books-and slides have been constantly borrowed by post.
d 2
XXXvi
Several fresh periodicals are now acquired by exchange with the Society’s Journal, including the Axalecta Bollandiana, the Neue Jahrbucher fiir das Klassische Altertum, etc., the Journal International @ Archéologie Numismatique, and the Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale.
Among the accessions since the last report have also been a consider- able number of texts of Classical authors, including Miiller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Dibner and Cougny, Epzgrammatum Anthologia Palatina (ed. Didot); and such books as Schone, Griechische Reliefs aus Athenischen Sammlungen ; Lenormant and De Witte, Elite des Monuments Céramographiques; Festschrift fiir Otto Benndorf, etc.
Thanks are due to the Trustees of the Hunterian Coin Catalogue Fund for the presentation of the first volume of the valuable Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, ably edited by Mr. George Macdonald; to the Trustees of the British Museum for :—
(1) Verra-cotta Sarcophagi, Greek and Etruscan, in the British Museum (A. S. Murray) ;
(2) Facsimile of the poems of Bacchylides ;
(3) Catalogue of the Bronzes in the British Museum ,;
(4) Catalogue and facsimiles of Greek Papyri Il ; and to Prof. Burrows, Mr. A. H. Smith and Mr. R. C. Bosanquet for donations of slides and negatives.
The British School at Athens, in which this Society has always taken a keen interest, has again had a successful Session under the Lirectorship of Mr. D. G. Hogarth. The very important excavations in the island of Melos have been continued, and some work has been done also on the site of Naucratis. When the work in Melos has been completed it seems likely that the Schocl will turn its attention to Crete, for the archacological exploration of which island a special Fund is now being raised under the direction of Mr. Arthur Evans and Mr. Hogarth. The Hellenic Socicty will naturally desire to lend its support to this undertaking, and meanwhile the Council have shown their sense of the importance of Cretan archaeo- logy by adding to its list of Honorary Members the name of Mr. Joseph Hazzidaki, of Candia.
The only other grant made by the Society during the past year, beyond the subscription of £100 to the British School at Athens, was towards the cost of producing a new Platonic Lexicon under the editorship of Prof. Lewis Campbell. This important undertaking was first brought to the notice of the Council by Prof. Campbell more than a year ago. It was shown that the scheme had the support of the Philological Societies of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Council after careful consideration took the view that the Society would be justified in supporting it also, provided that due security was given for the ultimate publication of the work in a suitable manner. Under this condition it was decided to make a grant of £50 a year for three ycars. The condition has now been fulfilled, for the Delegates of the Clarendon Press have definitely yndertaken the publication
XXXVII
of the Lexicon, which is now making steady progress under the supervision of Prof. Campbell, and with the active assistance of a distinguished staff of contributors. Accordingly the first annual grant of £50 has been paid and appears in the Balance Sheet now presented.
This Balance Sheet shows the present financial position of the Society. Ordinary receipts during the year were £820 against £789 during the financial year 1897-98. The receipts from Subscriptions, including arrears, amount to £616, against £626, and receipts from Libraries and for the purchase of back volumes £122, against £118. Two Life Sub- scriptions amounting to £31 Ios. have also been received. The net receipts for loan of Lantern Slides amount to about 44 Ios. as last year, while other items of ordinary income show no change.
The ordinary expenditure for the year amounts to 4807, against £823. Payinents for Rent £80, Insurance 415, Salarics £60, and Stationery, &c. 432, are practically the same as in the preceding year; the cost of purchases for the Library shows £61 against £93. There has further been an expenditure of £26 on the Photographic collection. The net cost of the Journal, Vol. XVIII, Parts 1 and 2, has amounted to £537, against £5106. The usual grant of £100 was made to the British School at Athens, and £50 to Prof. Lewis Campbell as already mentioned. The balance carried forward at the close of the year under review amounted to £61, against £201 at the end of the previous financial year.
Thirty-seven new members have been elected during the year, while thirty-six have been lost by death or resignation. The present total of subscribing members is 721,! and of honorary members 21.
Kight new Libraries have joined the list of Subscribers, which now amounts to 142; or with the five Public Libraries to 147.
It will be seen from the foregoing summary that the expenditure of the Society shows a tendency to increase, but not its income. The increase in expenditure is only natural, for every year fresh claims both from within and from without are sure to be made upon an active Society dealing with a subject so full of life and so capable of expansion by the progress of new discoverics. So far, therefore, the symptoms are healthy, as showing the desire of the Council to keep in touch with all that is going on in the field of Hellenic study. But it would be a grave matter if its action should be hampered by want of funds. If cxpenditure increases and is wisely applied, there should be also a proportionate advance in income. And here we come to the weak point in the situation. The income can be increased only by increasing the number of subscribing members, and it will have been scen from the preceding paragraph that the supply of new members has barely made good the loss by death or
' Last year the total was given as 771, which would sccm: to indicate a net loss of 29 members in the year just ended. _“ortunately the loss is only apparent, and has been traced back to a clerical error in the Report for 1892-3, when the number of members who had died or resigned in the year was by an oversight not deducted from the total. This has vitiated all succeeding totals until now.
XXXVili
resignation. Clearly therefore, strenuous efforts must be made by all who desire to see the Society rather extend than limit its sphere of operations, to bring in fresh recruits.
The Society has just completed the twentieth year of its existence and can look back upon an honourable record of valuable work. If the interest and importance of Hellenic Studies have gained in fact and in general recognition during this period, the Society may certainly claim a large share of the credit, and may on that ground appeal confidently for extended support. If in each year those members only were lost who are removed by death or by really necessary resignations, and if on the other hand some 50 or 60 new members came in now as in former years, the Society might look forward with hope to a period of continued and even increased prosperity and activity. The Council are unwilling to believe that if once it is realised that further support is necessary to enable the Society to meet the increasing claims upon its resources, that support will not be fully and ungrudgingly given.
The adoption of the Report was moved by the Chairman, who took occasion to refer in detail to the recent work of the British School at Athens, and speke also of the proposed scheme of exploration in Crete, and of the probable establishment of a British School at Rome. The motion was seconded by Mr. F. W. Percival, and carried unanimously.
Mr. D. G. Hogarth, Director of the British School at Athens, gave an outline of the work of the session, including excavations in Melos, in Thessaly, at Naucratis, and (on behalf of the British Museum) in Cyprus. He explained also the plan of exploration in Crete.—Prof. Jebb was re- elected President, and the former Vice-Presidents were re-elected, with the exception of Rev. H. F. Tozer, in whose place Dr. Walter Leaf was added to the list. Mr. J.G C. Anderson, Mr. R. G. Mayor, and the Rev. G. C. Richards were elected to vacancies on the Council. The proceedings closed with the usual votes of thanks to the Auditors and the Chairman.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE BRANCH OF THE HE LLENIC SOCIETY:
SESSION 1898-9.
ON Saturday, December toth, 1898, a mecting was held at Professor Jebb’s house.
Two papers were communicated to the Socicty—one by Mr. W. G. Headlam on Egyptian Thought in Aeschylus, the other by Mr. J. C. Stobart on An Inscribed Tablet found in Attica. The tablet, which was handed round for inspection, is a slightly irregular oblong of Pentelic marble, measuring about 44x25 xX1I ins. It was found in September 1898, in the bed of the Cephisus at the village of Kolokunthai just beyond Colonus. The inscription is in post-Euclidean characters and reads ᾿Απόλλωνος Λυκείου. Three other inscriptions bearing the same words in the same case are extant—one of Paros, another of Metapontum, a third of Megara. This last is much older—AIMOAONO% AVKBIO—and is said by Rohl (uscrr. Gr. ant. 11) to be the dedication of a farm, by Duruy (5. of Greece 11. i. 107 n. 1) to be ‘clearly a sacred mile-stone set up on land belonging to the god.’ The spot at which our inscription was discovered being about two miles to the west of Athens, while the Lyceum stood on the Ilissus outside the wall to the east, it is unlikely that there is any direct connexion between the two. Mr. Stobart conjectured that the tablet was set up on a farm wall to ward off wolves, and inferred from the use of the genitive case and from a neatly drilled hole in the top edge of the stone that there may have been attached to it some rough figure of a wolf or representation of the Lyceian god.
On Saturday, April 29th, 1899, at a meeting held at Mr. A. B. Cook's house two papers were read. Mr. Sikes dealt with Zhe Custom at Onchestus as described in the Hymn to Apollo, 230 ff. :—
Ὄγχηστον δ᾽ ἷξες, Ποσιδήϊον ἀγλαὸν ἄλσος" ἔνθα νεοδμὴς πῶλος ἀναπνέει ἀχθόμενός περ
a 4 \ ᾽ > Ἁ ᾽ , ἕλκων ἅρματα καλά, χαμαὶ δ᾽ ἐλατὴρ ἀγαθός περ » , Ν ego \ ” e δὲ / \ ἐκ δίφροιο θορὼν ὁδὸν ἔρχεται. οἱ δὲ τέως μὲν κείν᾽ ὄχεα κροτέουσιν ἀνακτορίην ἀφιέντες.
x]
235 εἰ δέ κεν appar + ἄγησιν *t ἐν adoei δενδρήεντι, ἵππους μὲν κομέουσι, τὰ δὲ κλίτ-ντες ἐῶσιν" ὡς γὰρ τὰ πρώτισθ᾽ ὁσίη γένεθ᾽. οἱ δὲ ἄνακτι εὔχονται, δίφρον δὲ θεοῦ τότε μοῖρα φυλάσσει.
He pointed out that the custom at Onchestus has not yet been satis- factorily explained. The Ayu is our only record, and this is obscurely worded. The obscurity is increased by a serious textual difficulty. In 235 the MSS. have a@ynow, which has usually been altered to ἄγωσιν (Barnes). With this reading Baumeister accepts Bottiger’s explanation that the custom was a kind of augury. (So Preller-Robert, p. 593 note 2 ; Frazer on Paus. ix. 26, 5 calls the practice ‘a mode of divination.’) Bottiger understood as follows : horses, newly broken in, were harnessed to a sacred chariot, and were allowed to run free outside the precinct of Poseidon. If they entered the precinct—there was presumably a choice of roads—the omen was favourable. The chariot was returned to the temple, and the horses were consecrated to Poseidon, becoming ἄφετοι. (Auguries drawn from horses among the Persians, Herod. iii. 86 1; the ancient Germans, Tac. Germ. x. ; the Slavs, Grimm, Teut. Myth. Eng. Trans. ii. p. 661 f. Sacred white horses in Persia, Herod. i. 189 1, vii. 405.) There is, however, no hint in the text that the chariot was a sacred vchicle belonging to the temple, nor that the writer of the hymn understood any kind of general divination to be the object. If we retain Barnes’ reading ἄγωσιν, we might suspect that the ceremonial was not a matter of augury, but owed its origin to some idea which was but dimly comprehended, if at all, by the poet. The object might be to decide the fate of the colts bred in the neighbourhood of Onchestus. The horse-god could legally claim every horse, but his worshippers might compound with him for a certain number to fill his τέμενος. If the newly-harnessed colt entered the precinct Poseidon marked it for his own. So in certain Arabian sanctu- aries stray cattle that reached the holy ground could not be reclaimed (Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, Rev. Ed. p. 149.)
But these explanations depend on the emendation ἄγωσι, which cannot be maintained. As Gemoll sees, ἐν ἄλσεϊ Sevdpnevte cannot follow a verb of motion. Peppmiiller (Phzlologus 1894), reading apy’ ἀγώγωσι, with τό in 236, takes ἐν ἄλσεϊ with the succeeding lines. This is scarcely possible ; nothing would then be said about the direction in which the horses drew the car ; moreover the rhythm of the verse and the position of μέν show that ἐν ἄλσεϊ must go with the preceding words. We must therefore accept Cobet’s ἀγῆσιν (so Gemoll and Allen). Gemoll, however, makes no explanation ; Mr. Allen (/.H7.S. xvii. p. 247 f.) seems to have found the right track in following Ilgen, who suggested that Poseidon Ταράξιππος gives a clue. A shying or bolting horse was often thought to have been influenced by this god (cf. Paus. vi. 20 15, with reff. collected by lrazer). The chariots at Olympia were often broken by runaway horses (καταγνύουσι). Mr. Allen supposes that the custom was the ordinary rule
xli
of the road. The god of horses was offended at wheeled traffic which passed his home, but the cattle were allowed a chance; if they bolted and wrecked the chariot, the driver left the broken carriage in the precinct. Mr. Allen lays no particular stress on νεοδμής, except that the owners would feel more anxiety in respect of a young horse. He understands, no doubt rightly, that the horses in any case remained in the possession of their owners, though his translation of κομέουσι ‘groom’ is obscure. Here κομεῖν surely means ‘keep’ as in p 310, 319, of keeping dogs. The subject of κομέουσι can only be the owners, and therefore there is no question of ἄφετοι. But it is difficult to believe that this inconvenient custom was the regular rule of the road; and Mr. Allen seems to take too little account of the forcible νεοδμὴς πῶλος, which hardly looks like a poetical expression for any horse. Mr. Sikes suggested the following explanation as possibly avoiding these objections : Poseidon was “offended at wheeled traffic” not merely because it passed his home (though this was doubtless a cause of offence ; cf. 262 πημανέει σ᾽ αἰεὶ κτύπος ἵππων, of Apollo), but because of its mere existence. The young horse belonged to Poseidon, and men broke it in at their risk. The colts were passed before the god ; if they drew the chariot safely through the precinct, Poseidon was gracious; if they broke away from the chariot (ἀγῇσι perhaps refers to the snapping of the pole; cf. Z 40, Π 371), the god refused to allow his favourites to suffer the yoke. The owners might retain the horses, but not for driving ; the chariot was left on the spot as a trophy of Poseidon’s power. It was useless to the owner, being marked by the horse-god’s displeasure. That the Greeks felt a superstitious awe for a chariot appears from a ‘Symbol’ of Pythagoras, μὴ ἐσθίειν ἐπὶ δίφρου : cf. also Plut. /s. e¢ Os. x. μὴ ζυγὸν ὑπερβαίνειν. The superstition may go back to times when driving was a newly-acquired and dangerous art. Mr. Sikes gave the following translation, with explanations in brackets, to elucidate the passage: ‘There the colt, freshly broken in, gains new life (through the inspiring presence of the horse-god), though weary with drawing the fair chariot. The driver, however skilled, leaps from the chariot, and goes afoot on the road (through the τέμενος). Meanwhile the horses rattle on the empty car freed from guidance, If the chariots are shattered in the wooded precinct, they keep the horses, but rest the chariot (against a tree or the temple-wall?) and leave them there. Such has been the sacred rite from the beginning. They pray to the King (to propitiate his manifest wrath), but the providence of the god keeps the chariot thenceforward (the god claims it as his own).’
Mr. A. B. Cook read a paper on The Evolution of the Greek Trireme, in which he claimed that three distinct stages can be traced. (1) The penteconters had a single tier of oars, each oar pulled by one man. In the long-boats a deck joining stem to stern was introduced, and the space between the former gunwale and this deck gradually became a portion of the ship’s side: but still each oar was pulled by one man only. (2) Triremes, quadriremes and quinqueremes seem to have made a fresh
xlii
advance by multiplying the number of rowers on each bench, the several rowers pulling their several oars, attached to separate tholepins, through the same porthole. (3) ᾿Ἑξήρεις etc. further multiplied the oarsmen, while they economised the oars, by employing a single tier of sweeps, each of which was worked by from six to forty men. It was shown that medieval galleys were evolved on precisely similar lines.
A series of ‘concentric’ vases from Cyprus was also exhibited.
A comparison with the receipts and expenditure of the last ten years is furnished by the following tables :— ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL RHCEIPTS KOR
MMSERIUIONS, ὡτ... ὑὸν iia eve ον ων és Oo ee See oe cone 26 Life EComipoOsitions: ..5.0s<c0ess τος 47 , Libraries and Back Vols. ...... 96 | ΠΡ ΠΡ ας τος ν τονε ζω δον γε γον 34 | Special Receipts ...... ..scsseecee | Weaurentian ΜΈΝ cccsersvs=<s 11 Mr. D. G. Hogarth (Alex- andria Grant RKefunded) Loan of Lantern Slides ... NICHES νους, :ς ἢ Royalty on Sales of Photo- FEE 6S. Ma eae orapi sence kone dea Donations—J. Vansittart, Esq. | 100 F. D. Mocatta, Esq. Ἐς ΤΙ Egerton, Esq......-.- | Library, Mrs. Cohen ...... | W. Arkwright, Esg. | 846 Balance from preceding year... | 42
31 Fie 31 ταν,
bess
L 585
39 79 118
|
898 ae
THE
YEARS ENDING :—
3 May,!31 May,/31 May, |: 31 May, 31 + May, 31 May, 31 May, 31 May, 18
888 | 1,049 | 1,231 11} }1,293 | 1, 124 |
ANALYSIS OF
| 3891.
| Rent σέ hoch | fs | oa ΠΠΕΠ ΓΘ ΠΟΘ. τις. Pekan neces (δ 13° |nune SalAMCSer sg: τον νον ον σοι Ἐν. 39 39 MOA DLALY 5.5... -<hotmumnaenme eee: se 2 16 Lantern Slides Account......... Photographs Account............ L 4g ἢ 45. 5 Stationery, Printing,and Postage | 55 | 62 Cost of Journal (less sales)...... 397 | 440 Grantee gee ιν betel acters | 100 150 Investments. .c2:.0.seseceedwerons 46 EgyptExplorationFund—t1, too | copies of Mr. Hogarth’s Report | Boandiepaid ..4..0.0sceeras foes | 101 Photo Enlargements, Albums, | Lantern Slides, &c. ” | 737 | 794 Balaneeneiesss.d-0-»4>. το ase | 151 255
1892
18
992 239
893.
& 50 II
49
4
858
259
ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE
94.
53
Tray
4
1,079
214
Γ 888 | 1,049 1,231 [1,117 | 1,203 | 1,12
1892. | 1893. _1894- | 1895. | 1896. _ 1897. | 1898. | 1899. £ el x Sar. L L 554 564) 671 678 645 é17 | 613 598 16 13) 44 14 9 Δι» 13 18 126] 95| 79| 50 63, 15 | 32 233 161 | 186 | 122, 117 | 126 | 118 | 122 37| 39} 43] 43] 43] 43] 43) 43)
| | ary 4 | 4 4 | 2 | 7 5 4 | 3 5 2 2 I 1 | 2 | . 3 5 I ee Ε: 3
976 878 [1.034 910. 915 | 816 789 820
ΕΠ 239 250 214 169 | 340 ε 869 201 1 084 | I, 1156 11, 149 1,021
YEARS ENDING :—
eS 1 one ae a L 80 | 80 1p ravay 49 | 47 96 39 49 | 46 441 | 394 225 | 100 23 |
955 | 744 ep 340 1,084
᾿ Μαν, 31 May, 31 toe [8 May, 31 Με ay, 31 May,|3 I May, 31 May, | 31: May, 1890.
" 156 [149 [1 1,021 |
1897.
31 May,| 1899.
1898. |
& & 4 |
80 80 80 | 15 | 15 15 52 50 | 60 94) 93 61
| 24 τῇ |
26 |
29 45 32 |
346 | 516 536 | 180 | 125 | 150 796 | 948 oe |
360 | 201
551}
"Stop O61 ‘anf 7792 “‘AOIN-ONINdS NAHdALS
POHSDI4T GMOET ‘Td 4H Saad AY SV19N0G
MATLAG NHOL YAHLUVS ‘31021109 1 puy pur ‘Yoo sia ueq pu ssayDNOA ay} YI 71 parvdtuos Yunosov 51} POUIMALXS BALY SA\
δ᾽. Zt rc6
OO TG: eg | ee ee es Seu ae ΘΟΌΘ ΟΣ , δες Ἐς rresereeeoes JunOdoy [vuINof jo aouxjeg * o 9 of: ——-——— fe) fe) os SO ean) sane yeqdury5 SIMO'T Old OOM OO le ares. suayiy 18 yooyss ysnug 91], —sjunin ‘ μον ἄς ὑπ Ξ eases eC χϑα DOM τ Ia ΟἿ. 19 σαηυμα nine pue ‘asvysog “αϑποιηθης “ἢ Ζ Cy Sz pe recaoed ee ccevecce * Junosdy sydvisojoyg oe II 61 09 FAN}UIN J puv syoog —junosoy Areiqry * 0 0 09 ——— Ge ΟΣ | os 6691 ‘Avy 1515 0} Iwak auo ‘{IvJaINaG “Yssy ie os Oo fa) οὕ geome) ‘ABN ysr€ oy awa auo ᾿ΠΒΜΌΙΑΤΊ ‘yssy ‘soejes * (of ὦ Sr ΟΞ ΞΕ aouunsuy * © 9 0g sreteesesss CHET ὍΘ6 OF 189. 900 QUAY fe
9 6 192 PoE ELAS 66g1 ‘{uyy 2515 ‘slayuvg je ΘΟΕ ΟἹ
PDE OC] ‘Bq VIOJY ‘d “a “που σα ες “κοι eeenes ΟΝ syduisojoy ἃ uo sar {OY se Soe een rn ry qunODDW 5901: 1938 εἰ
[9] AOmnmm τ +
OI 61 cv —- ς 9 C2 tee οοοον vee 6691 9 Avy ς 9 z ESOUECULM ON LY γον 7 ‘AON — yudo Ja ς WY ΘΙ Π170 N JO ae ΤΡ νὰ Ζ τ ΕΟ ον το 6681 ‘1 judy ς ς 6Ι yor Σ᾽ ἼοΟ---ϑοο)ς 90 Jad §£ Ξογ8 λ ἴῃ πος MAN UO SpuaprAIq * O Srerer πὴ 66g1—g6grI ‘suondiasqng Arvaqry * Ο OI τ seeeee “οὐ οοοο το οοοόο τον suoydnosqns 91 se II § 919 ————— fe) Li Ly Ce a --- “ SIvaIy ἐς ee II 11 g6$ *66g1—g6gr ‘suondrosqneg siaquayy ὁ Zz 9 10zZ ΠΤ sence 60] ‘ACT 1 10 aouvpeq OL
tc 8. ΟΖΟΣ
fe) ς ¢ Pa Wir FCAT Col IR ACA IChy We ie DCE TCH δ eee Hd Δα υ Βανι 7, ee δὲ oO ra] oS BIG A rnp OPE BLE δεν ὁ ἰὐ νι δὲ ἡ δον δ ὁ Ally a's pielnface “BUNIpa ee [ ον. ΟἿΟΣ bia igen TAS a ΧΙ ἘΌΝ ‘xopuy a rae 9 I ob Sinn Cee RM Nain aCe M le Byoreie state ΠῚ jladeg sé {ς 6 gI 99 SBS MRR axing es Suysostiug puv Surmviq Li δε 9 tI (1 iret tvenvene. eee ΠΥ 59104 ind a ς Oo εξ perwee Cube setae eee te esens “. * (ϑϑυϊλαθο
{
Sicpthour} pee ἼΙ PUB "T SHUT “ITTAX "OA Ag
΄
ὍΘΩΙ ‘AVI 1515 ONIGNA UVAA AHL ΟῚ ΤΝΩΟΌΟν «SAIGALS DINATTAH AO TVNUNOL AHL»,
zt S ozo F
ofS eee eee ee ee νειν γοῦν {500 07} ‘Jouvleg εἰ
LIST OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
ADDED TO THE
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
Dec. 1, 1898—Dec. 1, 1899.
Ardaillon (E.) Les mines du Laurion dans l’Antiquité. 8vo. Paris. 1897. (Presented.) Benndorf (O.) See Festschrift. British Museum Publications. (Presented by the Trustees) :— Greek Papyri in the B. M. Facsimiles. Vol. 11. Ed. by F. G. Kenyon. Folio. London. 1898. Greek Papyri in the B. M. Catalogue with Texts. Vol. II. By F. G. Kenyon. 4to. London. 1898. Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman and Etruscan, in the B. M. By H. B. Walters. 8vo. London. 1898. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. By W. Wroth. 4to. London. 1899. Carne (J.) Syria, the Holy Land, Asia Minor, &c., illustrated by Bartlett, Allom, ete., with descriptions of plates by J. Carne. 2 vols. 4to. London. 1836-8. Cordery (J. C.) The Odyssey of Homer, translated. 8vo. London. 1897. (Presented.) Daremberg (Ch.) and Εἰ, Saglio. Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines. No. 26 (—Jur.) 4to. Paris. 1899. Davy (J.) Notes and Observations on the Ionian Islands and Malta. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 1842. Dawes (R.) Miscellanea Critica. Ed. T. Kidd. 8vo. Cambridge. 1817. Diibner (F.) and E. Cougny. Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina. 3 vols. 8vo. Paris (Didot). 1871, 1888, 1890,
xlvi
Festschrift fiir O. Benndorf zu seinem 60 Geburtstage gewidmet. 4to. Vienna. 1898.
Forman Collection. Catalogue of the first portion of the Forman Collection of Antiquities, ete. By Cecil Smith. 4to. London. 1899. (Presented.)
Frazer (J. B.) Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia, ete. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 1840. (Presented.)
Fréhner (W.) La Collection Tyszkiewicz VI. Folio. Munich, 1898.
Gerhard (E.) Gesammelte Akademische Abhandlungen und Kleine Schriften. Text, 2 vols. Plates, 2 vols. 8vo. and 4to. Berlin. 1866, 1868.
Grenfell (B. P.) and A. 5. Hunt. Egypt Exploration Fund, Graeco- Roman Branch. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Parts I. and 11. ὅνο. London. 1898, 1899.
Haigh (A. E.) The Attic Theatre. 2nd edition. 8vo. Oxford. 1898. (Presented.)
Hartley (J.) Researches in Greece and the Levant. 2nd edition. 12mo. London. 1833. (Presented.)
Helbig (W.) Untersuchungen iiber die Campanische Wandmalerei. 8vo. Leipsic. 1873.
Holwerda (J. H.) Die Attischen Graeber der Bliithezeit. ὅνο. Leyden. 1899.
Jahn (O.) Griechische Bilderchroniken. 4to. Bonn. 1873. Journal of a Deputation sent to the East by the Committee of the Malta Protestant College. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 1854, Jurenka (H.) Die neugefundenen Lieder des Bakchylides. ὅνο.
Vionna. 1898. (Presented.)
Kaibel (G.) Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I. 1. (Poetarum Graecorum Fragmenta. Ed. U. de Wilamowitz-Moellendorf. VI. 1.) 8vo. Berlin, 1899.
Kenyon (F. 6.) Palaeography of Greek Papyri. 8vo. Oxford. 1899. (Presented.)
Kenyon (F. 6.) Greek Papyri in the British Museum. See British
Museum.
Kiepert (H.) Atlas Antiquus. 12th edition. Folio. Berlin. 1898.
Leake (W. M.) ‘Travels in the Morea. 3 vols. 8vo. London, 1830.
Lessing (G. E.) Laokoon. Ed. H. Bliimner. 2nd edition. ὅνο. Berlin. 1880.
Macdonald (G.) Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collec- tion, University of Glasgow. Vol. I. Italy, Sicily, Macedon, Thrace, and Thessaly. 4to. Glasgow. 1899. (Presented.)
Macdonald (L.) Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases, and of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the Nicholson Museum. Sydney. 8vo. Sydney. 1898. (Presented.)
Matz (F.) and F. ν. Duhn. Antike Bildwerke in Rom. 3 vols. 8vo, Leipsic. 1881-2,
xl vii
Miiller (C. and Th.) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. ὃ vols. 8vo. Paris (Didot). 1878-85.
Murray (A. 8.) Greek Bronzes. 8vo. London. 1898. (Portfolio, No. 36.) (Presented. )
Myres (J. L.) and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter. Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. 8vo. Oxford. 1899. (Presented.)
Naville (E.) Temple of Deir El Bahari. Parts If. and III. Plates. Folio. London. 1896, 1898. [Egypt Exploration Fund.] Niese (B:) Geschichte der griechischen τι. makedonischen Staaten IT.
8vo. Gotha, 1899.
Pauly. Real-Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. G. Wissowa. III. 2. (—Claudius). Royal 8vo. Stuttgart. 1899.
Petrie (W. M. F.) Deshasheh. Imp. 8vo, London. 1898. [Egypt Exploration Fund. ]
Plato. Platonis Opera quae feruntur omnia. Edd. G. Baiter, C. Orellius, A. G. Winckelmann. 4to. Zurich. 1839,
Plato. Ed. M. Schanz. III. 1.; V.2; VI.1,2; XII. 8vo. Leipsic. 1882-7.
Reinach (S.). Répertoire des Vases peints, grees et ‘trusques. Vol. 1. 8vo. Paris. 1899.
Roscher (W. H.). Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechischen u. rémischen Mythologie. Parts 39, 40 (— Odysseus). 8vo. Leipsic. 1899.
Ross (L.). Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln des iigiiischen Meeres. 2 vols. 8vo. Stuttgartu. Tiibingen. 1840, 1843.
Schneider (A.). Der Troische Sagenkreis in der iiltesten griechischen Kunst. 8vo. Leipsic. 1886.
Schneider (R.). Die Geburt der Athena. Ein Beitrag zur Wieder- herstellung dcr oestlichen Giebelgruppe des Parthenon. 8vo. Vienna. 1880.
Schine (R.). Griechische Reliefs aus Athenischen Sammlungen. Folio. Leipsic. 1872. (Text 1895.)
Shaw (T.). Travels or Observations relating to several parts of Barbary and the Levant. Folio. Oxford. 1738.
Spencer (E.). Travels in European Turkey. 2nd edition. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 1853. (Presented.)
Stadtmueller (H.). Anthologia Graeca Epigrammatum Palatina cum Planudea. Vol. II. 1. 8vo. Leipsic, (Teubner), 1899.
Stark (K. B.). Niobe und die Niobiden. 8vo, Leipsic. 1863.
Strangford (Viscountess). The Eastern Shores of the Adriatic in 1863. 8vo. London. 1864, (Presented.)
Thiersch (H.) “Tyrrhenische” Amphoren. 8vo, Leipsic. 1899.
Walsh (R.). A Residence at Constantinople during the Greek and Turkish Revolutions. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1836. (Presented.)
Walters (H. B.). See British Museum.
Wherry (A.). Greek Sculpture with Story and Song. 8vo, London. 1898. (Presented.)
xlvill
Winckelmann Programme (Berliner). Berlin. 4to. [Numbers marked + had heen previously acquired. |
TI PIs
1842. 1844. 1840. 1847.
1849. 1850. 1851. 1852.
1853. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857.
1858. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867.
1868.
1869.
1870.
1872. 1874.
1876. 1880. 1881.
1882. 1886.
1887. 1888. 1889.
Gerhard (E.).
37
Panofka (T.).
Gerhard (E.). Panofka (T). Curtius (E.).
Panofka (T.). Gerhard (E.). Panofka (T.). Gerhard (E.). Panofka (T.).
Botticher (A.). Friederichs (C.). Gerhard (E.) Friederichs (C.). Botticher (A.) Jordan (F.) Hiibner (E.) Friederichs (C.)
Hiibner (E.) Curtius (E.) Heydemann (H.)
Hirschfeld (G.) Adler (F.)
Trendelenburg (A). Furtwingler (A.)
Phrixos, der Herold.
Die Schmiickung der Helena.
Das Orakel der Themis.
Zeus Basileus und Herakles Kal- linikos,
Delphi und Melaine.
Mykenische Alterthiimer.
Atalante und Atlas.
Heracles, der Satyr und Dreifuss- rauber.
Zur Erklirung des Plinius.
Danae, ein griechisches Vasenbild.
Phocus und Antiope.
Winckelmann und die Gegenwart.
Poseidon Basileus und Zeus Athenias.
Das Grab des Dionysos.
Apollo mit dem Lamm.
Thetis und Priumne.
Der Doryphoros des Polyklet.
Dirke als Quelle und Heroine.
Vesta und die Laren.
Relief eines rémischen Kriegers.
Amor mit dem Bogen des Her- kules.
Augustus. Marmorstatue des Berl. Mus.
Die knieenden Figuren der alt- griechischen Kunst.
Humoristische Vasenbilder aus Unteritalien.
Athena und Marsyas.
Die Stoa des Koénigs Attalos II. zu Athen.
Der Musenchor.
Der Satyr auf Pergamon.
Dorpfeld, Graeber, Borrmann, Siebold. Ueber Ver- wendung von Terracotten am Geison und Dache grie- chischer Bauwerke.
Milchhoefer (A.) Hiilsen (C.)
Puchstein (O.) Herrmann (P.) Kekule (R.)
Die Befreiung des Prometheus.
Das Septizonium des Septimius
Severus.
Das Ionische Capitall.
Marion.
Ueber die Bronzestatue des so- genannten Idolino.
Xlix
51. 1891. Koldewey (R.) Neandria.
51. 1894. Kekule (R.) Ueber einen bisher Marcellus genannten Kopf in den kinig lichen Museen,
Wright (ἃ. N.) The Rhine, Italy and Greece, in a series of drawings. 2 vols. 4to. London, Paris. 1841-2. Wroth (W.) See British Museum.
A LIST OF PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS IN THE SOCIETY’S LIBRARY, Dec. 1, 1899.
American Journal of Archaeology. I—XI. 2nd Series. I.—IIT. 3. (1885—1899.)
American Journal of Philology. XIV.—XX. 2, (1893—9.)
Analecta Bollandiana, XVII.—X VIII. 3. (1898—9.)
Annali dell’ Instituto Archeologico. LII.—LVII. (1880—5.) End. [I.—LVI. (1829—84) on deposit. ]
Annuaire de |’ Association des Etudes Grecques. XV.—XXI. (1881—
7.) End.
Annual of the British School at Athens. I.—IV. From 1894—5 to 1897—8.
Antike Denkmaeler des Archaeologischen Instituts. I.—ITI. 3. (1886—98.)
Archaeological Institute of America. Reports I.—XVII. (1880—96.) [11I.—V. with School Reports.] Papers of Institute : Ameriean Series. I.—V.; Classical Series. I., III. 1, Bulletin 1. (1883) ; American School at Athens: Reports I.—XV. (to 1895—6. Later Reports in Amer. Journ. of Arch.); Bulletin, I. (1883) ; Papers I.—V.
Archaeologische Zeitung, XXXVIII.—XLIII. (1880—5.) End. [I.—XXX VII. (1843—79) on deposit. ]
Athenaion. I.—X. (1872—81.) End.
Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift. XI.—XIX. (1891—9.)
Berliner Studien. I.—XVI. New Series, I.—III. 1. (1884—98.)
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. I.—XXIII. 6. (1877—-99.)
Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale. XXV,— XXVII. 1. (1897—9.) [XIV.—XVII. (1886—1889) on de- posit. |
Bullettino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. 1880—1885. End. [1829—1884 on deposit. |
Bursian’s Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte d. classischen Alter- tumswissenschaft. Jahrg. I.—XXVII. 5. (1873—99.)
Byzantinische Zeitschrift. I.—VIII. (1892—9.)
é
Cambridge Philological Society. Transactions I.—IV. 2. (1881 —99); Proceedings I—XLV. (1882—97.)
Classical Review. I.—XIII. 8. (1887-—99.)
Commission Impériale Archéologique. Compte Rendu. 1878—1880 and 1882—8; Atlas 1878—1888. (Text and Atlas (1859—-1881) on deposit.] For General Index, 1859—1881, see Reinach’s Bibl. des Monuments, III., p. 145. Russian continuation, viz.: ‘ Materials,’ Nos. 4—21 (1890—97) and “ Reports” for 1889—1895 (1892—1897).
Deltion of the Historical and Ethnographical Society of Greece. 1.--ΤῸ., V. 17—19. (1883—1899.)
Egypt Exploration Fund. Reports. 1895—1898. [See also List of Books. |
Ephemeris Archaiologike. Third Series. 1884—1899. 3.
Giteborgs Higskolas Arsskrift. I.—IV. (1895—8).
Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos (of Constantinople). IV.—XVI. (1871—1885.) XVIII. Suppt. XX.—XXV. (1891—1895.)
Hermes. XXVII.—XXXIV. (1892—9.)
Institute (Royal) of British Architects. Proceedings, N.S. I1.—IX. (V. Imperf.) (1886—1893). Transactions, 1880—1892. Journal, 3rd Series. I.—VI. (1894—9.)
Jahrbuch d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. I.--XIV. 3. (1886--9° >
Jahreshefte des Oesterreich. Arch. Inst.in Wien. 1.,11, (1898—9.)
Journal International d’Arch. Numismatique. I.—II. 3. (1898—9.)
Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology. 1854—1857.
Journal of Hellenic Studies. I.—XIX.1. (1880—99.) (Two copies.)
Journal of Philology. I.—XXV. (1868—97.)
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. XII.—XIV. (1881—3.)
Mélanges d’Archéologie et d'Histoire. I.—XIX. (1881—99.)
Mittheilungen d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts. Athenische Abth. I.—XXIV. 2. (1876—99.)
Mittheilungen d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts. Roémische Abth. I.—XIV. 2. (1886—99.)
Mittheilungen (Arch.-Epigr.) aus Oesterreich-Ungarn. XVII.—XX. (1894—7.) End. Continued as Jahreshefte, etc.
Mnemosyne. I.—XXVII. (1873—99.)
Monumenti Inediti dell’ Instituto Archeologico. XI. pl. 13~—XI1. (1885.) End.. [I.—XI. on deposit. }
Monuments Grecs. I.—II. (1872—97.) End.
Monuments Piot. I.—VI. 1. (1894—9.)
Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das Klassische Altertum, ete. I.—IV.9,. (1898 —9.)
Neue Philologische Rundschau. XII.—XIX. (1892—9.) Numismatic Chronicle. Ist Series. 1836 and 1848—54. New Series. Vols. I.—XX. Third Series, I.—XIX. (1899.) Parnassos (Philologikos Syllogos), Vols, I.—V., VI. (Imperf.), and
XI., XII. (1888). Epeteris I.—II. (1898.) Philistor. I.—IV. (1861—3.)
li
Philologus, Neue Folge. XUVII.—LVITI. 3. (1889—99.)
Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society. 1873, 1878—82 ; 1884—7 ; 1889—92; 1894—8.
Revue Archéologique. 2nd Series. I.—XXXIII., XLL, XLIIL.— XLIV. (also XXXLV., XLII. imperf.). 3rd Series. I.—XXXIV. 3. (ILI. Imperf.) (1860 —99.)
Revue des Etudes Grecques. I.—XII. 3. (1888—98.)
Revue de Philologie. XX.—XXIII. 3. (1896—9.)
Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie. XLVII.—-LIV. (1892—49.)
Wochenschrift fiir Klassische Philologie. X{I.--XVI. (1894—9.)
a2" = Periodicals ‘on deposit’ can only be consulted at the Library.
᾿ _ - τ = me
evecb_ 1. A a αν γαῖ - on | Ἶ - ai edit, 4 ' [ oe iad πὰ EN Ber : Asters Meppass ola lite ΚΟ μδοηοῦ; ey spot : anvell | eer en cit ede ieee tania, iy ne i ΠΩ Hu! ἐξ αὖ Ἢ a ι mob! RA, Me Are wi Pew nd ὁ Ι ' walt a" ie a ΤΡ ra a προ» yt ID h oat 7 wr Ad th “ver ᾿
of
α. δι ἦν ν' aie
THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEU MUSEUM LIBRARY JAN 2 ὁ 1978
αι
1 0879
“22: Cf A
oar a
Z 6 S. ΄ ᾿ pee Y f ες, a:
seo 4 23 5 We ¥ Ye ogg hata ie Aor C fe τ ΤΩΣ i Son i ΚΡ.
Ms SA 4 4 5 , a 722, , ie Coe hee Bigs Logg of Sof 4 y
τ ΖΞ ΟΡ, eed onde ,
κι
ἘΞ
“2:21:
Pook
A <4 LD, are i 7, 4 es γ' λα π τ ΤΩΝ ie we
Ἔν erry
oes
fog?
ea) “7
pone
“257
OZ,
ete Woe
ee
eee oes